That's a good attempt - but the argument about the health tourism lie, was about the estimated figure, as a proportion of the overall NHS budget.

The "return" for the Royal Family is difficult to quantify, because there are some rather arcane calculations used in most cases; personally, I object to them at a more fundamental level than just the money.

You could always move to a country with no monarchy, I am sure I can set up a go fund me page to help you out.

I was intending to do exactly that, until the gammon uprising removed my freedom of movement.

Nobody has removed any freedom of movement, and the word GAMMON is a slur, stop reading the Mirror, Star.

Maybe try an actual book? You know, one with facts in, I bet you're gutted now Love Island has finished.

Which budget it comes from is irrelevant. The Govt has a pot of money to spend and , among other things,it comes from tax and NI . It's the amount that counts. Now you can argue that you want a republic and that's fair enough but the fact is we spend more on health tourists than we do on the royal family. We can argue till we're blue in the face about the return on the royal family or what the actual cost of health tourism is but the fact remains we spend more on one than the other.

It's relevant to me; as I said, I'm quite content that if someone has a medical emergency whilst in the UK, we treat them - and the numbers who are deliberate co-called 'health tourists' are so vanishingly small, as to not be worth pursuing.

The decision to spend 70 million quid on an inbred, extended family who have inherited wealth and privilege because their ancestors oppressed and enslaved poor people, is an entirely different thing; so aside from the morals of it, you're creating a false equivalence.

True colurs on show, envy, nothing more. Diddums, did they steal your Whippet (in developing news, the earth isn't flat)

I object to health tourists as a matter of principle not just the cash

Although as a human being I get the emergency thing,however it still sticks in my craw that we wouldn't get the same courtesy in other countries I could name.

Quote: "Forbes You are talking solely about the Sovereign Grant at c£70m. The actual cost is estimated at c£350m https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 45436.html However, as you say later, the cost is not the main issue.

Quote: "Forbes You are talking solely about the Sovereign Grant at c£70m. The actual cost is estimated at c£350m https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 45436.html However, as you say later, the cost is not the main issue.

But you would in some others. So why are you obsessing so much on this rather than the Tories drive to outsource so much of the NHS, which is truly criminal?

If it is "criminal" why don't you make an official claim to the police, who would then spend a few minutes laughing at you and move on to something else.

Why don't you try & produce something constructive in your pathetic little life? Just an idea.

Ah, here comes abuse again, I wish I was as clever as you.

I'm afraid the NHS going forward will have to reform or die. The fact is research is finding more and more ways to keep us alive and it comes at a cost. I truly believe that a complete and honest review is needed instead of tinkering around the edges. We all (i hope) want a properly run and funded NHS. How we do that without bankrupting the country I have no idea. It can't be just throwing money at it or the extra cash will just get swallowed up. And I no I will get derided for this but maybe we need to get back to basics and stop funding, for example, IVF or gastric band operations, sex changes etc