- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 13,494
- Reaction score
- 3,386
- Country
So where are these documents available for all and sundry to read?
Is this real proof Tories are flogging the NHS?
- Thread starter Notch7
- Start date
Sponsored Links
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50572502
The BBC's analysis of the document only shows that the US has 'asked for this'....... the US has 'suggested that'.
There is no evidence of anything being put forward by the UK for negotiation and definitely nothing to suggest that the 'NHS is for sale'.
Printing off multiple copies of the 450 paged leaked document is a sign of Corbyn's desperation with only 2 weeks to go.
On ITV news they said it wasn't the 'smoking gun' Corbyn was hoping for. They're not kidding.
The 451 page document is a working group setting out their stall for a basis of future negotiations, the Department for Trade confirmed these were not trade negotiations.
In 451 pages the NHS is mentioned just 4 times.
Including all 451 pages, the NHS is mentioned 4 times, once regarding defending the NHS’s access to cheaper drugs for patients. One sentence even spells out the US were “Sensitive to the particular sensitivities with the health sector in the UK”:
Conservative response:
“Jeremy Corbyn is getting desperate and is out-and-out lying to the public about what these documents contain. He has always believed in conspiracy theories – which is why he has failed to crack down on the scourge of antisemitism in his party. This is the man that has caused huge offence by blaming an imaginary ‘Zionist lobby’ for society’s ills and now he has decided to smear UK officials too.
“People should not believe a word that he says – this stunt is simply a smokescreen for the fact that he has no plan for Brexit and that he has been forced to admit that he wants to increase taxes for millions of families.
“As we have consistently made clear: the NHS will not be on the table in any future trade deal and the price that the NHS pays for drugs will not be on the table. This sort of conspiracy theory fuelled nonsense is not befitting of the leader of a major political party
On ITV news they said it wasn't the 'smoking gun' Corbyn was hoping for. They're not kidding.
The 451 page document is a working group setting out their stall for a basis of future negotiations, the Department for Trade confirmed these were not trade negotiations.
In 451 pages the NHS is mentioned just 4 times.
Including all 451 pages, the NHS is mentioned 4 times, once regarding defending the NHS’s access to cheaper drugs for patients. One sentence even spells out the US were “Sensitive to the particular sensitivities with the health sector in the UK”:
Conservative response:
“Jeremy Corbyn is getting desperate and is out-and-out lying to the public about what these documents contain. He has always believed in conspiracy theories – which is why he has failed to crack down on the scourge of antisemitism in his party. This is the man that has caused huge offence by blaming an imaginary ‘Zionist lobby’ for society’s ills and now he has decided to smear UK officials too.
“People should not believe a word that he says – this stunt is simply a smokescreen for the fact that he has no plan for Brexit and that he has been forced to admit that he wants to increase taxes for millions of families.
“As we have consistently made clear: the NHS will not be on the table in any future trade deal and the price that the NHS pays for drugs will not be on the table. This sort of conspiracy theory fuelled nonsense is not befitting of the leader of a major political party
Fillyboy admits: its a smoking gun.
A US trade deal will absolutely mean increased medicine prices.
Slippery slope.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 13,494
- Reaction score
- 3,386
- Country
BBC's Andrew Neil TV interview of Labour's Barry Gardner
Labour’s Barry Gardiner quoted an annual extra cost of £26bn for the UK buying US drugs - but Andrew Neil says: “It’s ludicrous and you know that figure is scaremongering.”
Mr Neil says the current total bill is actually £18bn for drugs from across the world.
But the Labour man says the point is that the government has said discussions with the US about the NHS are not going on - when the document, he claims, shows that the talks have indeed been happening.
"You're scaring people on the basis of no evidence in the document," Mr Neil says.
Labour’s Barry Gardiner quoted an annual extra cost of £26bn for the UK buying US drugs - but Andrew Neil says: “It’s ludicrous and you know that figure is scaremongering.”
Mr Neil says the current total bill is actually £18bn for drugs from across the world.
But the Labour man says the point is that the government has said discussions with the US about the NHS are not going on - when the document, he claims, shows that the talks have indeed been happening.
"You're scaring people on the basis of no evidence in the document," Mr Neil says.
Barry gardiner sounds as convincing as Notch and Galahad, 26bn extra indeed.
Fake news, totally discredited, time to move on.
I watched Barry Gardiner just crumpling under questions from Andrew Neil.
Another very embarrassing interview for Labour.
Not often a journalist, (even one with the abilities of Andrew Neil), can destroy completely what should have been well thought out statements.
A sign of things to come perhaps if we had Corbyn as PM?
Another very embarrassing interview for Labour.
Not often a journalist, (even one with the abilities of Andrew Neil), can destroy completely what should have been well thought out statements.
A sign of things to come perhaps if we had Corbyn as PM?
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50572502
The BBC's analysis of the document only shows that the US has 'asked for this'....... the US has 'suggested that'.
There is no evidence of anything being put forward by the UK for negotiation and definitely nothing to suggest that the 'NHS is for sale'.
Printing off multiple copies of the 450 paged leaked document is a sign of Corbyn's desperation with only 2 weeks to go.
Hahahaha
On ITV news they said it wasn't the 'smoking gun' Corbyn was hoping for. They're not kidding.
The 451 page document is a working group setting out their stall for a basis of future negotiations, the Department for Trade confirmed these were not trade negotiations.
In 451 pages the NHS is mentioned just 4 times.
Including all 451 pages, the NHS is mentioned 4 times, once regarding defending the NHS’s access to cheaper drugs for patients. One sentence even spells out the US were “Sensitive to the particular sensitivities with the health sector in the UK”:
Conservative response:
“Jeremy Corbyn is getting desperate and is out-and-out lying to the public about what these documents contain. He has always believed in conspiracy theories – which is why he has failed to crack down on the scourge of antisemitism in his party. This is the man that has caused huge offence by blaming an imaginary ‘Zionist lobby’ for society’s ills and now he has decided to smear UK officials too.
“People should not believe a word that he says – this stunt is simply a smokescreen for the fact that he has no plan for Brexit and that he has been forced to admit that he wants to increase taxes for millions of families.
“As we have consistently made clear: the NHS will not be on the table in any future trade deal and the price that the NHS pays for drugs will not be on the table. This sort of conspiracy theory fuelled nonsense is not befitting of the leader of a major political party
Oh my word.
In the document it mentions not to mention the NHS often because they wanted to keep people unawre that they were discussing about the NHS.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/corbyn-us-document-more-than-nhs-to-worry-about/
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
https://globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12992-019-0476-8
Thats a discussion of the deal the US did recently.
https://theconversation.com/the-new-naftas-assault-on-public-health-116918
For prescription drugs, the costs of which have risen dramatically since the era of patent protection in trade agreements, the USMCA contains provisions the Americans wanted in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
These provisions were suspended by the remaining countries when Trump pulled the U.S. out of that agreement. Now they’re back in, but with an even longer 10-year guaranteed monopoly for biologics, a new category of costly drugs used to treat cancers and autoimmune disorders. Generic equivalents known as “biosimilars” can cut the price by almost half.
Canada currently offers eight years of market protection for biologics; *the additional two years could eventually add almost $170 million to each year’s drug costs.Hardest hit would be Mexico, which presently offers no such monopoly rights for biologics.
The USMCA also locks in rules that make it easier for drug companies to “evergreen” their products through minor changes in their components or in how they’re administered, extending the years of patent protection and prevent regulators from using, for several years, the patent drug company’s test data when approving generic versions.
Impact on health regulations
A more subtle but critical set of changes in the USMCA imposes new constraints on the three countries’ abilities to enact health, safety and environmental policies or regulations.
It is these so-called behind-the-border rules in trade and investment agreements that have garnered the greatest public health concerns. The USMCA tries to assuage these concerns by affirming countries’ “inherent right to regulate” including “to protect public health, safety, the environment (and) natural resources.”
But it immediately undercuts this right by specifying that it must be exercised “in a manner consistent with this agreement.” That “consistent manner” includes provisions that could make it harder for Mexico to use existing safeguards under World Trade Organization rules to ensure domestic food security or to guarantee minimum food prices to reduce rural poverty and support small-scale Mexican farmers.
It requires the three governments to ensure that any new international standards upon which new regulations might be based “do not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade,” suggesting trade issues will trump new health regulations. This became an issue even during negotiations, when the U.S. wanted the agreement to ban any front-of-package nutrition labelling that would warn consumers of unhealthy levels of fat, salt or sugar.
Canada and Mexico rejected this, but the USMCA contains several provisions on labelling that could lead to trade disputes should the two other countries choose to adopt new nutrition labels, as Canada is proposing to do.
American and Canadian trade associations representing meat processors have already argued that Canada’s proposal violates the USMCA, portending a possible trade challenge if the USMCA becomes law.
So what does this mean? In short:
1) US Pharma tried and succeeded in making it more difficult for the Canadian health system to fall back on cheaper but still effective alternatives to their expensive medicines by using intellectual property laws;
2) US Pharma tried and succeeded in locking in this (1) state of affairs for a 10 year guaranteed monopoly on their more expensive versions of drugs.
3) The USMCA at the same time made it easier for US Pharma to extend this monopoly through minor changes in the drugs chemical makeup. Technically its a new molecule and a new drug, but the active site of a molecule (IE, the bit that actually makes the drug work) could be wholly unchanged. Think of it like changing a Ford Escorts wing mirror and saying you suddenly have a Lambo. Again, this is tied to intellectual property.
4) The USMCA tied the hands of countries that wanted to get out from under the negative side of this by chaining other sectors of the economy to these clauses and with the addition that concerns about free trade can trump any reasonable objection, including new health regulations.
Now compare this to the image of the leak from Guido (Also, side note, from my POV its hilarious that Guido is saying this is looking like we're heading towards cheaper drugs because this canadian stuff is really easy to find).
https://i0.wp.com/order-order.com/w...81-81ed-a0d654cab02b.jpg?resize=540,343&ssl=1
And you can see that this apparent mechanism of drug monopoly/protectionism via intellectual property is here in spades.
Very good atmosphere with strong discussion on substantive IP issues
The impact of some patent issues raised on NHS access to generic drugs (NB - Equivalent term in the Canadian article above is the bit about "biosimilars") (IE cheaper drugs) will be a key consideration going forward.
Agreed that for the next Working Group we would discuss: Getting a better idea of each others IP systems
We also agreed to come back to some of the specific issues such as GIs and pharma patents
Thats a discussion of the deal the US did recently.
https://theconversation.com/the-new-naftas-assault-on-public-health-116918
For prescription drugs, the costs of which have risen dramatically since the era of patent protection in trade agreements, the USMCA contains provisions the Americans wanted in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
These provisions were suspended by the remaining countries when Trump pulled the U.S. out of that agreement. Now they’re back in, but with an even longer 10-year guaranteed monopoly for biologics, a new category of costly drugs used to treat cancers and autoimmune disorders. Generic equivalents known as “biosimilars” can cut the price by almost half.
Canada currently offers eight years of market protection for biologics; *the additional two years could eventually add almost $170 million to each year’s drug costs.Hardest hit would be Mexico, which presently offers no such monopoly rights for biologics.
The USMCA also locks in rules that make it easier for drug companies to “evergreen” their products through minor changes in their components or in how they’re administered, extending the years of patent protection and prevent regulators from using, for several years, the patent drug company’s test data when approving generic versions.
Impact on health regulations
A more subtle but critical set of changes in the USMCA imposes new constraints on the three countries’ abilities to enact health, safety and environmental policies or regulations.
It is these so-called behind-the-border rules in trade and investment agreements that have garnered the greatest public health concerns. The USMCA tries to assuage these concerns by affirming countries’ “inherent right to regulate” including “to protect public health, safety, the environment (and) natural resources.”
But it immediately undercuts this right by specifying that it must be exercised “in a manner consistent with this agreement.” That “consistent manner” includes provisions that could make it harder for Mexico to use existing safeguards under World Trade Organization rules to ensure domestic food security or to guarantee minimum food prices to reduce rural poverty and support small-scale Mexican farmers.
It requires the three governments to ensure that any new international standards upon which new regulations might be based “do not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade,” suggesting trade issues will trump new health regulations. This became an issue even during negotiations, when the U.S. wanted the agreement to ban any front-of-package nutrition labelling that would warn consumers of unhealthy levels of fat, salt or sugar.
Canada and Mexico rejected this, but the USMCA contains several provisions on labelling that could lead to trade disputes should the two other countries choose to adopt new nutrition labels, as Canada is proposing to do.
American and Canadian trade associations representing meat processors have already argued that Canada’s proposal violates the USMCA, portending a possible trade challenge if the USMCA becomes law.
So what does this mean? In short:
1) US Pharma tried and succeeded in making it more difficult for the Canadian health system to fall back on cheaper but still effective alternatives to their expensive medicines by using intellectual property laws;
2) US Pharma tried and succeeded in locking in this (1) state of affairs for a 10 year guaranteed monopoly on their more expensive versions of drugs.
3) The USMCA at the same time made it easier for US Pharma to extend this monopoly through minor changes in the drugs chemical makeup. Technically its a new molecule and a new drug, but the active site of a molecule (IE, the bit that actually makes the drug work) could be wholly unchanged. Think of it like changing a Ford Escorts wing mirror and saying you suddenly have a Lambo. Again, this is tied to intellectual property.
4) The USMCA tied the hands of countries that wanted to get out from under the negative side of this by chaining other sectors of the economy to these clauses and with the addition that concerns about free trade can trump any reasonable objection, including new health regulations.
Now compare this to the image of the leak from Guido (Also, side note, from my POV its hilarious that Guido is saying this is looking like we're heading towards cheaper drugs because this canadian stuff is really easy to find).
https://i0.wp.com/order-order.com/w...81-81ed-a0d654cab02b.jpg?resize=540,343&ssl=1
And you can see that this apparent mechanism of drug monopoly/protectionism via intellectual property is here in spades.
Very good atmosphere with strong discussion on substantive IP issues
The impact of some patent issues raised on NHS access to generic drugs (NB - Equivalent term in the Canadian article above is the bit about "biosimilars") (IE cheaper drugs) will be a key consideration going forward.
Agreed that for the next Working Group we would discuss: Getting a better idea of each others IP systems
We also agreed to come back to some of the specific issues such as GIs and pharma patents
- Joined
- 17 May 2012
- Messages
- 10,818
- Reaction score
- 859
- Country
The NHS is a government organisation, nobody else can be blamed for its failure.
The Tories are breaking up the NHS.
If the Tories had zero interest in discussing NHS they wouldnt have bitgered have 6 trade meetings.
1 meeting wouldve been enough to say NO.
Sponsored Links
