NHS

[Not Now Kato]

There is a Full Fact briefing on the 40 hospitals fairytale from Spaffman;
https://fullfact.org/health/six-hospitals-not-forty/

For those interested in the NHS topic.

How much are the Yanks prepared to pay for the NHS ? 😗😗😗

I don't think you quite understand the situation Sproty, The Yanks won't be asked to pay anything, it will be us paying them!

[DonnyOsmond]

Yeah they won't be paying.

[idler]

Sounds reasonable if you have shares in these companies.☹️

[Sprotyrover]

So  we allow American drug suppliers to compete in our Market,they won't be selling much at those prices,unless the Govt lets them buy up all of the manufacturing facilities in the UK and shut them down, a bit like ICI. Can't see that happening really. So don't worry the Sky isn't falling in!

[idler]

Trump has already said that it isn't faire that Americans are paying more for the drugs and medications than foreign customers are paying.

[albie]

So  we allow American drug suppliers to compete in our Market,they won't be selling much at those prices,unless the Govt lets them buy up all of the manufacturing facilities in the UK and shut them down, a bit like ICI. Can't see that happening really. So don't worry the Sky isn't falling in!

Sproty,

The trade deal with the US is likely to specify that the NHS bulk purchase agreement is set to the standard US prices.

That means the NHS will be expected to buy from US suppliers (big pharma) at rates way above current levels, and that patent protection will be extended, limiting future use of generics (or biosimilars).

The UK is in a very weak position to resist, given the need to conclude a deal covering other sectors post-Brexit. We will have lost  the existing trading agreements set up via the EU.

The US set out their position back in February. All the posturing from Spaffman is just a piece of theatre for the GE....nothing more!

[wilts rover]

Actually the US first set out their position in the TTIP negotiations. What the recent negotiations have confirmed is that is still their plan and unlike the EU (who broke off TTIP) May:

'one of the main aims of TTIP is to open up Europe’s public health, education and water services to US companies. This could essentially mean the privatisation of the NHS.'

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

One of the things Johnson said in his interview with Nick Ferrari was that his Brexit deal would allow us to agree TTIP - and TTIP is the opening of NHS service to private American companies.

[Sprotyrover]

So  we allow American drug suppliers to compete in our Market,they won't be selling much at those prices,unless the Govt lets them buy up all of the manufacturing facilities in the UK and shut them down, a bit like ICI. Can't see that happening really. So don't worry the Sky isn't falling in!

Sproty,

The trade deal with the US is likely to specify that the NHS bulk purchase agreement is set to the standard US prices.

That means the NHS will be expected to buy from US suppliers (big pharma) at rates way above current levels, and that patent protection will be extended, limiting future use of generics (or biosimilars).

The UK is in a very weak position to resist, given the need to conclude a deal covering other sectors post-Brexit. We will have lost  the existing trading agreements set up via the EU.

The US set out their position back in February. All the posturing from Spaffman is just a piece of theatre for the GE....nothing more!

Will be expected to but won't have to, any negotiation would be vive versa so we can export our cheaper mess to the US thereby assisting the Us health system

[Sprotyrover]

Trump has already said that it isn't faire that Americans are paying more for the drugs and medications than foreign customers are paying.

That's right so it Meeks sense to do a Trade deal with the Uk whereby we can export our cheaper drugs to the US Market.

[Sprotyrover]

Actually the US first set out their position in the TTIP negotiations. What the recent negotiations have confirmed is that is still their plan and unlike the EU (who broke off TTIP) May:

'one of the main aims of TTIP is to open up Europe’s public health, education and water services to US companies. This could essentially mean the privatisation of the NHS.'

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

One of the things Johnson said in his interview with Nick Ferrari was that his Brexit deal would allow us to agree TTIP - and TTIP is the opening of NHS service to private American companies.

Right Wilts I have just wasted ten minutes of my life reading  that crappy article you posted by Lee Williams , it's a load of sensationalist tosh, no evidence whatsoever.
Can any of you Labourvoters produce any evidence that says in black and white, that a Tory government would, sign away tens of thousands of jobs and force itself to have to find billions of extra funding for drugs...come on I'm waiting???

[Sprotyrover]

This how trade works,Courtesy of Adam Smith:According to Figure 1, England commits 80 hours of labor to produce one unit of cloth, which is fewer than Portugal's hours of work necessary to produce one unit of cloth. England is able to produce one unit of cloth with fewer hours of labor, therefore England has an absolute advantage in the production of cloth. On the other hand, Portugal commits 90 hours to produce one unit of wine, which is fewer than England's hours of work necessary to produce one unit of wine. Therefore, Portugal has an absolute advantage in the production of wine.

If the two countries specialize in producing the good for which they have the absolute advantage, and if they exchange part of the good with each other, both of the two countries can end up with more of each good than they would have in the absence of trade.[5][6] In the absence of trade, each country produces one unit of cloth and one unit of wine, i.e. a combined total production of 2 units of cloth and 2 units of wine. Here, if England commits all of its labor (80+100) for the production of cloth for which England has the absolute advantage, England produces (80+100)÷80=2.25 units of cloth. On the other hand, if Portugal commits all of its labor (90+120) for the production of wine, Portugal produces (90+120)÷90=2.33... units of wine. The combined total production in this case is 2.25 units of cloth and 2.33 units of wine which is greater than the total production of each good had there been no specialization. Assuming free trade this will lead to cheaper prices for both goods for both countries.
And that's what trade is about we have an absolute advantage in the manufacturing of Pharmaceutical products so we will be exporting £Billions upon £ billions of drugs to the US.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Sproty

If you reckon that Big Pharma, which spends the thick end of a quarter of a billion dollars a year on lobbying Washington, is going to say, "Aye, no worries. Import as many cheap drugs as you like Mr President," then I admire your optimism, if not your judgement.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/01/23/health/phrma-lobbying-costs-bn/index.html

[Sprotyrover]

That's me Billy I always look on the bright side of life,my Glass is lways half full!

[SydneyRover]

That's me Billy I always look on the bright side of life,my Glass is lways half full!

Maybe you shouldn't drink and post Sproty? 

[bpoolrover]

For the sake of this site I hope labour win

[DonnyOsmond]

For the sake of this site I hope labour win

Will you be voting for them? X

[Sprotyrover]

That's me Billy I always look on the bright side of life,my Glass is lways half full!

Maybe you shouldn't drink and post Sproty? 

😂😂😂🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺

[albie]

Wilts,

Yes, the discredited TTIP proposals are certainly back on the agenda.

The idea is that US corporations should have the right to seek damages, if a sovereign government introduced measures which would obstruct them taking profit from activities they would otherwise have undertaken.

Even worse, these decisions would be taken in secret, by a special tribunal.
It has a wide ranging impact beyond just the NHS;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/leaked-us-trade-talks-show-how-trump-is-dictating-johnsons-approach-to-a-hard-brexit/

Still, best not worry as we are "taking back control", after all!

[Sprotyrover]

Wilts,

Yes, the discredited TTIP proposals are certainly back on the agenda.

The idea is that US corporations should have the right to seek damages, if a sovereign government introduced measures which would obstruct them taking profit from activities they would otherwise have undertaken.

Even worse, these decisions would be taken in secret, by a special tribunal.
It has a wide ranging impact beyond just the NHS;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/leaked-us-trade-talks-show-how-trump-is-dictating-johnsons-approach-to-a-hard-brexit/

Still, best not worry as we are "taking back control", after all!

Will the members of this secret tribunal be wearing white robes and masked pointy hats by any chance!

[SydneyRover]

Claim

The prime minister said he planned a rise in funding for the NHS, worth £34bn, which would be the “largest in modern memory”.

Reality

Johnson is correct that the funding boost is the biggest cash increase, worth an additional £34bn a year. Accounting for inflation, it is worth £20.5bn by 2023-24.

However, in percentage terms, it is worth about 3.4% more a year on average.

This is far from being the biggest increase on record. It is below the 3.5% average annual growth recorded prior to 1979, and far below the 6% average increase in the Blair/Brown years of Labour government.

It is also below the 4.3% increase pledged by Labour in its 2019 manifesto.

What do you want from your NHS?

[Sprotyrover]

Claim

The prime minister said he planned a rise in funding for the NHS, worth £34bn, which would be the “largest in modern memory”.

Reality

Johnson is correct that the funding boost is the biggest cash increase, worth an additional £34bn a year. Accounting for inflation, it is worth £20.5bn by 2023-24.

However, in percentage terms, it is worth about 3.4% more a year on average.

This is far from being the biggest increase on record. It is below the 3.5% average annual growth recorded prior to 1979, and far below the 6% average increase in the Blair/Brown years of Labour government.

It is also below the 4.3% increase pledged by Labour in its 2019 manifesto.

What do you want from your NHS?

Sorry I don't understand cn you xplain properly and explain in layman term. What if there is no inflation between now and then, please explain?

[BillyStubbsTears]

The big thing about NHS funding is that, as lifespan gets longer and we find more advanced ways of keeping us healthier into old age, the cost of ANY health system increases significantly more than normal inflation, year-on-year.

That means, if you want a state of the art health service, you have no choice but to increase the amount of national income that goes into paying for that health service.

That's just simple economics. It's about what you prioritise. Nearly every developed country in the world is spending more of its GDP on health, year after year.

Except us...

Look at whats happened over the past decade under the Tories.



Our health spending as a % of GDP has stagnated for a decade.

So where IS the money we make going?

Well it's not gone into increased wages. Today, our GDP after adjusting for inflation is about 20% higher than it was a decade ago. But, under the Tories, for the first time since the Napoleonic War, we've had a decade where wages (after adjusting for inflation) have not risen at all.


It's not gone into education. Shockingly, the amount of the national income that we spend on schools, teachers and colleges has shrunk by nearly 1/5th under the Tories.


So where have the proceeds of our growth gone? Here's a clue.


It doesn't HAVE to be like this folks. But you know damn well in your hearts that it always will be under the Tories.

[wilts rover]

Johnson speaking in the HoC in 2002 on why the NHS should be broken up

https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1201545913300373505

Safe in their hands ehh

[SydneyRover]

Private health insurance companies in Australia are subsidized to the tune of 6bn and cannot survive without it. For years they increased prices above inflation and now they are restricted by public outcry they are reducing items covered. The policies are pretty much useless for a couple of reasons there is a huge financial gap payment for most which can run into the thousands and in an emergency you are not going to wait for the doctor of your choice.

People are now running away from private insurance.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Meanwhile, in the latest installment of "Clues to his real beliefs that Boris Johnson has given us in the past", this is him 17 years ago calling for the break up of the NHS and more private provision.

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1201545913300373505

Anyone REALLY think he's a convert now?

[SydneyRover]

Wilts just posted that above bst.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Oops. Apologies. I missed that.

[Sprotyrover]

Just read on the Gaia Fawkes website that the much waved about Us /UK trade proposals document is a Russian fabrication:Researchers at Britain's Oxford and Cardiff universities, the Atlantic Council thinktank and social media analytics firm Graphika said the way the documents were first shared online mirrored a campaign called Secondary Infektion.

Secondary Infektion uncovered by the Atlantic Council in June, used fabricated or altered documents to try to spread false narratives across at least 30 online platforms, and stemmed from a network of social media accounts which Facebook said "originated in Russia."


Apparently the Text has the same Gramatical Errors and Language misses as other false leaks from the Russian group, it also is all over their websites.

Labour and the UK Govt have refused to comment...looks like somebody shot himself in the Foote!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Got a link for that Sproty?

Only it's odd, if it's a fabrication of purportedly Govt documents, that the Govt hasn't pointed this out.

Edit.

It ok. I've seen the stories. There's no indication that anything in the reports has been fabricated.

[Sprotyrover]

Claim

The prime minister said he planned a rise in funding for the NHS, worth £34bn, which would be the “largest in modern memory”.

Reality

Johnson is correct that the funding boost is the biggest cash increase, worth an additional £34bn a year. Accounting for inflation, it is worth £20.5bn by 2023-24.

However, in percentage terms, it is worth about 3.4% more a year on average.

This is far from being the biggest increase on record. It is below the 3.5% average annual growth recorded prior to 1979, and far below the 6% average increase in the Blair/Brown years of Labour government.

It is also below the 4.3% increase pledged by Labour in its 2019 manifesto.

What do you want from your NHS?

Hey Sydney it cuts both ways when it comes to inflation:
The Labour Party has recently unveiled plans to bring large swathes of the British economy into what they term ‘public ownership’. Even before their bumper manifesto, they had already promised to nationalise the Royal Mail, the railways, energy suppliers, and water and sewage companies. Estimates vary for exactly how much that might costs, but the Centre for Policy Studies puts the extra borrowing required at a pretty eye-watering £176bn.

Since then, Labour has decided to go one better by pledging to nationalise BT and to provide everyone in the UK with ‘free’ broadband. BT chief executive, Philip Jansen, said that this policy alone would cost an additional £100bn – equivalent to about 4.5% of our annual national output.

Who would have thought ‘free’ stuff could be so expensive?

But even these enormous costs are an underestimate as they do not include future liabilities. For example, if the government were to issue bonds to buy the Royal Mail at its current market value of around £2.1bn, this would not only add an additional £2.1bn to the national debt, but the government would also need to find money each and every year to service the interest on that debt, as well as fund future infrastructure investment in the business. Ultimately, taxpayers would be left to foot the bill for ongoing investment costs, as well as left to pick up the tab for any potential losses.