Re: Donald Trump : Sat Nov 02, 2019 8:23 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

This was exposed on QT last night

Are you really looking to Question Time for confirmation???

You also forgot to acknowledge one of the guests, Kate Andrews, whose 'cute and cuddly' title is the director of the Institute of Economic Affairs. Sounds like she's doing us a favour, right? Kate Andrews is also a prominent lobbyist for private healthcare companies.

On Newsnight in July, she said... “It’s time to overhaul the NHS and replace it with a system fit for 2018”

Now, what kind of system do you think she has in mind?

[Mild Rover]

Re: Donald Trump : Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:19 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

This was exposed on QT last night as Labour scaremongry - everybody knows the NHS is not going to be privatised - every major US pharmaceutical company already has a presence in the UK so what is going to change. The vast majority of drugs we use in this country are out of patent and we use generic options. Which bits of the NHS will get privatised?

The idiot shadow health secretary suggested it would cost the NHS an additional £500m a week - that was until it was pointed out that the reduction in the spina bifida drug negotiated between a US co and the government.

It isn’t much to do with pharmaceutical companies, directly at least. Drugs account for about 12% of NHS spending. The NHS already spends close to 10% of its budget on care purchased from the private sector, and how much that grows and shapes healthcare policy and delivery is probably the bigger issue.

But, on drugs Americans pay much higher prices than other countries. This is partly because they are rich and can afford it, and drug companies implement differential pricing to make their products accessible in poorer countries as well. However, they also pay higher prices than even wealthy European countries who have strong government-backed cost-containment measures in place. The Americans might view such approaches as being a bit socialist for their tastes, but their own system is fragmented and has some poorly aligned incentives, and from a selfish UK perspective, we really want avoid adopting something similar. It is maybe unfair that the US carries so much of the burden of funding the Global pharmaceutical industry. But i’d prefer they changed it through reforming their own crappy, inefficient system, rather than foisting it on us.

Re: Donald Trump : Sat Nov 02, 2019 11:39 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

This was exposed on QT last night as Labour scaremongry - everybody knows the NHS is not going to be privatised - every major US pharmaceutical company already has a presence in the UK so what is going to change. The vast majority of drugs we use in this country are out of patent and we use generic options. Which bits of the NHS will get privatised?

The idiot shadow health secretary suggested it would cost the NHS an additional £500m a week - that was until it was pointed out that the reduction in the spina bifida drug negotiated between a US co and the government.

Really ?/
It's a bloody good job that you're not a fish, as you seem to have jumped on the hook pretty damn quick.

There is no doubt at all that a section of the Tory Party would very happily hive off parts of the NHS and it was more telling a few months ago, when May (I think) said that the NHS wouldn't be part of any trade deal and Trump replied that it would be all or nothing.
This seems a little more believable than a Tory on QT pretending that the NHS is "not for sale".
Of course we already take drugs from the US but, there is plenty of scope for a "takeover" AND the prospect of moving towards health insurance, which I think is where the US would be most interested.

Re: Donald Trump : Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:47 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Really ?/
It's a bloody good job that you're not a fish, as you seem to have jumped on the hook pretty damn quick.

There is no doubt at all that a section of the Tory Party would very happily hive off parts of the NHS and it was more telling a few months ago, when May (I think) said that the NHS wouldn't be part of any trade deal and Trump replied that it would be all or nothing.
This seems a little more believable than a Tory on QT pretending that the NHS is "not for sale".
Of course we already take drugs from the US but, there is plenty of scope for a "takeover" AND the prospect of moving towards health insurance, which I think is where the US would be most interested.

I am amazed you can walk anything but in a straight line - you are so blinkered.

This country will never move to a insurance-based health care option. You know that and so do I - any party that proposed that would be out of power for a very long time. I am all for those that can afford it going private - takes pressure of the NHS who can use the resource to treat those that can't/wont insure themselves.

Which bits of the NHS are they going to hive off? the bigger discussion is what do we want our NHS to provide - everything to everybody? If you do could I suggest basic tax rate would need to 50-60% - when do you say enough is enough?

Of course Trump is going to say it all or nothing - he said the Mexican's were going to pay for a wall to keep their citizens in!! There is a good chance he will not be in power in a year's time. The fact you believe it suggests you would struggle to swim!!

Re: Donald Trump : Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:54 am  

Mild Rover wrote:

It isn’t much to do with pharmaceutical companies, directly at least. Drugs account for about 12% of NHS spending. The NHS already spends close to 10% of its budget on care purchased from the private sector, and how much that grows and shapes healthcare policy and delivery is probably the bigger issue.

But, on drugs Americans pay much higher prices than other countries. This is partly because they are rich and can afford it, and drug companies implement differential pricing to make their products accessible in poorer countries as well. However, they also pay higher prices than even wealthy European countries who have strong government-backed cost-containment measures in place. The Americans might view such approaches as being a bit socialist for their tastes, but their own system is fragmented and has some poorly aligned incentives, and from a selfish UK perspective, we really want avoid adopting something similar. It is maybe unfair that the US carries so much of the burden of funding the Global pharmaceutical industry. But i’d prefer they changed it through reforming their own crappy, inefficient system, rather than foisting it on us.

Yesterday's Corbyn tweet was the cost of the US trade deal is now an estimated £45bn in extra costs of drugs. Diane Abbott must be doing the calculations Let's be generous NHS funding is approx. £120bn of which drugs represent approx 15% so £18bn so that is going to rise to £63bn - really!!

[Mild Rover]

Re: Donald Trump : Sun Nov 03, 2019 9:44 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Yesterday's Corbyn tweet was the cost of the US trade deal is now an estimated £45bn in extra costs of drugs. Diane Abbott must be doing the calculations Let's be generous NHS funding is approx. £120bn of which drugs represent approx 15% so £18bn so that is going to rise to £63bn - really!!

Yeah, that is rubbish, I agree.

There’s no timeframe on it, and he says ‘could’ so it is meaningless, rather than an outright lie, perhaps. But even so.

Also he says costs could rise to £45 billion, rather than by £45 billion. Imo that is still outlandish, assuming we’re talking per annum - but seriously, if we did adopt the US system wholesale (which we won’t... I hope), prices would rise dramatically. Even a watered down version would be impactful.

More PFI-type initiatives and outsourcing would be my bigger concern.

Re: Donald Trump : Sun Nov 03, 2019 9:46 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

the bigger discussion is what do we want our NHS to provide - everything to everybody? If you do could I suggest basic tax rate would need to 50-60% - when do you say enough is enough?

No.
If the UK increased spend up to OECD or EU averages as % of GDP it would make a substantial difference. And I believe most UK taxpayers would be satisfied with that choice.

But incidentally why are you so comfortable with the very socialist notion of the NHS? Surely socialism is socialism is socialism, and isn't acceptable anywhere, based on your rhetoric in other posts?

[Mild Rover]

Re: Donald Trump : Sun Nov 03, 2019 11:51 am  

The Ghost of '99 wrote:

No.
If the UK increased spend up to OECD or EU averages as % of GDP it would make a substantial difference. And I believe most UK taxpayers would be satisfied with that choice.

But incidentally why are you so comfortable with the very socialist notion of the NHS? Surely socialism is socialism is socialism, and isn't acceptable anywhere, based on your rhetoric in other posts?

It’s a interesting question. On a simple level, I think things we need should be provided by the state and things we want should be provided by the commercial sector.

But even where the distinction is clear (e.g. staple foods), i wouldn’t always advocate change. And there are obviously grey lots of areas between want and need.

Re: Donald Trump : Sun Nov 03, 2019 12:35 pm  

The Ghost of '99 wrote:

No.
If the UK increased spend up to OECD or EU averages as % of GDP it would make a substantial difference. And I believe most UK taxpayers would be satisfied with that choice.

But incidentally why are you so comfortable with the very socialist notion of the NHS? Surely socialism is socialism is socialism, and isn't acceptable anywhere, based on your rhetoric in other posts?

I think the greatest donators to the well being of the general public have been business people made good e.g. Gates, that is what Maslow suggests will happen. Do I think if we had insurance the abuse of the NHS would reduce it certainly would. However we are where we are and as democrat I accept the greater view - whilst ever people think the NHS is free they will treat it as such and if we reduced the abuse the money would go much further - how many people who go to A&E actually need to be there. The vulnerable in society need protecting and need access to a good standard of health care - is it acceptable that those who don't provide for themselves should have the same level of access as those that do without to provide for themselves?

The population have already been asked to put an extra 3% into pension because the previous version couldn't cope and this will rise to 5% so where do you think the additional monies are going to come from - I forgot you are a Socialist and the state knows best and we should be left with what Jeremy deems acceptable.

Re: Donald Trump : Sun Nov 03, 2019 12:40 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

Yeah, that is rubbish, I agree.

There’s no timeframe on it, and he says ‘could’ so it is meaningless, rather than an outright lie, perhaps. But even so.

Also he says costs could rise to £45 billion, rather than by £45 billion. Imo that is still outlandish, assuming we’re talking per annum - but seriously, if we did adopt the US system wholesale (which we won’t... I hope), prices would rise dramatically. Even a watered down version would be impactful.

More PFI-type initiatives and outsourcing would be my bigger concern.

Remind me who instigated PFIs?

McDonald was put on the spot about this by Marr this morning - he had no reply to the deals done by the US in Canada and Australia where Health care provision was excluded. All he had was we can't trust Trump its the same on workers rights - we cant trust the Tories - no evidence whatsoever just tired all finger pointing.