comment by Broaquin (U16342)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 24 minutes ago
One of the Brexit commons select committees reports referenced the pharma industry.
The amount of NHS expenditure taken up purchasing medicines, drugs, and pharmaceutical products is staggering. Whilst it would not address all of the problems facing the NHS, if pharmaceutical products were made more affordable it would go some way to freeing up finances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NHS does buy it cheaper when it comes to the private health care firms in America. Firstly quantities of scale makes it a lot cheaper for the NHS, and secondly they are in a stronger position of bargaining power.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-drug-prices/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine having no health insurance in the US and being diagnosed with breast cancer or Leukemia Unless you are extremely wealthy, you're toast...
WWSPD you need to have it in the ROI as well, being reliant on our creaking HSE is a dangerous game to play
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 14 minutes ago
WWSPD you need to have it in the ROI as well, being reliant on our creaking HSE is a dangerous game to play
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Should make folk in the UK realise how lucky they are to have the NHS.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 2 hours ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 22 minutes ago
Stuart exactly she is consolidating hey power while stocks are high
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A larger Tory majority also makes it easier for them to implement the great repel bill.
I understand when EU law (around 40,000) is copied into UK law, delegated legislation (statutory instruments) will only be checked for legality, not suitability.
The Tories have stated they plan to use “Henry VIII clauses” which means many pieces of legislation that will affect the public will not even see the HoCs, nor HoL’s.
Giving the Tories a free reign to legislate how they see fit, without parliamentary scrutiny.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
This could turn out to be the very worst aspect of Brexit - full stop - and should absolutely not be allowed to happen.
People have been arguing (incorrectly in my opinion) for years that EU lawmaking is not democratically sound enough.
And now they are about to let a Tory government determine tens of thousands of articles of UK law without any Parliamentary oversight whatsoever. Zero.
comment by rossobianchi #EquipaLulaDaAlegria (U17054)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 2 hours ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 22 minutes ago
Stuart exactly she is consolidating hey power while stocks are high
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A larger Tory majority also makes it easier for them to implement the great repel bill.
I understand when EU law (around 40,000) is copied into UK law, delegated legislation (statutory instruments) will only be checked for legality, not suitability.
The Tories have stated they plan to use “Henry VIII clauses” which means many pieces of legislation that will affect the public will not even see the HoCs, nor HoL’s.
Giving the Tories a free reign to legislate how they see fit, without parliamentary scrutiny.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
This could turn out to be the very worst aspect of Brexit - full stop - and should absolutely not be allowed to happen.
People have been arguing (incorrectly in my opinion) for years that EU lawmaking is not democratically sound enough.
And now they are about to let a Tory government determine tens of thousands of articles of UK law without any Parliamentary oversight whatsoever. Zero.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO Ukip have a lot to answer for.
The UK has/had 78 MEPs (only bettered by Germany). So any decisions made by the EU Parliament should have had a large UK influence. Sadly of the 78 UK MEPs the majority were Ukip.
Which was reflected by their (shameful) voting history. When they did bother to turn up, they often voted against UK interests.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 14 minutes ago
WWSPD you need to have it in the ROI as well, being reliant on our creaking HSE is a dangerous game to play
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Should make folk in the UK realise how lucky they are to have the NHS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence my point earlier in the thread, its free. I know you pay tax etc but we do the same over here and also have to fork out for health insurance.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi #EquipaLulaDaAlegria (U17054)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 2 hours ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 22 minutes ago
Stuart exactly she is consolidating hey power while stocks are high
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A larger Tory majority also makes it easier for them to implement the great repel bill.
I understand when EU law (around 40,000) is copied into UK law, delegated legislation (statutory instruments) will only be checked for legality, not suitability.
The Tories have stated they plan to use “Henry VIII clauses” which means many pieces of legislation that will affect the public will not even see the HoCs, nor HoL’s.
Giving the Tories a free reign to legislate how they see fit, without parliamentary scrutiny.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
This could turn out to be the very worst aspect of Brexit - full stop - and should absolutely not be allowed to happen.
People have been arguing (incorrectly in my opinion) for years that EU lawmaking is not democratically sound enough.
And now they are about to let a Tory government determine tens of thousands of articles of UK law without any Parliamentary oversight whatsoever. Zero.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO Ukip have a lot to answer for.
The UK has/had 78 MEPs (only bettered by Germany). So any decisions made by the EU Parliament should have had a large UK influence. Sadly of the 78 UK MEPs the majority were Ukip.
Which was reflected by their (shameful) voting history. When they did bother to turn up, they often voted against UK interests.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At least those UKIP MEPs were sent to Brussels with a mandate based on a democratically sound system of proportional representation, rather than the archaic first past the post system we retain in the UK.
I might disagree with their politics fundamentally, but any given MEP has more of a right to argue that they represent the voting public than any given MP in the House of Commons. And that's before we start on the Lords...
rossobianchi
I believe when the Tory manifesto is released, it will propose some significant changes to the HoLs.
Be interesting to see what they have in mind as understand May has no love for the house. And I suspect less so after the Brexit white paper!
While it is fairly archaic, the HoLs is often very effective in bringing a little common sense to proceedings. I'd be loathed to see it go.
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 13 minutes ago
While it is fairly archaic, the HoLs is often very effective in bringing a little common sense to proceedings. I'd be loathed to see it go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was largely critical of the HOLs before brexit. But their various select committee reports are on a different level compared to the HoCs.
The HOL debates too were far more reasoned, as there wasn't (always) a party line to adhere to. Was good to hear honest views from both sides of the debate.
Nearly 60 yrs after the revolution, and with decades of international sanctions against it, Cuba has fantastic free health and education for all its citizens
Yes,there is no reason why a wealthy country like the UK can have the same
only thing is free high quality education and health care for all citizens in the UK is not a priority by the powers that be
they see most of as expendable plebs
Sign in if you want to comment
Corbyn and Tuition Fees
Page 5 of 5
posted on 24/4/17
comment by Broaquin (U16342)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 24 minutes ago
One of the Brexit commons select committees reports referenced the pharma industry.
The amount of NHS expenditure taken up purchasing medicines, drugs, and pharmaceutical products is staggering. Whilst it would not address all of the problems facing the NHS, if pharmaceutical products were made more affordable it would go some way to freeing up finances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NHS does buy it cheaper when it comes to the private health care firms in America. Firstly quantities of scale makes it a lot cheaper for the NHS, and secondly they are in a stronger position of bargaining power.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-drug-prices/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine having no health insurance in the US and being diagnosed with breast cancer or Leukemia Unless you are extremely wealthy, you're toast...
posted on 24/4/17
WWSPD you need to have it in the ROI as well, being reliant on our creaking HSE is a dangerous game to play
posted on 24/4/17
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 14 minutes ago
WWSPD you need to have it in the ROI as well, being reliant on our creaking HSE is a dangerous game to play
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Should make folk in the UK realise how lucky they are to have the NHS.
posted on 24/4/17
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 2 hours ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 22 minutes ago
Stuart exactly she is consolidating hey power while stocks are high
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A larger Tory majority also makes it easier for them to implement the great repel bill.
I understand when EU law (around 40,000) is copied into UK law, delegated legislation (statutory instruments) will only be checked for legality, not suitability.
The Tories have stated they plan to use “Henry VIII clauses” which means many pieces of legislation that will affect the public will not even see the HoCs, nor HoL’s.
Giving the Tories a free reign to legislate how they see fit, without parliamentary scrutiny.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
This could turn out to be the very worst aspect of Brexit - full stop - and should absolutely not be allowed to happen.
People have been arguing (incorrectly in my opinion) for years that EU lawmaking is not democratically sound enough.
And now they are about to let a Tory government determine tens of thousands of articles of UK law without any Parliamentary oversight whatsoever. Zero.
posted on 24/4/17
comment by rossobianchi #EquipaLulaDaAlegria (U17054)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 2 hours ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 22 minutes ago
Stuart exactly she is consolidating hey power while stocks are high
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A larger Tory majority also makes it easier for them to implement the great repel bill.
I understand when EU law (around 40,000) is copied into UK law, delegated legislation (statutory instruments) will only be checked for legality, not suitability.
The Tories have stated they plan to use “Henry VIII clauses” which means many pieces of legislation that will affect the public will not even see the HoCs, nor HoL’s.
Giving the Tories a free reign to legislate how they see fit, without parliamentary scrutiny.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
This could turn out to be the very worst aspect of Brexit - full stop - and should absolutely not be allowed to happen.
People have been arguing (incorrectly in my opinion) for years that EU lawmaking is not democratically sound enough.
And now they are about to let a Tory government determine tens of thousands of articles of UK law without any Parliamentary oversight whatsoever. Zero.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO Ukip have a lot to answer for.
The UK has/had 78 MEPs (only bettered by Germany). So any decisions made by the EU Parliament should have had a large UK influence. Sadly of the 78 UK MEPs the majority were Ukip.
Which was reflected by their (shameful) voting history. When they did bother to turn up, they often voted against UK interests.
posted on 24/4/17
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 14 minutes ago
WWSPD you need to have it in the ROI as well, being reliant on our creaking HSE is a dangerous game to play
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Should make folk in the UK realise how lucky they are to have the NHS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence my point earlier in the thread, its free. I know you pay tax etc but we do the same over here and also have to fork out for health insurance.
posted on 24/4/17
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi #EquipaLulaDaAlegria (U17054)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 2 hours ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 22 minutes ago
Stuart exactly she is consolidating hey power while stocks are high
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A larger Tory majority also makes it easier for them to implement the great repel bill.
I understand when EU law (around 40,000) is copied into UK law, delegated legislation (statutory instruments) will only be checked for legality, not suitability.
The Tories have stated they plan to use “Henry VIII clauses” which means many pieces of legislation that will affect the public will not even see the HoCs, nor HoL’s.
Giving the Tories a free reign to legislate how they see fit, without parliamentary scrutiny.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
This could turn out to be the very worst aspect of Brexit - full stop - and should absolutely not be allowed to happen.
People have been arguing (incorrectly in my opinion) for years that EU lawmaking is not democratically sound enough.
And now they are about to let a Tory government determine tens of thousands of articles of UK law without any Parliamentary oversight whatsoever. Zero.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO Ukip have a lot to answer for.
The UK has/had 78 MEPs (only bettered by Germany). So any decisions made by the EU Parliament should have had a large UK influence. Sadly of the 78 UK MEPs the majority were Ukip.
Which was reflected by their (shameful) voting history. When they did bother to turn up, they often voted against UK interests.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At least those UKIP MEPs were sent to Brussels with a mandate based on a democratically sound system of proportional representation, rather than the archaic first past the post system we retain in the UK.
I might disagree with their politics fundamentally, but any given MEP has more of a right to argue that they represent the voting public than any given MP in the House of Commons. And that's before we start on the Lords...
posted on 24/4/17
rossobianchi
I believe when the Tory manifesto is released, it will propose some significant changes to the HoLs.
Be interesting to see what they have in mind as understand May has no love for the house. And I suspect less so after the Brexit white paper!
posted on 24/4/17
While it is fairly archaic, the HoLs is often very effective in bringing a little common sense to proceedings. I'd be loathed to see it go.
posted on 24/4/17
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 13 minutes ago
While it is fairly archaic, the HoLs is often very effective in bringing a little common sense to proceedings. I'd be loathed to see it go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was largely critical of the HOLs before brexit. But their various select committee reports are on a different level compared to the HoCs.
The HOL debates too were far more reasoned, as there wasn't (always) a party line to adhere to. Was good to hear honest views from both sides of the debate.
posted on 24/4/17
Nearly 60 yrs after the revolution, and with decades of international sanctions against it, Cuba has fantastic free health and education for all its citizens
Yes,there is no reason why a wealthy country like the UK can have the same
only thing is free high quality education and health care for all citizens in the UK is not a priority by the powers that be
they see most of as expendable plebs
Page 5 of 5