and under Trump America is booming lowest unemployment in 50 years, highest employment rate ever for afro and hispanic workers, exports booming stock market booming, yep hes doing a **** job not, the only places that are on a downturn are sanctuary cities and that loop hole will close soon
A well thought out counter argument, feel free to google the cost of insulin in the USA, while your there have a look at the drug patent rules that will be part fo a trade deal with the USA. Sadly, bookmark my original post and in two years time when its proved right, you can admit it wasn't "bollocks, propaganda hogwash"
Thankfully we don't live in the USA and nor do we, or will we, have to accept everything they want to put in their trade deals. The NHS is not for sale.
Not in a bricks and mortar, come buy a hospital way, of course its not. But in a clever way, as the cost of buying drugs and services rise, making it more and more unsustainable and people needing medical insurance to cover costs
For argument's sake, why would the Conservative party want that to happen? It doesn't benefit them directly. It's not going to benefit the US government directly. It only benefits the pharmaceutical companies. Most of the big pharmaceutical companies operate in this country to some degree anyway and supply drugs to this country, so it's not like this approach is going to attract companies to relocate here. Where is the political gain in this for anyone?
Not yet, but it will happen unfortunately.. Hmm, let me think, I wonder how much money is made by the big pharmaceutical companies make? If you think this is all about political gain then you are mistaken
They make lots of money. I worked for one briefly. How does allowing them to drive up the prices of drugs in this country benefit the Conservatives? It will only lead to dissatisfaction with the putative Conservative government if that increase is down to Conservative policy.
I Firstly I have no Party axe to grind. I distrust them all equally. However I do get a twitch when I read posts, similar to this one. The word WILL, is my sticking point. I have no window into the future. Had it said MIGHT, that would be fair enough. Might covers just about everything from the second coming and onwards. As for the current debate about the NHS, I feel sorry for whichever party is in power because it's always used to beat them over the head. Drug companies keep coming up with new drugs that cost the earth. The body that decides if they are worth paying for says no on occasion, it's not cost effective. The Press and opposition find some vulnerable child who might benefit and asks, without a trace of shame, 'is this child's life not worth the £'s? It's the Governments fault, (whoever is in power). Meanwhile no matter how much money is poured into the bottomless pit that is The NHS, medical, pharmaceutical and engineering progress ensures that it is never enough. Everybody wants a better, bigger, more shiny NHS, packed full of the latest toys with staff paid more double their current earnings. But nobody seems to be campaigning for a tax rise to pay for it all. Labour sounds like it is going to borrow for everything and the tory party seems to be in a race to catch them up. I am not holding my breath while I wait to be told how this borrowing is to be repaid. Meanwhile, might I suggest that those amongst you with the power to see into the future with such certainty, cheer us lesser mortals up by telling us when we be back in the Premier League, (this is after all, first and foremost, a Football Forum). (BTW, when hell freezes over is not an acceptable answer)
research and development cost are heavy, or would you prefer to skip research in favor of say thalidomide type drugs being released on the market
What a bizarre counter argument, which right minded person would suggest research and development is skipped? It is a fact that Insulin costs the patient in America far more than it costs here
any thing i say derogatory against Corbyn you would class as bizarre, but facts remain if you spend millions developing a drug you are not going to sell it for a pittance, sure fire way to go bankrupt, which will happen a lot if Corbyn gets in companies will leave in droves,
I've also witnessed some of these costs first hand, regular, money no obstacle junkets for the medical profession entrusted to spending taxpayers money. I wonder what the balance is between that, and vital medical research and development cost, we will never know for sure, as secrecy is all part of the set up. But if these products are so good why the emphasis on such expensive promotions. Not that I'm saying Labour are any better than Tories on this front.
Not 100% sure that you make your case by this one example. For example there will be many things in the US of A that are cheaper than here in UK, and many that are dearer. The fact that the NHS is such a huge purchaser MAY well account for the difference in the example you quote. That advantage would remain the case whatever they were buying and wherever they were buying it from. Are you suggesting that The NHS would go out of it's way to buy from American Pharmaceutical Companies if this was the most expensive market option? If so, please share your evidence for this.
Just to balance things a bit. In the last 5 weeks I have received a blood test, MRI scan, prostrate biopsy taken and a bone scan.All within 5 weeks. Fortunately They have caught the cancer early to be offered an operation to have my prostate removed in the hope they will get all of it. I am having the operation on Monday. Although I am only one person. A thought I got a first class treatment and do wonder where are all these waiting list for Cancer Care treatment Labours favourite words are Crisis and I do wonder how much of it is exaggerated
I number if years ago I worked for a big corporate that had pharmaceutical as part of its business. One discussion paper doing the rounds then argued that, because most R and D concentrated on the more common diseases, as they would sell the most, therefore less prevalent diseases had less R and D. It was suggested some companies should have longer patent licences so that they could recoup R and D costs, plus a profit of course...otherwise little or no RD would happen for rare diseases.
