[News] Say your goodbyes to free health care...

[Thunder Bolt]

You posted / re-published it on here. The tweet is misleading and you've re-posted misleading information to score a political point.

Please provide the detail to show it is misleading.

 

[The Clamp]

I believe the last government vote on the matter of nurses pay was 2017, my mistake. They voted against giving them rises.
During Lockdown the public and the NHS requested a pay rise for nurses.
The government declined to put this to a vote. Thus sparing themselves the backlash of voting against pay rises for nurses. Which they would have done.

 

[macbeth]

sadly this is just one of the many chickens that will be coming home to roost over the next four years. as Joseph de maistre said: "every country has the government it deserves".

 

[beorhthelm]

I put up two links. One showed that the cost of drugs is 2.5 times the cost of drugs in the US. That's talking about total cost - there may well be some drugs that are cheaper elsewhere (and as the OECD report shows there are European countries that are cheaper than the UK too)

And to quote from the CNN story (clearly not a far left news source) "A common complaint of the US pharmaceutical lobby is that other nations, including the United Kingdom, have strict regulatory systems and arrangements where governments subsidize medicine development that they believe keeps the price of drugs artificially low. This, they claim, makes it very hard for US companies to compete.

The UK system for valuing medicines is particularly complicated. It looks at the clinical effectiveness of a drug, and the bang for buck value of each medicine. It also takes into consideration input from drug companies before determining what it believes is a fair price.

The United States has publicly declared that it would demand not only that its companies have "full market access" to the United Kingdom, but also that "government regulatory reimbursement regimes are transparent." That would likely mean a provision allowing US drug companies to have a greater say in how the United Kingdom values medicines for the NHS, similar to one included in the US trade deal with South Korea last year."

so nothing at all in the bill changes anything relating to drug cost, correct?

the CNN peice is misguided, there is little direct medical development subsidy. where there is some indirect subsidy, such as supporting development, all pharmacueticals from all nations have the use of NHS for clincial trails (we love it, it builds the countries expertise in the area). US pharma companies supply here as much as we can prescribe.

what they want is a lighter regulatory framwork so they can market drugs more widely, or allow any treatment to be available on clinical basis, not be barred through cost assessment. neither of these areas are under the remit of a trade policy. outside possibility there is subsequent change to process NICE follows, allowing treatments now deemed too expensive. a long way from privatising the whole healthcare, and its interesting how the focus does come down to this drug issue alone.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Please provide the detail to show it is misleading.

I know you stick your tin foil hat on when it comes to the BBC but here's a quote from one of their articles today :

"Nurses are not included in the announcement because they negotiated a separate three-year deal in 2018.

The rise does also not apply to junior doctors, who agreed a new four-year pay deal last year. "

Source - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53478404

It's misleading because it implies that the government have at best overlooked a pay rise for nurses or at worst rejected one. They will get a pay review ( and I would suggest a pay rise ) next year as per the deal THEY negotiated.

 

[West Hoathly Seagull]

I thinks that things cannot continue as they are, without massive rises in taxation.

When I moved here I was somewhat concerned about healthcare provision. Now I know a little more I am quite comfortable with it. Just like the UK, emergency treatment is free at the point of delivery. In fact most treatment is free at the point of delivery.

You can choose which GP surgery you wish to be registered at, one that operates ‘free’, or if you want a more personal, tailored service you may well need to pay. Non emergency but necessary procedures are probably carried out more quickly than in the UK and again are free of charge. The difference is elective surgery/treatments, these are not freely available to most. You can either take out low level insurance, which you will probably need to pay excesses upon, or have full private healthcare. The trick here is to start it young, as premiums are surcharged the later you leave it. With low level insurance you do get generous allowances on dental, optical and other medical needs to a point. I get free dental check ups and hygienist cover twice a year, and it covers maybe 60% of all dental treatment costs. I also get to have ‘free’ specs up to about £175 every year (I can top up further). I can also claim for a certain amount of massage, acupuncture, and other treatments on an annual basis. This costa about £40 monthly.

The downside? Prescriptions from your GP cost a lot more than the £8ish fee charged in the UK. My monthly asthma preventative treatment costs me about £25, on the other hand a Ventolin inhaler costs about £4 as it is on a list of drugs that are seen as being important to be easily accessible, you can just walk in and buy one. Annoyingly, a tiny tube of Betnovate is also priced at about £25, this figure is important as below that price you cannot claim from your insurance.

Overall, a number of minor annoyances, but overall OK. Those in real need get necessary treatment, those who are savvy do OK. Taxation is higher here to pay for public services, but by bringing in private companies it does introduce competition which eliminates a lot of waste. I am fortunate enough to be able to put money away for a rainy day, but feel comfortable enough that a mix of public and private healthcare will be up to my expectations. As I said earlier, the trick is to get onto full private healthcare before you are 30 years old, many youngsters choose not to.

Does this come under Victoria State or the Federal Government? I have studied Welfare Economics, which included the history of the NHS (might sound sad, but it was part of my BA degree). When the NHS was set up, there was a mighty battle in government between centrist Labour politicians, such as Gaitskell and Morrison, who favoured it being run by City Corporations and County Councils and the Left, especially Bevan and Benn, who insisted that it should be run centrally from Whitehall (Bevan is quoted as saying that if a scalpel was dropped in Merthyr Tydfil, the man in Whitehall would hear about it).

To me, that is no way to run a service as massive as the NHS. You will always get those who scream about postcode lotteries, but the priorities for the service in Newquay are not the same as those in Newcastle, nor those in Brighton the same as those in Barrow. Most other countries run health at a regional, or even local level (in Switzerland it is run by the Cantons). Also, as far as I know, Spain is the only other country where the service is totally free at the point of use, though even here it's Catalonia, Galicia, etc, that run health services, not the government in Madrid.

I am not arguing for a charged-for service, and I would never want us to take on the American system. However, those who claim that we spend less than France or Germany should remember that their services are not free at the point of use (funding comes at least partially from insurance). I do think, though, that decentralisation is necessary, provided there is still some kind of national standard that providers have to keep to. This has been done partially in Greater Manchester, where Mayor Andy Burnham has some control of Health and Social Care, and outcomes are improving, but it is not proposed anywhere else. We have seen the effect of centralisation with COVID-19, Public Health England insisted at first on only using their own laboratories for carrying out testing, which added to the problems of lack of capacity.

 

[studio150]

the Trade bill? seems quite important thing to have at this time.

The Trade Bill is very important as it will enable the Tories to bring in the NHS sell off, far lower food standards.... all without Parliament scrutiny due to the Henry VII clauses and when there is an uproar or a change in Government, there will be nothing to do, as amendments to the Trade Deal will need to be referred to an independent panel, where the big American corporations will be able to claim loss of future profits, so the country will be bankrupt while the Tory backers make a nice profit from the UK laying down just to get a trade deal with Trump.

 

[Simster]

Political suicide for any party that tries to mess with the NHS for at least a generation - and hopefully much longer

I'd be happy for a government to grab the NHS and deal with it properly - it is grossly inefficient in some areas at the moment, almost third world is some ways, yet world class in other areas.

Unfortunately, I would't trust this government with anything. They are completely untrustworthy and the ultimate "details to follow" administration. I'm afraid the reason this got voted down is that they refuse to take anything off the table with regard to a trade agreement with the US. Which, incidentally, is certainly going to be a f**king terrible deal for us.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

There’s few things worse than expats droning on about how things are better in their adopted home.

What about expats, who spend all day on the media of their former home, looking for tiny little 'PC gone mad' things to get outraged about?

 

[scoobiewhite]

The only shock is that more people aren’t aware that large chunks of the NHS are already delivered by for-profit companies. Care provision in the community, care homes, supported living, agency staff, medical supplies, pharmaceuticals and on and on.

Thousands and thousands of companies profit from the NHS.

Only the management of the system, major facilities (hospitals etc.) and most frontline staff are actually part of the NHS proper.

The NHS is incredible, it should remain free at the point of use, its management should remain a public concern and in my opinion all suppliers should be not-for-profit. Much of it is run by and staffed by the best of us.

However, if you’ve seen it up close you know that some aspects of the NHS proper are run like a Victorian institution with awful hierarchies, incredible levels of waste and appallingly our of date management styles.

The same is true of its third party suppliers. Some are great and some are arse****s.

The argument of private or public is as overly simplistic as it is irrelevant because that ship already sailed!

 

[Simster]

What about expats, who spend all day on the media of their former home, looking for tiny little 'PC gone mad' things to get outraged about?

And always with the veneer of wanting to appear "balanced" when actually they come across as pure gammon.

 

[Gwylan]

so nothing at all in the bill changes anything relating to drug cost, correct?

No but then it's not specifically about drug cost. But if you think that pharma companies are lobbying the US government about the UK/US trade deal in order to sell cheaper drugs, I have some magic beans to sell you.

 

[The Clamp]

The only shock is that more people aren’t aware that large chunks of the NHS are already delivered by for-profit companies. Care provision in the community, care homes, supported living, agency staff, medical supplies, pharmaceuticals and on and on.

Thousands and thousands of companies profit from the NHS.

Only the management of the system, major facilities (hospitals etc.) and most frontline staff are actually part of the NHS proper.

The NHS is incredible, it should remain free at the point of use, its management should remain a public concern and in my opinion all suppliers should be not-for-profit. Much of it is run by and staffed by the best of us.

However, if you’ve seen it up close you know that some aspects of the NHS proper are run like a Victorian institution with awful hierarchies, incredible levels of waste and appallingly our of date management styles.

The same is true of its third party suppliers. Some are great and some are arse****s.

The argument of private or public is as overly simplistic as it is irrelevant because that ship already sailed!

Most are aware that a lot of NHS work is contracted out. As long as they do a good job and provide a good service at a fair price, there is no problem.

I don’t think that is the argument here. My personal fear is insurance companies And U.S pharma companies getting control of the NHS.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I don’t think that is the argument here. My personal fear is insurance companies And U.S pharma companies getting control of the NHS.

So please detail how you think these organisations would get this 'control' ?

 

[beorhthelm]

No but then it's not specifically about drug cost. But if you think that pharma companies are lobbying the US government about the UK/US trade deal in order to sell cheaper drugs, I have some magic beans to sell you.

i didnt say that though. i'm only saying this trade bill doesnt alter the current status of drug sales. the argument here is maybe, in future, if other things change, then this thing could happen.

 

[Simster]

i didnt say that though. i'm only saying this trade bill doesnt alter the current status of drug sales. the argument here is maybe, in future, if other things change, then this thing could happen.

This is just your usual Tory boy status quo cheer-leading that bears no relation to reality.

What you actually said is this:

so nothing at all in the bill changes anything relating to drug cost, correct?

Voting that amendment through would have protected the NHS from control outside the UK. The Tories have voted NOT to protect the NHS from external control and one of the main things on the agenda in any future US trade talks will be US drug companies wanting an overhaul to our drug markets so that they can charge "market" (i.e more expensive) rates. Why are you seemingly pretending everything is just normal and nothing has changed?

 

[dingodan]

There are a couple of ways to look at this.

First of all, despite what some people say, there is actually very good reason to assess whether our healthcare system is fit for purpose. Every year the price goes up and the quality goes down. As with everything which is garaunteed by the taxpayer, the incentive to be efficient and value for money is completely absent.

That aside, surely this vote really just means that the opposition parties put forward some suggestion which would allow them to exercise some control over the negotiations, on the pretext of their moral superiority, and the government said "No". It's like the opposition putting forward a motion that dead bunnies should be off the table. The fact that it would get voted down doesn't mean that the government are in favor of dead bunnies, even though the inevitable headline "Government paves way for Bunny Slaughter" would soon follow.

All it means is f*ck off trying to control the negotiations from the opposition benches.

 

[beorhthelm]

This is just your usual Tory boy status quo cheer-leading that bears no relation to reality.

What you actually said is this:

Voting that amendment through would have protected the NHS from control outside the UK. The Tories have voted NOT to protect the NHS from external control and one of the main things on the agenda in any future US trade talks will be US drug companies wanting an overhaul to our drug markets so that they can charge "market" (i.e more expensive) rates. Why are you seemingly pretending everything is just normal and nothing has changed?

so as a result of voting against the amendment what has changed?

its quite tedious accusation of status quo cheer leading, when this whole thread is based on wanting to preserve the status quo. im in full support of changing the model of healthcare in this country, and not to the US one before you say that.

 

[The Clamp]

So please detail how you think these organisations would get this 'control' ?

Dictating what medicines and treatments are available and how much we pay. Obviously, some of this already occurs but as we have seen with Boris Johnson’s tendering of PPE to his business chums who were not qualified or experienced in producing PPE, we cannot rely on Johnson choosing lives over money. If US pharma gets hold of our medical supplies, the costs will soar and only those with insurance will receive adequate treatment.

If one‘s insurance policy dictates the quality of treatment, people will die. I don’t think Boris Johnson or Donald Trump care if that happens as long as the money is coming in. Which is exactly what we saw with Johnson’s PPE policy.

Just before we go into trade negotiations The Tory government votes to take away promised protection of the NHS.

Now, ask yourself seriously, all differences aside; Do you trust this government not to use that to their financial advantage?

 

[portlock seagull]

If you think the Tories are only to blame for the NHS’s plight, I think it’s you that’s being naive.

Anyway, MODs, pop this into the bear pit where it belongs.