Proposals to prevent foreign control of NHS voted down

[ik9000]

I doubt the latter. As I understand it, once agreed these trade deals become a matter of international public record, not least because they can affect other countries .... like, under CITA, Canada. Which, by the way, is one reason the EU are being cagey.

An interesting discussion a day or two ago between trade deal expert and a radio presenter. Until recently, both sides had been claiming major obstacles on half a dozen issues. But this week, they only mentioned two. Fir sure they are the biggest two, but the suspected inference those discussing it drew was that there may have been progress on the rest, and that they might be closer to a deal than either side currently wants to acknowledge. Maybe.

Or maybe not. I'm far from convinced by that argument but .... who knows.

not according to my sources

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I'm starting to look at emigrating elsewhere. Anyone else doing the same?

The Corona says no!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Maybe we are looking at this wrong; not selling the whole thing but profiting from the old dear. Perhaps a sneaky approach such as designating 'prefered' suppliers. Must buy x amount. Pricing control. I'm not devious enough to pin it down.

Parliament has no say on the trade deals anymore AFAIK and we are not even going to know the fine print even when its ratified?

Already is happening. In fact you are seeing more privatisation creeping in. Look at how procurement is now getting managed,which makes it easier to spin off things in the future,without actually making much real noise. Like I mentioned before over 70 MPs have financial interests in companies which deal with NHS contracts.

Edit!!

This also:
https://www.channel4.com/press/news/...l-4-dispatches

Reporter Antony Barnett discovers that “drug pricing” has been discussed in six initial meetings between trade officials from the two countries and learns of secret meetings between US drugs firms and British civil servants where medicine “price caps” have been talked about.

Dispatches was also told that British trade officials have been warned that the subject is so sensitive that they must not mention “drug pricing” in emails but use the term “valuing innovation”.

US government and its powerful pharmaceutical industry want the NHS to pay more for their medicines which are much more expensive across the Atlantic. They want to remove the UK’s ability to block American drugs not deemed “value for money” and restrict our powers to allow cheaper alternatives to be prescribed to patients which save the NHS hundreds of millions of pounds a year.

According to research carried out for the programme, the cost to the UK government could run into the billions, approximately £27 billion, wiping out the potential Brexit bonus for the NHS promised by Boris Johnson.

Now look back to the US trade document regarding SOEs,and how they can't financially affect their corporations,which was from the last of those 6 meetings. That includes using drugs from cheaper supplies elsewhere.

Second Edit!!

Now if you want to see a good reason why Trump and co want to push,countries like the UK to pay much more for drugs:
https://qz.com/1276290/donald-trump-...t-the-problem/

He accuses foreign governments of freeloading off the US taxpayer,meaning they pay more. So in 2018 he wanted to reduce US drug prices,but expects foreign countries to make up the slack,hence maintaining their profit margins. He just signed that order into law:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53534950

Trump had a lot of funding from large pharmaceutical companies:
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/201...-returns-show/

"Socialist price controls".

You are going to see how this will roll. They won't have agreed to reduce presciption prices,if they have not been promised some way to make up for it.

[TeePee]

Be very careful when siding with pharmaceutical manufacturers against Trump. Just remember that's Martin Shkreli.

[badass]

No, I'm not praising that, not least because that's an allegation about what was said to 36 staff, out of .... how many, again?

That was just an example. Staff bullying is endemic throughout every part of the NHS. Only an exceptionally small number of hospitals don't have a serious problem with bullying.

I have a very large number of family members and friends that work or have worked for the NHS at almost every level and in several different parts of the country. The waste is unbelievable at every level as is the treatment of staff actually delivering care. Management in general are shockingly incompetent and it's pretty popular to deal with an incompetent individual by promoting them away from where they are currently causing damage to make them someone elses problem.

Nor am I praising the empoyer. When I'm praising the NHS based on my experience, I'm praising the system as a whole, of which the people delivering my care are the fundamental element, but they still need xray, CT and MRI scanners to scan with, and theatres to operate in, nurses to care, wards to put us in, catering staff to feed us, cleaning staff to clean, porters to move us around and so on. And of course, buildings to work in because we'd all look pretty stupid doing all the above outside in the rain, in the car park.

I think you misunderstood me. I was responding to the quoted section - i.e. that the NHS is a religion to the British public. The fact that it is more like a religion than a decent health service is a sizable part of the problem.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Be very careful when siding with pharmaceutical manufacturers against Trump. Just remember that's Martin Shkreli.

The problem is Trump can force them to play ball in the US,but he is trying to make sure countries such as the UK pay even more to make up for the profit deficit. That campaign funding is not that small,and he is unlikely to want to annoy the whole pharmaceutical industry. So the penny has to drop somewhere. So look good at home,helping reduce prescription costs,but quietly make other countries pay more.

Upto £27 billion more,won't mean the NHS will be better funded,it will just mean worse pay and conditions,and in order to save on upfront capital costs,more rental agreements. Plus looking at how much US medical providers take the US taxpayer,I wouldn't expect them to act any differently over here.

Plus the problem is,many of these companies will try their best to reduce payroll costs,to keep profits higher,so even if they do pay individuals more,they will just expect more of every individual. This is the problem with trying to quietly get some of these companies involved,as part of a deal. What is really required is improved funding,and a more transparent organisational structure,and proper full cycle costing. From what numerous governments have done in the last 20 years,is that they only look at upfront costs,even if it costs more longterm.

[read100]

not sure about that...