Brexit: Now What? Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wudang said:
I believe US healthcare providers aren't allowed to band together to get bulk discounts so basically pay retail price (or close) for everything.
Click to expand...

And of course our social health care programs are legally barred from any negotiation on drug prices.
 
ceptimus said:
Doesn't seem to be related specifically to Brexit - it's about what the USA charges the NHS to buy drugs - those prices could go up or down regardless of Brexit. The same applies to USA-produced drugs sold to other European countries.
Click to expand...

Oh come now, you don't expect anyone to buy that nonsense do you? We are specifically talking about Trump potentially demanding higher prices for US made drugs sold in the UK as part of a post Brexit trade deal. It could hardly be more Brexit related.

ETA: And I love the way Trump's response to US healthcare providers being charged higher prices is to make everyone else pay more rather than wonder if maybe US companies are overcharging those providers.
 
Last edited:
Wudang said:
I believe US healthcare providers aren't allowed to band together to get bulk discounts so basically pay retail price (or close) for everything.
Click to expand...


Not exactly. Private companies can and do use their size and volume of purchases to negotiate better prices from the drug companies.

The U.S. government, which via programs like Medicare is the largest volume purchaser of drugs in the country, can't.

In the UK the NHS is allowed to negotiate with the drug companies, using their volume as a bargaining point. If Medicare, etc. could do that then the U.S. might be in a comparable position
 
Information Analyst said:
So much for the free market.
Click to expand...


It is the free marketeers who argue that a market cannot be free if government entities participate in it. That's why there are laws against such things in the U.S.

For example, local governments which want to provide broadband access to their communities without adequate access from other sources are prevented by such laws, because they compete illegally with that so-called 'free' market.
 
quadraginta said:
It is the free marketeers who argue that a market cannot be free if government entities participate in it. That's why there are laws against such things in the U.S.

For example, local governments which want to provide broadband access to their communities without adequate access from other sources are prevented by such laws, because they compete illegally with that so-called 'free' market.
Click to expand...

But but but surely the all-powerful market will ensure that the most efficient and cheapest solution wins and government is incapable of being efficient and cheap. Isn't that the dogma?
 
Wudang said:
But but but surely the all-powerful market will ensure that the most efficient and cheapest solution wins and government is incapable of being efficient and cheap. Isn't that the dogma?
Click to expand...


No. The dogma is that it isn't fair.

The big, bad governments of local municipalities have more resources to take advantage of than poor, widdle, entrepreneurs like Time Warner and AT&T.

Because, above all, the free market must be fair.

That's dogma. At least for this.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
No. The dogma is that it isn't fair.

The big, bad governments of local municipalities have more resources to take advantage of than poor, widdle, entrepreneurs like Time Warner and AT&T.

Because, above all, the free market must be fair.

That's dogma. At least for this.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Well, of course, the only group that isn't allowed to band together for strength in numbers is 'the people'.
 
Wildy said:
Brexit stuff is still happening? I thought the Royal Wedding put a pause to all that?
Click to expand...

It is. It's part of the global strategy.
Since Megan is an american, in three years time she will run for president against Trump.
Her popularity and not being Trump will then make her the first female president, after which she will install her husband as the new Viceroy of the US, and that way the US will be re-annexed by the UK, after which everything will be fine and dandy.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
It is. It's part of the global strategy.
Since Megan is an american, in three years time she will run for president against Trump.
Her popularity and not being Trump will then make her the first female president, after which she will install her husband as the new Viceroy of the US, and that way the US will be re-annexed by the UK, after which everything will be fine and dandy.
Click to expand...

Have to say your plan sounds much more reasonable and likely than May's!
 
3point14 said:
May has a plan?
Click to expand...
Indeed she does. A very detailed and comprehensive plan that accounts for the all the possible outcomes depending on the respective skills of the UK and EU negotiators. After exhaustive bargaining we have just about reached the position where the plan takes us to a single solution. Put pants on your head, pencils up your nose and go "wibble wibble".
 
Darat said:
It's been her plan since she entered parliament, to be PM. She's no idea why people go on about this Brexit malarky, she's PM, job done.
Click to expand...

She's like the eponymous dog who chased a car and actually caught it. Only it's worse because in this case not only does the dog not know what to do with the car, it suddenly finds itself expected to take care of the school run.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/20/theresa-may-brexit-realists-jacob-rees-mogg

t was the moment that pro-Remain Conservative MPs had been longing for, but feared would never happen – when the prime minister cut the arch-Brexiter Jacob Rees-Mogg down to size. One MP who witnessed Theresa May’s newfound assertiveness likened it to a long-suffering teacher finally losing patience with the class know-all. “She just slapped him down, decisively. She showed she can do it. She was brilliant.”
Click to expand...

I don't think today is April 1st?

When Rees-Mogg got his chance he was quick to ask the prime minister why she could not do what seemed the obvious thing for a hard Brexiter like him – forget any deal and just keep open the border after Brexit. “He was basically calling for a no-deal,” said another who attended.

May has often been accused of sitting on the fence on Brexit, of failing to give a lead and ducking out of confrontations with either side in her split party. On this occasion, however, she broke that habit and gave Rees-Mogg a piece of her mind. According to several sources, she spelled out in no uncertain terms the serious problems and costs that would result from having to resort to World Trade Organisation rules, while also stressing the potentially grave security dangers that would follow if and when the Republic of Ireland had to reimpose border controls on the orders of the EU in order to preserve the integrity of the single market.
Click to expand...

As one former minister put it, Brexiters are having to confront some “basic realities” about life outside the EU – and the fact that you cannot get anywhere without trade-offs and patience. “The Olympics took seven years [to prepare for]. It was a two-week sporting event,” one said. “Unless there’s a plan and you can deliver it, then it’s likely [that we’ll stick to the] status quo until then. It’s not a compromise. It’s just a fact people have to accept. Similar to the fact that the Earth isn’t flat.”
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom