Privatise the NHS

[Renton 21985]

Is that the best you can do?

 

Anyway Chez, good post, to really balance this thread we'd need another health economist with a contrary view I think.

Incidentally I'm thinking of doing a diploma in health economics next year, might need some advice next time I see you, if that's OK.

It may well happen, the Conservatives suggested it ages ago, and with the future financial and political prospects Brown and Darling may just become desperate enough to try it themselves (and I told you you couldn't resist )..

 

Who knows what will happen in the future, especially if we end up with a tory government. But much like your last post, it's hardly relevant to the thread, unless you are deliberately trying to derail it, in order to detract attention on how clueless you have come across.

It was only bumped to mention and alleged prediction on the future of the NHS and public/private funding paths, is that derailing it? (and you're still at it )

 

Then please feel free to bump this thread when your 'prediction' comes true.

[manc-mag 1]

Is that the best you can do?

 

Anyway Chez, good post, to really balance this thread we'd need another health economist with a contrary view I think.

Incidentally I'm thinking of doing a diploma in health economics next year, might need some advice next time I see you, if that's OK.

It may well happen, the Conservatives suggested it ages ago, and with the future financial and political prospects Brown and Darling may just become desperate enough to try it themselves (and I told you you couldn't resist )..

 

Who knows what will happen in the future, especially if we end up with a tory government. But much like your last post, it's hardly relevant to the thread, unless you are deliberately trying to derail it, in order to detract attention on how clueless you have come across.

 

 

True though eh? And funny too.

[Renton 21985]

The largest inverstor in R&D of any organisation in the world is Pfizer. The cost of developing one drug is around $1-1.5bn, profitability is usually reached at around 5 years post-marketing, then you have 5 years left of exclusivity. The ratio between R&D spend, Revenue and profitability for an average pharma company is the same as for Google inc.

 

People don't die without access to Google though, the profits that pharmaceuticals pull in is criminal, you say I went a bit far with the Haliburton comparison, but honestly, it's akin to war profiteering as far as I'm concerned. Letting poor people die by in order to maximise profits.

 

Marketing spend is not 'advertising', its only allowed in the US in diluted form. It relfects 'headcount', the people who work there and whose salaries support the economy. Materials for promotion account for a fraction. The majority is sponsoring medical conferences where you basically just donate money. The content is decided by scientific committees.

 

Cost-effectiveness is wholly arbitrary, what is considered cost-effective in Bulgaria is very different to the UK due to national incomes. NICE is currently consulting on raising the limit.

 

The inside track on this is parallel trade and reference pricing. PT refers to when wholesalers buy drugs in one country at one price and sell in another at a high price. This means companies wont drop the price for the UK as the distribution chain would demand extra product and then export it to higher priced countries. For a while, the EU and national governments thought this was a great idea until someone pointed out that the drugs still get sold at the high price in the importing country and the extracted 'value' from the market went to 'wholesalers' who invest nothing in the future health of a population. So they backed away scratching their chins.

 

The drugs are accepted and paid for by Germany, Spain, Italy and France so the companies have no incentive to drop the prices just for the UK as they can not limit the impact of this price drop just to the UK market. Hence they dont bow to the pressure from NICE, they just walk away from the UK market as has been seen in the last few years.

 

Far from having the perverse effect you predict HF, its my view that this is a masterstroke from the UK government. Instead of the government getting the blame (as the patient never incurs any costs apart from when the government tells them they have to pay), now the company charging the high prices will get the blame as the discussion and visibility around prices will move away from the government to the suppliers. I wholly support this.

 

I doubt the corporations will suddenly develop a conscience though so what do they care about being blamed when they've pulled in billions in profits? It's supposed to be governments role, protecting ALL of it's citizens equally. We don't have the democratic power to vote out a corporation do we? Passing the buck onto them is a cowardly move to abdicate responsibility.

 

Are you aware we live in a capitalist society? I'm beginning to suspect you may be a communist.

[Fop 1]

Is that the best you can do?

 

Anyway Chez, good post, to really balance this thread we'd need another health economist with a contrary view I think.

Incidentally I'm thinking of doing a diploma in health economics next year, might need some advice next time I see you, if that's OK.

It may well happen, the Conservatives suggested it ages ago, and with the future financial and political prospects Brown and Darling may just become desperate enough to try it themselves (and I told you you couldn't resist )..

 

Who knows what will happen in the future, especially if we end up with a tory government. But much like your last post, it's hardly relevant to the thread, unless you are deliberately trying to derail it, in order to detract attention on how clueless you have come across.

It was only bumped to mention and alleged prediction on the future of the NHS and public/private funding paths, is that derailing it? (and you're still at it )

 

Then please feel free to bump this thread when your 'prediction' comes true.

Sir, yes, sir!!

 

Until then I'll discuss future predictions much like Chezzy claims to have done.

 

Is that the best you can do?

 

Anyway Chez, good post, to really balance this thread we'd need another health economist with a contrary view I think.

Incidentally I'm thinking of doing a diploma in health economics next year, might need some advice next time I see you, if that's OK.

It may well happen, the Conservatives suggested it ages ago, and with the future financial and political prospects Brown and Darling may just become desperate enough to try it themselves (and I told you you couldn't resist )..

 

Who knows what will happen in the future, especially if we end up with a tory government. But much like your last post, it's hardly relevant to the thread, unless you are deliberately trying to derail it, in order to detract attention on how clueless you have come across.

 

 

True though eh? And funny too.

 

Well in an untrue and unfunny way, yes.

[manc-mag 1]

Is that the best you can do?

 

Anyway Chez, good post, to really balance this thread we'd need another health economist with a contrary view I think.

Incidentally I'm thinking of doing a diploma in health economics next year, might need some advice next time I see you, if that's OK.

It may well happen, the Conservatives suggested it ages ago, and with the future financial and political prospects Brown and Darling may just become desperate enough to try it themselves (and I told you you couldn't resist )..

 

Who knows what will happen in the future, especially if we end up with a tory government. But much like your last post, it's hardly relevant to the thread, unless you are deliberately trying to derail it, in order to detract attention on how clueless you have come across.

It was only bumped to mention and alleged prediction on the future of the NHS and public/private funding paths, is that derailing it? (and you're still at it )

 

Then please feel free to bump this thread when your 'prediction' comes true.

Sir, yes, sir!!

 

Until then I'll discuss future predictions much like Chezzy claims to have done.

 

Is that the best you can do?

 

Anyway Chez, good post, to really balance this thread we'd need another health economist with a contrary view I think.

Incidentally I'm thinking of doing a diploma in health economics next year, might need some advice next time I see you, if that's OK.

It may well happen, the Conservatives suggested it ages ago, and with the future financial and political prospects Brown and Darling may just become desperate enough to try it themselves (and I told you you couldn't resist )..

 

Who knows what will happen in the future, especially if we end up with a tory government. But much like your last post, it's hardly relevant to the thread, unless you are deliberately trying to derail it, in order to detract attention on how clueless you have come across.

 

 

True though eh? And funny too.

 

Well in an untrue and unfunny way, yes.

 

No, as in the way I quite clearly said.

[Fop 1]

Is that the best you can do?

 

Anyway Chez, good post, to really balance this thread we'd need another health economist with a contrary view I think.

Incidentally I'm thinking of doing a diploma in health economics next year, might need some advice next time I see you, if that's OK.

It may well happen, the Conservatives suggested it ages ago, and with the future financial and political prospects Brown and Darling may just become desperate enough to try it themselves (and I told you you couldn't resist )..

 

Who knows what will happen in the future, especially if we end up with a tory government. But much like your last post, it's hardly relevant to the thread, unless you are deliberately trying to derail it, in order to detract attention on how clueless you have come across.

It was only bumped to mention and alleged prediction on the future of the NHS and public/private funding paths, is that derailing it? (and you're still at it )

 

Then please feel free to bump this thread when your 'prediction' comes true.

Sir, yes, sir!!

 

Until then I'll discuss future predictions much like Chezzy claims to have done.

 

Is that the best you can do?

 

Anyway Chez, good post, to really balance this thread we'd need another health economist with a contrary view I think.

Incidentally I'm thinking of doing a diploma in health economics next year, might need some advice next time I see you, if that's OK.

It may well happen, the Conservatives suggested it ages ago, and with the future financial and political prospects Brown and Darling may just become desperate enough to try it themselves (and I told you you couldn't resist )..

 

Who knows what will happen in the future, especially if we end up with a tory government. But much like your last post, it's hardly relevant to the thread, unless you are deliberately trying to derail it, in order to detract attention on how clueless you have come across.

 

 

True though eh? And funny too.

 

Well in an untrue and unfunny way, yes.

 

No, as in the way I quite clearly said.

Afraid not.

[manc-mag 1]

Obviously not to you, but we know that already. I was merely referring to every right minded person.

[Happy Face 29]

The largest inverstor in R&D of any organisation in the world is Pfizer. The cost of developing one drug is around $1-1.5bn, profitability is usually reached at around 5 years post-marketing, then you have 5 years left of exclusivity. The ratio between R&D spend, Revenue and profitability for an average pharma company is the same as for Google inc.

 

People don't die without access to Google though, the profits that pharmaceuticals pull in is criminal, you say I went a bit far with the Haliburton comparison, but honestly, it's akin to war profiteering as far as I'm concerned. Letting poor people die by in order to maximise profits.

 

Marketing spend is not 'advertising', its only allowed in the US in diluted form. It relfects 'headcount', the people who work there and whose salaries support the economy. Materials for promotion account for a fraction. The majority is sponsoring medical conferences where you basically just donate money. The content is decided by scientific committees.

 

Cost-effectiveness is wholly arbitrary, what is considered cost-effective in Bulgaria is very different to the UK due to national incomes. NICE is currently consulting on raising the limit.

 

The inside track on this is parallel trade and reference pricing. PT refers to when wholesalers buy drugs in one country at one price and sell in another at a high price. This means companies wont drop the price for the UK as the distribution chain would demand extra product and then export it to higher priced countries. For a while, the EU and national governments thought this was a great idea until someone pointed out that the drugs still get sold at the high price in the importing country and the extracted 'value' from the market went to 'wholesalers' who invest nothing in the future health of a population. So they backed away scratching their chins.

 

The drugs are accepted and paid for by Germany, Spain, Italy and France so the companies have no incentive to drop the prices just for the UK as they can not limit the impact of this price drop just to the UK market. Hence they dont bow to the pressure from NICE, they just walk away from the UK market as has been seen in the last few years.

 

Far from having the perverse effect you predict HF, its my view that this is a masterstroke from the UK government. Instead of the government getting the blame (as the patient never incurs any costs apart from when the government tells them they have to pay), now the company charging the high prices will get the blame as the discussion and visibility around prices will move away from the government to the suppliers. I wholly support this.

 

I doubt the corporations will suddenly develop a conscience though so what do they care about being blamed when they've pulled in billions in profits? It's supposed to be governments role, protecting ALL of it's citizens equally. We don't have the democratic power to vote out a corporation do we? Passing the buck onto them is a cowardly move to abdicate responsibility.

 

Are you aware we live in a capitalist society? I'm beginning to suspect you may be a communist.

 

We did live in a capitalist society. Have you not been watching the news? The US govenrment just gave private firms $700bn dollars. The UK government are nationalising the banks.

 

Communism and capitalism are dead in the water. I'm a democratic socialist.

[Fop 1]

Obviously not to you, but we know that already. I was merely referring to every right minded person.

And Chezzy too then clearly.

[Fop 1]

The largest inverstor in R&D of any organisation in the world is Pfizer. The cost of developing one drug is around $1-1.5bn, profitability is usually reached at around 5 years post-marketing, then you have 5 years left of exclusivity. The ratio between R&D spend, Revenue and profitability for an average pharma company is the same as for Google inc.

 

People don't die without access to Google though, the profits that pharmaceuticals pull in is criminal, you say I went a bit far with the Haliburton comparison, but honestly, it's akin to war profiteering as far as I'm concerned. Letting poor people die by in order to maximise profits.

 

Marketing spend is not 'advertising', its only allowed in the US in diluted form. It relfects 'headcount', the people who work there and whose salaries support the economy. Materials for promotion account for a fraction. The majority is sponsoring medical conferences where you basically just donate money. The content is decided by scientific committees.

 

Cost-effectiveness is wholly arbitrary, what is considered cost-effective in Bulgaria is very different to the UK due to national incomes. NICE is currently consulting on raising the limit.

 

The inside track on this is parallel trade and reference pricing. PT refers to when wholesalers buy drugs in one country at one price and sell in another at a high price. This means companies wont drop the price for the UK as the distribution chain would demand extra product and then export it to higher priced countries. For a while, the EU and national governments thought this was a great idea until someone pointed out that the drugs still get sold at the high price in the importing country and the extracted 'value' from the market went to 'wholesalers' who invest nothing in the future health of a population. So they backed away scratching their chins.

 

The drugs are accepted and paid for by Germany, Spain, Italy and France so the companies have no incentive to drop the prices just for the UK as they can not limit the impact of this price drop just to the UK market. Hence they dont bow to the pressure from NICE, they just walk away from the UK market as has been seen in the last few years.

 

Far from having the perverse effect you predict HF, its my view that this is a masterstroke from the UK government. Instead of the government getting the blame (as the patient never incurs any costs apart from when the government tells them they have to pay), now the company charging the high prices will get the blame as the discussion and visibility around prices will move away from the government to the suppliers. I wholly support this.

 

I doubt the corporations will suddenly develop a conscience though so what do they care about being blamed when they've pulled in billions in profits? It's supposed to be governments role, protecting ALL of it's citizens equally. We don't have the democratic power to vote out a corporation do we? Passing the buck onto them is a cowardly move to abdicate responsibility.

 

Are you aware we live in a capitalist society? I'm beginning to suspect you may be a communist.

 

We did live in a capitalist society. Have you not been watching the news? The US govenrment just gave private firms $700bn dollars. The UK government are nationalising the banks.

 

Communism and capitalism are dead in the water. I'm a democratic socialist.

 

 

Even the USA is communist now (although this is derailing, I guess).

[manc-mag 1]

Obviously not to you, but we know that already. I was merely referring to every right minded person.

And Chezzy too then clearly.

 

I reckon he'll be consoled by the fact he's made you look like the ignoramus you are tbh.

[Fop 1]

Obviously not to you, but we know that already. I was merely referring to every right minded person.

And Chezzy too then clearly.

 

I reckon he'll be consoled by the fact he's made you look like the ignoramus you are tbh.

How?

[Gemmill 46027]

Obviously not to you, but we know that already. I was merely referring to every right minded person.

And Chezzy too then clearly.

 

What a fucking polesmoker you are, lad.

[Fop 1]

Obviously not to you, but we know that already. I was merely referring to every right minded person.

And Chezzy too then clearly.

 

What a fucking polesmoker you are, lad.

Indeed, being right does tend to make people think that.

[manc-mag 1]

Obviously not to you, but we know that already. I was merely referring to every right minded person.

And Chezzy too then clearly.

 

I reckon he'll be consoled by the fact he's made you look like the ignoramus you are tbh.

How?

 

"I've already answered that." ®©™

[Fop 1]

Obviously not to you, but we know that already. I was merely referring to every right minded person.

And Chezzy too then clearly.

 

I reckon he'll be consoled by the fact he's made you look like the ignoramus you are tbh.

How?

 

"I've already answered that." ®©™

Ooooooooooooh no you haven't.

[Happy Face 29]

Rents, more than happy to help mate, anytime.

 

I'll be at the Wigan game if you are around, can have a chat then.

 

Cheers, just an idea at the moment, I need to see if it has legs, will probably be at the Wigan meet.

 

He'll have you pushing kiddy prozac tests and blocking DCA ones in no time.

 

[ChezGiven 0]

People don't die without access to Google though, the profits that pharmaceuticals pull in is criminal, you say I went a bit far with the Haliburton comparison, but honestly, it's akin to war profiteering as far as I'm concerned. Letting poor people die by in order to maximise profits.

 

Why is it not criminal for google to make profits? Is access to information not as important as access to medicines?

 

You seem to think that these drugs are available and therefore could be distributed free of charge. They only exist because the company devotes billions in researching them. No one would invest any money in research if there was no profit. The profit margin is average for a corporation.

 

GSK donated a drug to the third world for 11 years and the upshot was it has virtually eradicated lymphatic fliarisis.

 

http://www.gsk.com/filariasis/

 

It is able to do that by making profits elsewhere. It also distributes HIV medicines at the cost of production in participating African countries. The conditions for this is that they dont end up in hospitals in London as corruption means they are exported by unscrupulous actors in the African healthcare system. If they can guarantee that Africans with HIV receive the drug, then its supplied at cost. They also go beyond that

 

http://www.gsk.com/community/positiveactio...yprogrammes.htm

 

The mindset change over the last 5 years is that it appears to be that the companies with the resources to do something about the problems that exist are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

 

Making money for 'the man' and being actively involved in selling widgets or IT services is far less impactful on global health problems than working within the sector.

 

Ultimately, its all about 10 years exclusivity. After the patent expiry, everyone can come in and sell them at whatever price they want. Its funny that many of the worlds HIV drugs have been off-patent for years now and yet the HIV problem still exists. Actually, its not funny and neither are narrow-minded anti-corporationist views that are best left on campus and not in the real world.

 

Poverty kills poor people not pharma companies.

[Fop 1]

Poverty kills poor people not pharma companies.

 

Very true, they only want to keep them alive if they can pay.

[Renton 21985]

The largest inverstor in R&D of any organisation in the world is Pfizer. The cost of developing one drug is around $1-1.5bn, profitability is usually reached at around 5 years post-marketing, then you have 5 years left of exclusivity. The ratio between R&D spend, Revenue and profitability for an average pharma company is the same as for Google inc.

 

People don't die without access to Google though, the profits that pharmaceuticals pull in is criminal, you say I went a bit far with the Haliburton comparison, but honestly, it's akin to war profiteering as far as I'm concerned. Letting poor people die by in order to maximise profits.

 

Marketing spend is not 'advertising', its only allowed in the US in diluted form. It relfects 'headcount', the people who work there and whose salaries support the economy. Materials for promotion account for a fraction. The majority is sponsoring medical conferences where you basically just donate money. The content is decided by scientific committees.

 

Cost-effectiveness is wholly arbitrary, what is considered cost-effective in Bulgaria is very different to the UK due to national incomes. NICE is currently consulting on raising the limit.

 

The inside track on this is parallel trade and reference pricing. PT refers to when wholesalers buy drugs in one country at one price and sell in another at a high price. This means companies wont drop the price for the UK as the distribution chain would demand extra product and then export it to higher priced countries. For a while, the EU and national governments thought this was a great idea until someone pointed out that the drugs still get sold at the high price in the importing country and the extracted 'value' from the market went to 'wholesalers' who invest nothing in the future health of a population. So they backed away scratching their chins.

 

The drugs are accepted and paid for by Germany, Spain, Italy and France so the companies have no incentive to drop the prices just for the UK as they can not limit the impact of this price drop just to the UK market. Hence they dont bow to the pressure from NICE, they just walk away from the UK market as has been seen in the last few years.

 

Far from having the perverse effect you predict HF, its my view that this is a masterstroke from the UK government. Instead of the government getting the blame (as the patient never incurs any costs apart from when the government tells them they have to pay), now the company charging the high prices will get the blame as the discussion and visibility around prices will move away from the government to the suppliers. I wholly support this.

 

I doubt the corporations will suddenly develop a conscience though so what do they care about being blamed when they've pulled in billions in profits? It's supposed to be governments role, protecting ALL of it's citizens equally. We don't have the democratic power to vote out a corporation do we? Passing the buck onto them is a cowardly move to abdicate responsibility.

 

Are you aware we live in a capitalist society? I'm beginning to suspect you may be a communist.

 

We did live in a capitalist society. Have you not been watching the news? The US govenrment just gave private firms $700bn dollars. The UK government are nationalising the banks.

 

Communism and capitalism are dead in the water. I'm a democratic socialist.

 

 

Even the USA is communist now (although this is derailing, I guess).

 

That's just utter bollocks and detracts from HF's point, weak as it was. The collapse of the banking system hardly make the UK or the US communist countries.

 

I guess neither of you are being serious although with you its hard to tell.

[Guest alex]

The largest inverstor in R&D of any organisation in the world is Pfizer. The cost of developing one drug is around $1-1.5bn, profitability is usually reached at around 5 years post-marketing, then you have 5 years left of exclusivity. The ratio between R&D spend, Revenue and profitability for an average pharma company is the same as for Google inc.

 

People don't die without access to Google though, the profits that pharmaceuticals pull in is criminal, you say I went a bit far with the Haliburton comparison, but honestly, it's akin to war profiteering as far as I'm concerned. Letting poor people die by in order to maximise profits.

 

Marketing spend is not 'advertising', its only allowed in the US in diluted form. It relfects 'headcount', the people who work there and whose salaries support the economy. Materials for promotion account for a fraction. The majority is sponsoring medical conferences where you basically just donate money. The content is decided by scientific committees.

 

Cost-effectiveness is wholly arbitrary, what is considered cost-effective in Bulgaria is very different to the UK due to national incomes. NICE is currently consulting on raising the limit.

 

The inside track on this is parallel trade and reference pricing. PT refers to when wholesalers buy drugs in one country at one price and sell in another at a high price. This means companies wont drop the price for the UK as the distribution chain would demand extra product and then export it to higher priced countries. For a while, the EU and national governments thought this was a great idea until someone pointed out that the drugs still get sold at the high price in the importing country and the extracted 'value' from the market went to 'wholesalers' who invest nothing in the future health of a population. So they backed away scratching their chins.

 

The drugs are accepted and paid for by Germany, Spain, Italy and France so the companies have no incentive to drop the prices just for the UK as they can not limit the impact of this price drop just to the UK market. Hence they dont bow to the pressure from NICE, they just walk away from the UK market as has been seen in the last few years.

 

Far from having the perverse effect you predict HF, its my view that this is a masterstroke from the UK government. Instead of the government getting the blame (as the patient never incurs any costs apart from when the government tells them they have to pay), now the company charging the high prices will get the blame as the discussion and visibility around prices will move away from the government to the suppliers. I wholly support this.

 

I doubt the corporations will suddenly develop a conscience though so what do they care about being blamed when they've pulled in billions in profits? It's supposed to be governments role, protecting ALL of it's citizens equally. We don't have the democratic power to vote out a corporation do we? Passing the buck onto them is a cowardly move to abdicate responsibility.

 

Are you aware we live in a capitalist society? I'm beginning to suspect you may be a communist.

 

We did live in a capitalist society. Have you not been watching the news? The US govenrment just gave private firms $700bn dollars. The UK government are nationalising the banks.

 

Communism and capitalism are dead in the water. I'm a democratic socialist.

 

 

Even the USA is communist now (although this is derailing, I guess).

 

That's just utter bollocks and detracts from HF's point, weak as it was. The collapse of the banking system hardly make the UK or the US communist countries.

 

I guess neither of you are being serious although with you its hard to tell.

[Renton 21985]

Actually, its not funny and neither are narrow-minded anti-corporationist views that are best left on campus and not in the real world.

 

Edited November 7, 2008 by Renton

[Fop 1]

The largest inverstor in R&D of any organisation in the world is Pfizer. The cost of developing one drug is around $1-1.5bn, profitability is usually reached at around 5 years post-marketing, then you have 5 years left of exclusivity. The ratio between R&D spend, Revenue and profitability for an average pharma company is the same as for Google inc.

 

People don't die without access to Google though, the profits that pharmaceuticals pull in is criminal, you say I went a bit far with the Haliburton comparison, but honestly, it's akin to war profiteering as far as I'm concerned. Letting poor people die by in order to maximise profits.

 

Marketing spend is not 'advertising', its only allowed in the US in diluted form. It relfects 'headcount', the people who work there and whose salaries support the economy. Materials for promotion account for a fraction. The majority is sponsoring medical conferences where you basically just donate money. The content is decided by scientific committees.

 

Cost-effectiveness is wholly arbitrary, what is considered cost-effective in Bulgaria is very different to the UK due to national incomes. NICE is currently consulting on raising the limit.

 

The inside track on this is parallel trade and reference pricing. PT refers to when wholesalers buy drugs in one country at one price and sell in another at a high price. This means companies wont drop the price for the UK as the distribution chain would demand extra product and then export it to higher priced countries. For a while, the EU and national governments thought this was a great idea until someone pointed out that the drugs still get sold at the high price in the importing country and the extracted 'value' from the market went to 'wholesalers' who invest nothing in the future health of a population. So they backed away scratching their chins.

 

The drugs are accepted and paid for by Germany, Spain, Italy and France so the companies have no incentive to drop the prices just for the UK as they can not limit the impact of this price drop just to the UK market. Hence they dont bow to the pressure from NICE, they just walk away from the UK market as has been seen in the last few years.

 

Far from having the perverse effect you predict HF, its my view that this is a masterstroke from the UK government. Instead of the government getting the blame (as the patient never incurs any costs apart from when the government tells them they have to pay), now the company charging the high prices will get the blame as the discussion and visibility around prices will move away from the government to the suppliers. I wholly support this.

 

I doubt the corporations will suddenly develop a conscience though so what do they care about being blamed when they've pulled in billions in profits? It's supposed to be governments role, protecting ALL of it's citizens equally. We don't have the democratic power to vote out a corporation do we? Passing the buck onto them is a cowardly move to abdicate responsibility.

 

Are you aware we live in a capitalist society? I'm beginning to suspect you may be a communist.

 

We did live in a capitalist society. Have you not been watching the news? The US govenrment just gave private firms $700bn dollars. The UK government are nationalising the banks.

 

Communism and capitalism are dead in the water. I'm a democratic socialist.

 

 

Even the USA is communist now (although this is derailing, I guess).

 

That's just utter bollocks and detracts from HF's point, weak as it was. The collapse of the banking system hardly make the UK or the US communist countries.

 

I guess neither of you are being serious although with you its hard to tell.

He is a tad serious for someone that's not getting involved in pointless circular arguments.

[ChezGiven 0]

Capitalism just means that there is not one person in charge of ensuring that you get your coffee, tea, milk, sugar, paper, cigarettes, porn mag, pizza, sandwich, cinema ticket, beer, petrol, whore (typical day). Saying it doesnt exist anymore is just crazy.

[Tooj 17]

Adam's a reet clever bastard. That is all.