I think you should have said "might". More likely they would outsource specific services and do deals for the NHS to buy American drugs.This means that our government is going to sell off our NHS, presumably to the USA.
I think you should have said "might". More likely they would outsource specific services and do deals for the NHS to buy American drugs.
Yet another scaremonger, who just posts without checking, there is no intention to privatise the NHS, the amendment was voted done, as I understand,as it was irrelevant to the bill going through Parliament, Please don’t post this sort of thing as it can and does cause a lot of unnecessary concern confusion and worry to peopleAccording to the UK Parliament official Twitter account, the majority of the MPs in Parliament have blocked New Clause 17, a bill designed to protect the NHS from outside country interference.
This means that our government is might sell off our NHS, presumably to the USA.
This means we will end up having to pay MONEY for our medication. Potentially thousands JUST for a life-saving drug, like many Americans have to do today.
This is going to cause so many unnecessary deaths, deaths that could have been prevented.
Is that a good thing, though? For example, HIV medication Tenofovir/Emtricitabine (branded Truvada) is still patented in the US and costs about $2000 for a month's course. Meanwhile, generics with the same active ingredients cost about £20 a month in the UK. I'm concerned that US organisations will try to bring with them an exclusive use of those expensive, still US patented drugs, vastly increasing the costs to the NHS and the taxpayer and the money going straight to the US pharmaceutical giants. Or worse still, that a trade deal will outlaw the import of the generics, leaving the expensive US patented drugs as the only option.I think you should have said "might". More likely they would outsource specific services and do deals for the NHS to buy American drugs.
It is certainly not a good thing and I didn't suggest it was. The Tories claim the NHS is safe but when there is an amendment to put that into law they whip their MPs to vote it down. However the OP's suggestion that they were going to sell off the NHS was speculation presented as fact. (The post has now been edited by the OP).Is that a good thing, though? For example, HIV medication Tenofovir/Emtricitabine (branded Truvada) is still patented in the US and costs about $2000 for a month's course. Meanwhile, generics with the same active ingredients cost about £20 a month in the UK. I'm concerned that US organisations will try to bring with them an exclusive use of those expensive, still US patented drugs, vastly increasing the costs to the NHS and the taxpayer and the money going straight to the US pharmaceutical giants. Or worse still, that a trade deal will outlaw the import of the generics, leaving the expensive US patented drugs as the only option.
Disclosure here: I'm a user of PrEP (supplied and monitored by the NHS, or at least Virgincare on their behalf) which is where you take Truvada to provide almost 100% immunity to HIV, rather than as a treatment once you're infected. NHS England has been dragging its heels for years, stretching out a 'trial' that basically limited access to the drug, and kept it from many people in the risk groups that would benefit from it. They've finally agreed that the benefits in preventing the spread of HIV outweigh the costs, but if the drug ends up costing nearly 100 times as much as it does now, they will almost certainly have to start rationing it again.
Agreed. I could have worded it better. Maybe I should have asked whether that scenario was any better.It is certainly not a good thing and I didn't suggest it was. The Tories claim the NHS is safe but when there is an amendment to put that into law they whip their MPs to vote it down. However the OP's suggestion that they were going to sell off the NHS was speculation presented as fact. (The post has now been edited by the OP).
Scaremongering? Unfortunately NOT. Project fear is now project fact. MP's voted down legal bid to protect the NHS from US/UK deal. There is a reason why NONE of the other 27 EU states even want a referendum, even the right winged countries. They dont want to sacrifice their standard, their healthcare etc etc.Yet another scaremonger, who just posts without checking, there is no intention to privatise the NHS, the amendment was voted done, as I understand,as it was irrelevant to the bill going through Parliament, Please don’t post this sort of thing as it can and does cause a lot of unnecessary concern confusion and worry to people
Is that a good thing, though? For example, HIV medication Tenofovir/Emtricitabine (branded Truvada) is still patented in the US and costs about $2000 for a month's course. Meanwhile, generics with the same active ingredients cost about £20 a month in the UK. I'm concerned that US organisations will try to bring with them an exclusive use of those expensive, still US patented drugs, vastly increasing the costs to the NHS and the taxpayer and the money going straight to the US pharmaceutical giants. Or worse still, that a trade deal will outlaw the import of the generics, leaving the expensive US patented drugs as the only option.
Disclosure here: I'm a user of PrEP (supplied and monitored by the NHS, or at least Virgincare on their behalf) which is where you take Truvada to provide almost 100% immunity to HIV, rather than as a treatment once you're infected. NHS England has been dragging its heels for years, stretching out a 'trial' that basically limited access to the drug, and kept it from many people in the risk groups that would benefit from it. They've finally agreed that the benefits in preventing the spread of HIV outweigh the costs, but if the drug ends up costing nearly 100 times as much as it does now, they will almost certainly have to start rationing it again.
On the other hand...Tthis morning, looking at our village Facebook page, I noticed this attached to another member's post. Dr Luke Evans (former GP, whose wife is still a working GP) is our local MP.
It was originally posted about 3 days ago, but I've only just seen it.
I didn't post a view either, it's good to hear both sides of the argument surely?Mr_Pot - You will note that I posted no view on the veracity or otherwise of that quoted content, any more that I'll comment on the content of yours .
I don't believe this is a place for politicisation, although we can all fall foul from time to time.
I didn't post a view either, it's good to hear both sides of the argument surely?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?