NHS privatisation: Compilation of financial and vested interests.

Wrighty · 21-03-2012, 09:11

This list represents the dire state of our democracy. The financial and vested interests of our MPs and Lords in private healthcare. Why are these people allowed to be in charge of our NHS, to vote on a bill that they clearly have something to gain from. Who cares that they have put it in the register of interests. This doesn’t excuse their interests, it merely highlights clearly why they should have no part in voting for the privatisation of the NHS. It is privatisation, despite the media’s continued use of the word ‘reforms’. The question must be asked. Are they public servants or corporate servants?

I start with the Lords some (about 40) taken from the Daily Mirror research: These are also available in register of interests, and some from my own research, the list continues to expand but so far for Lords is bout eighty.

In addition to the list below research by Dr Éoin Clarke - has revealed 333 donations from private healthcare sources totalling £8.3 million has been gifted to the Tories. Here is the database of those donations and 'gifts'.

Full list of MP`s & lords or are going to make a lot of money with the privatisation of the NHS

Social Investigations: NHS privatisation: Compilation of financial and vested interests.

cmonstanley · 21-03-2012, 10:18

here here! and it stinks to high heaven. in the past they tried to hide these things now, they have the tory press they are doing what they want because the country full of apathy..this is going to end in disaster

susie123 · 21-03-2012, 10:26

As your post is nothing but a cut and paste from the link that you cite, I will do the same in my reply. The quotes below are all rebuttals of the ideas put forward, taken from the comments section of the same link. OK, many of these people have shares in healthcare companies. There is nothing to stop you, me or anyone from doing the same (actually I have already done so for many years). Without such companies at the forefront of drug discovery and development there would probably be fewer people alive today and the NHS would have a much harder job on its hands.

All you have really shown is that Tories have business interests outside of parliament. I suspect you could look at any sector and find links.

Fascinating stuff but you really should be more discerning. Many of the companies are suppliers to the NHS without whom the NHS would not be able to function. The private sector has a legitimate and long standing role in providing all manner of stuff to the NHS. I see nothing wrong in a politician having and declaring an interest relating to such companies.

OK, some of them are pretty damn sleazy, but some of them are included in the list simply because they have an interest in pharmaceutical companies.

Am I missing something? Why is that relevant? Surely the NHS is going to spend money on drugs under any system?

jaysay · 21-03-2012, 10:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by susie123

As your post is nothing but a cut and paste from the link that you cite, I will do the same in my reply. The quotes below are all rebuttals of the ideas put forward, taken from the comments section of the same link. OK, many of these people have shares in health care companies. There is nothing to stop you, me or anyone from doing the same (actually I have already done so for many years). Without such companies at the forefront of drug discovery and development there would probably be fewer people alive today and the NHS would have a much harder job on its hands.

All you have really shown is that Tories have business interests outside of parliament. I suspect you could look at any sector and find links.

Fascinating stuff but you really should be more discerning. Many of the companies are suppliers to the NHS without whom the NHS would not be able to function. The private sector has a legitimate and long standing role in providing all manner of stuff to the NHS. I see nothing wrong in a politician having and declaring an interest relating to such companies.

OK, some of them are pretty damn sleazy, but some of them are included in the list simply because they have an interest in pharmaceutical companies.

Am I missing something? Why is that relevant? Surely the NHS is going to spend money on drugs under any system?

I have an interest in pharmaceutical companies too susie, they've kept me alive

susie123 · 21-03-2012, 11:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

I have an interest in pharmaceutical companies too susie, they've kept me alive

Exactly Jaysay. Where would you be without them? - don't answer that!

kestrelx · 21-03-2012, 11:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

here here! and it stinks to high heaven. in the past they tried to hide these things now, they have the tory press they are doing what they want because the country full of apathy..this is going to end in disaster

Makes you sick - feathering their own nests! They sold off the water and gas to foreign companies now it's the turn of the NHS!

cmonstanley · 21-03-2012, 11:38

but in the future if the moneys run out and you have no health insurance you will have to rely on charity like in the u.s. of a see they havent let the risk be published yet

cmonstanley · 21-03-2012, 11:40

plus i wonder if this is why they have borrowed twice as much as in feb..

cashman · 21-03-2012, 11:41

Thing is susie Drug companies suppress things that can help sickness, cos not enough profit in it, was a program i just caught the end of on tv the other day, perhaps its that bit yer missing?

susie123 · 21-03-2012, 11:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

Thing is susie Drug companies suppress things that can help sickness, cos not enough profit in it, was a program i just caught the end of on tv the other day, perhaps its that bit yer missing?

What programme was that, Cashy - sounds interesting.

cashman · 21-03-2012, 11:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by susie123

What programme was that, Cashy - sounds interesting.

I thought the same, had just got in n was buzzing so it never registered, boss was in bed n i had stuff to sort, pity but thats life.

kestrelx · 21-03-2012, 20:27

Does anyone really know what the NHS Reform Bill is actually going to change?

Well for a start they are going to abolish the NHS Primary Care Trusts (PCT's) and the Strategic Health Authorities and that will free up £60 to £80 Billion of health care funds that will then be given to the new "Clinical commissioning groups" which will be partly run by GP's which means they'll have more work to do!

I am wondering how long it will take to set up this new system and if this will mean there will be a period of dysfunction in that it won't run smooth for a period of time - how can it?

If I go to my GP's tommorrow they will be able to refer me to any medical service they think I need and within a couple of months I'll get an appointment! With these changes it is obvious there will be a period of time that won't happen while the new system is put into place! The issue is will patients suffer because of it?

Eric · 26-03-2012, 11:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by susie123

As your post is nothing but a cut and paste from the link that you cite, I will do the same in my reply. The quotes below are all rebuttals of the ideas put forward, taken from the comments section of the same link. OK, many of these people have shares in healthcare companies. There is nothing to stop you, me or anyone from doing the same (actually I have already done so for many years). Without such companies at the forefront of drug discovery and development there would probably be fewer people alive today and the NHS would have a much harder job on its hands.

All you have really shown is that Tories have business interests outside of parliament. I suspect you could look at any sector and find links.

Fascinating stuff but you really should be more discerning. Many of the companies are suppliers to the NHS without whom the NHS would not be able to function. The private sector has a legitimate and long standing role in providing all manner of stuff to the NHS. I see nothing wrong in a politician having and declaring an interest relating to such companies.

OK, some of them are pretty damn sleazy, but some of them are included in the list simply because they have an interest in pharmaceutical companies.

Am I missing something? Why is that relevant? Surely the NHS is going to spend money on drugs under any system?

I can't see that there is any way of getting around the fact that there appears to be a coflict of interest thing going on here. And with something as important as health care ... it would be the same in the areas of foreign policy and national defence ... this must be scrutinized.

Drug companies don't develop drugs for our benefit ... the do it for profit and the benefit of their shareholders.

Eric · 26-03-2012, 11:41

By the way, is there any legislation in the UK which grants protection, for the brand name companies, against generics?

Margaret Pilkington · 26-03-2012, 12:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

By the way, is there any legislation in the UK which grants protection, for the brand name companies, against generics?

Yes there is.........Brands are protected for a number of years.....in the US it is twenty years....and I think it is the same here.
This is to enable the drug companies to claw back the money they used to develop the drug in the first place.

Pharma is big expensive business.......and pharma companies court doctors so that they will prescribe their drug over those of competitors.