The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (77 Viewers)

[skybluetony176]

Marketing & sales in general Tony.

Specifically the US people & the Pharma companies...they have an entirely different health service & pricing scheme to ours.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Yes I know. And the American taxpayer isn’t happy with it.

 

---

[shmmeee]

Boris has been forced to delay it by parliament hasn't he? So he is trying to find a way of breaking the deadlock by suggesting we have an election on 12th Dec.

The opposition parties don't seem to,want one or then they want one but not when Boris does...it is all tedious petty bollocks with - yes a hidden agenda

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

No. That’s not true. Look into it. His bill passed but not his request to speed up the process, so because he dithered for so long it would have passed after Halloween. So he put it in limbo and started demanding an election instead.

The Tory rebels and labour dealers were on board. It had the votes. He’s playing politics rather than “getting Brexit done”.

The fact so many don’t understand this is a testament to quite how poor our news media is.

Don’t listen to his words. Look into his actions.

 

[Otis]

Good so he should, would take ages to bring in and delay even more

Sounds chicken to me.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Did you actually read the link in the post you’re replying to? You’re confusing one issue with another. The same drug in America can cost five times as much as it does in the EU. It’s nothing to do with research. As it tells you in the link the US government is one of the biggest purchasers of drugs in the US yet they don’t negotiate the price like other countries governments do and this sets the precedent in the US. Donald Trumps answer to this is not to negotiate the price of drugs in America it’s to make everyone else to pay the same as the US.

And there is an assumption that we will let them do the same same here just because of Brexit?

High prices, poor access: the EU medicines market and Big Pharma | Corporate Europe Observatory



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott? :shifty::smuggrin:

That is some list. And it isn't very big.

How many actual MP's can you name off the top of your head? The most genuine are more likely to be those lesser heard of. They're not in it for the prestige or the power - they want to make the country a better place. There will be differences in opinion of how that should be done but the ultimate aim is the same.

Even most of those that have become disillusioned with politics and feel it's been a waste of their time and have now looked at how to get personal gain from it often started out or genuine altruistic reasons.

Those with a big public profile or are in the upper echelons of power and thus well-known are far more likely to be in it for themselves. So those more likely to be self-serving are also the most likely people will have heard of. and by so doing the smaller group becomes representative of the whole.

As for Abbott's 'evil' plan to pay bobbies £50 a year. That was that she's shit at numbers. She never meant she/Labour intended to pay policemen that and you know it.

 

[skybluetony176]

Sounds chicken to me.

The funny thing is he wanted us to believe that the biggest political decision that this country is going to make in a lifetime could be rushed through Parliament in a couple of days but to change the voting age by two years is not possible before December.

 

[Otis]

The funny thing is he wanted us to believe that the biggest political decision that this country is going to make in a lifetime could be rushed through Parliament in a couple of days but to change the voting age by two years is not possible before December.

Laughable isn't it/he!

 

[shmmeee]

And there is an assumption that we will let them do the same same here just because of Brexit?

High prices, poor access: the EU medicines market and Big Pharma | Corporate Europe Observatory



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

No. There’s an assumption because the Tories that are in government right now are the mentalists who have been writing books and making speeches about how much they want to destroy the NHS.

No one would be worried if it was Labour in charge during Brexit.

 

[skybluetony176]

And there is an assumption that we will let them do the same same here just because of Brexit?

High prices, poor access: the EU medicines market and Big Pharma | Corporate Europe Observatory



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

The US pharmaceutical industry is already spending millions lobbying Congress to give them control of prices as part of the US U.K. post Brexit trade deal and even before this as I’ve already pointed out to you is that Trumps answer to the US overpaying for drugs is to make everyone else pay the same.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

There you go.

That's not a list of who he considers best. He considers them genuine. Competency is another question entirely.

I would genuinely love to redevelop Coventry city centre and make it a bustling busy place and destination. Doesn't mean I'd be competent enough to do so.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

First article I found:

View attachment 13334

Which is all contradictory- they won't renegotiate, they won't unless... , then they do but won't any further...Errr - unless...

So, as I said from the off - the negotiations on WA are constantly under review & renegotiation. As true now as when I first said it...but it was only true when Boris's Tory govt said anything about renegotiating.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I was doing two things at once at the end of the program so didn’t catch everything in full what was said but I think it was said that if US pharmaceutical companies get their way the cost to the U.K. would equate to two thirds of the current NHS budget. Someone like FP who’s very up on the NHS might be able to shed some more light on what that means to the NHS. We send £360M a week to the EU, lets send it to US pharmaceutical companies instead.

I've said elsewhere that if anything the UK should be looking into further control of the supply chain regarding the NHS, not the other way round.

I've advocated a state-owned pharma company that would have the right to produce drugs for the NHS which could be passed on at cost or at the very least near-cost and bring drug and prescription charges down.

If a private co could do it cheaper then by all means but instead we're far more likely to let the 'PharmaBro' and his ilk essentially hold the country to ransom to charge what they like for drugs. The research and lab people looking for these cures are amazing, but the people at the top are running it effectively like a cartel.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

The US pharmaceutical industry is already spending millions lobbying Congress to give them control of prices as part of the US U.K. post Brexit trade deal and even before this as I’ve already pointed out to you is that Trumps answer to the US overpaying for drugs is to make everyone else pay the same.

But they are spending millions in the EU to influence the same!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[chiefdave]

The funny thing is he wanted us to believe that the biggest political decision that this country is going to make in a lifetime could be rushed through Parliament in a couple of days but to change the voting age by two years is not possible before December.

Don't see any reason for it not to be 16. Already is in Scotland and is being introduced in Wales so might as well do the inevitable now.

 

[chiefdave]

Which is all contradictory- they won't renegotiate, they won't unless... , then they do but won't any further...Errr - unless...

Its not really renegotiating when they're going back to something they already offered which was rejected by our Prime Minister.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

It won’t be. The lines on Brexit are pretty much set

A lot of the campaigning will be on other issues - especially the opposition

When that happens will it not be jumped on as 'avoiding Brexit' or 'anti-Brexit' - deflecting from the issue at hand? They're important and vital aspects of a GE but at some point someone will bring it back to Brexit

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

even if they adopted a remain or referendum stance I’d still vote Tory

I thought you were a bastion of independent thought?

 

[clint van damme]

But they are spending millions in the EU to influence the same!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

But they're more likely to have joy in this country with the Tories.
Matt Hancock alone has had something like 11 meetings with them.
When Corbyn asked Johnson to back up his claim that the NHS was safe by asking him where that provision was made in 're WA Johnson started waffling on about how Corbyn hates America and free trade rather than actually answering the question.

 

[Astute]

That's not a list of who he considers best. He considers them genuine. Competency is another question entirely.

I would genuinely love to redevelop Coventry city centre and make it a bustling busy place and destination. Doesn't mean I'd be competent enough to do so.

He said there was plenty of good MP's after I said there was hardly any. So I asked him to name them. They were the names he came out with.

 

[Grendel]

He said there was plenty of good MP's after I said there was hardly any. So I asked him to name them. They were the names he came out with.

the vast majority of MPs probably are decent

 

[Astute]

As for Abbott's 'evil' plan to pay bobbies £50 a year. That was that she's shit at numbers. She never meant she/Labour intended to pay policemen that and you know it.

I think you need to go back and read it again. It wasn't me who said about the evil plan first. I replied that the only one maybe was the shit pay for police officers.....with a grinning smilie straight after the comment.

And now it isn't a list of the good MP's. I don't know what it was a list if now.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Are people confusing health management companies with Pharma companies here? Pfizer is the biggest Pharma company globally & already operates here within our existing evaluation processes. Tbh these are already flawed as two neighbouring CCGs can have different drugs to treat the same condition as their preferred option after evaluating the same available evidence...how does that work?

So I am not sure how any new trading between US Pharma & the NHS might look, but they are not penalised nor favoured compared to UK or anyone else's drugs now - and I doubt they ever would be

The fear is that rather than have a list of allowed drugs and the doctors etc can prescribe those which they feel are best for the patient.

Under a trade deal a company could be given exclusive rights to produce certain drugs and effectively give them a monopoly, allowing them to charge what they like. This on top of other potential changes common in the US like lobbying and paying doctors to prescribe their specific brand even if it isn't the most cost-effective. It could effectively remove competition from the sector.

Think of it like in a football stadium. When it used to be different companies there was an element of price compeition. Now they're largely entirely filled with catering contracts by one company for the entire stadium (with a few different signs above the kiosks to give an impression of competition) prices can be astronomic.

 

[Astute]

the vast majority of MPs probably are decent

That isn't what I see when parliament is in action. It is more like on here. Some decent quotes surrounded by bullshit and insults.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

So try being realistic. Scotland, Ireland and Wales are ruled by England. They don't have enough seats to do anything unless they join a main party based in England. That is why some want independence.

And this is why Leavers need to be careful what they wish for. Scotland has a large independence movement and voted very heavily for remain. NI have just been thrown under a bus and also voted remain. Their issues regarding independence are all to well-known. If they're both emboldened expect Wales to also get hold of their coat tails - in many ways they can argue they get the shittest deal of them all.

Then in a decade or two and the EU is outperforming the UK the new generation decide they want the UK (if it still exists) to be in the EU and campaign for it. If we did that then we wouldn't be offered anywhere near the same deal we've got now - certainly no vetoes or opt-outs and maybe even stuff like the Euro would be obligatory as a term to rejoin.

So those wanting to leave would have inadvertently led to much closer integration of England in the EU within a generation, except it may well be England rather than Britain as a member because the United Kingdom has been torn apart.

 

[Astute]

And this is why Leavers need to be careful what they wish for. Scotland has a large independence movement and voted very heavily for remain. NI have just been thrown under a bus and also voted remain. Their issues regarding independence are all to well-known. If they're both emboldened expect Wales to also get hold of their coat tails - in many ways they can argue they get the shittest deal of them all.

Then in a decade or two and the EU is outperforming the UK the new generation decide they want the UK (if it still exists) to be in the EU and campaign for it. If we did that then we wouldn't be offered anywhere near the same deal we've got now - certainly no vetoes or opt-outs and maybe even stuff like the Euro would be obligatory as a term to rejoin.

So those wanting to leave would have inadvertently led to much closer integration of England in the EU within a generation, except it may well be England rather than Britain as a member because the United Kingdom has been torn apart.

A lot of ifs and buts though. Nobody knows what will happen if we leave or remain.

 

[shmmeee]

Which is all contradictory- they won't renegotiate, they won't unless... , then they do but won't any further...Errr - unless...

So, as I said from the off - the negotiations on WA are constantly under review & renegotiation. As true now as when I first said it...but it was only true when Boris's Tory govt said anything about renegotiating.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

I never thought they meant it TBH so we are probably in agreement here.

 

[shmmeee]

I think you need to go back and read it again. It wasn't me who said about the evil plan first. I replied that the only one maybe was the shit pay for police officers.....with a grinning smilie straight after the comment.

And now it isn't a list of the good MP's. I don't know what it was a list if now.

Dreamer said it better than me Genuine was the word I should have used. As in genuinely there because they want to make the country a better place and not to line their pockets.

 

[clint van damme]

That isn't what I see when parliament is in action. It is more like on here. Some decent quotes surrounded by bullshit and insults.

Thing is it's possible to be a good constituency MP but be poor as a shadow minister or minister.
Dianne Abbott doesn't strike me as ministerial material but she's been an MP for a long time - perhaps she does a good job for her constituency? There's plenty of other examples.
I never voted for my old MP thr tory John Butcher, I didn't agree with his politics but he always seemed to me to do the right thing by his constituents.

If your big local issue is the building of a runway and you constituency MP promises to be at the front of a protest against it but fucks off out the country on the day of the protest I would suggest he isn't a good MP, is dishonest and can't be trusted!

 

[Astute]

Dreamer said it better than me Genuine was the word I should have used. As in genuinely there because they want to make the country a better place and not to line their pockets.

Then there is many. But not many of them seem to be very good at it. They seem to get carried away with the moment when they do actually speak. Or they seem to be ill informed. Then the idiots take over.

 

[shmmeee]

Then there is many. But not many of them seem to be very good at it. They seem to get carried away with the moment when they do actually speak. Or they seem to be ill informed. Then the idiots take over.

Then we are in agreement. I have a whole other rant about the quality of politicians these days and the structural reasons for it. It’s the assumption of bad faith that bothers me. Say Diane Abbott is crap all you like, don’t say she’s got a hidden agenda.

 

[Astute]

Thing is it's possible to be a good constituency MP but be poor as a shadow minister or minister.
Dianne Abbott doesn't strike me as ministerial material but she's been an MP for a long time - perhaps she does a good job for her constituency? There's plenty of other examples.
I never voted for my old MP thr tory John Butcher, I didn't agree with his politics but he always seemed to me to do the right thing by his constituents.

If your big local issue is the building of a runway and you constituency MP promises to be at the front of a protest against it but fucks off out the country on the day of the protest I would suggest he isn't a good MP, is dishonest and can't be trusted!

To me if you want to be an MP you need to be able to talk loud and clearly, know what you are going on about, not be shy, have a plan and be assertive when needed. Most seem to struggle on at least one.

 

[Astute]

Then we are in agreement. I have a whole other rant about the quality of politicians these days and the structural reasons for it. It’s the assumption of bad faith that bothers me. Say Diane Abbott is crap all you like, don’t say she’s got a hidden agenda.

I didn't say she has a hidden agenda. But I do say she is incapable. They are two totally different things.

 

[shmmeee]

To me if you want to be an MP you need to be able to talk loud and clearly, know what you are going on about, not be shy, have a plan and be assertive when needed. Most seem to struggle on at least one.

Personally I’d take a hundred Julian Hupperts over a Blair or Johnson. Not as a leader though. We seem to lack both leaders and detailed focused thoughtful people as well sadly.

 

[SBAndy]

The fear is that rather than have a list of allowed drugs and the doctors etc can prescribe those which they feel are best for the patient.

Under a trade deal a company could be given exclusive rights to produce certain drugs and effectively give them a monopoly, allowing them to charge what they like. This on top of other potential changes common in the US like lobbying and paying doctors to prescribe their specific brand even if it isn't the most cost-effective. It could effectively remove competition from the sector.

Think of it like in a football stadium. When it used to be different companies there was an element of price compeition. Now they're largely entirely filled with catering contracts by one company for the entire stadium (with a few different signs above the kiosks to give an impression of competition) prices can be astronomic.

Which is rather ironic considering the US pharma companies’ arguments centre around having market-driven pricing.

 

[shmmeee]

I didn't say she has a hidden agenda. But I do say she is incapable. They are two totally different things.

Yeah we are in agreement. I was just clarifying my position not making a statement on yours.