The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[hullefc]

NHS Unlimited?
Who runs our GP services
A study of GP services put out to tender by the NHS
Executive Summary
We believe that the extent of the commercialisation of GP services has been
substantially understated. From our study we found 23 commercial companies that
have multiple contracts and between them run a total of 227 GP surgeries and health
centres. These are all private or public companies that have expressed publicly an
interest in commercial expansion and have a corporate structure.
Until now many of these expanding companies have been described as GP-led
companies. We have found this to be misleading as it suggests that they have a non
commercial focus and are managed by GPs, when in fact many of these companies
have a profit making intent and a traditional corporate management structure. We
found 18 examples of private companies that were started by groups of GPs but are
now in the process of business expansion.
A small number of companies have a sizeable portfolio of NHS contracts. There are 9
companies with 10 or more contracts to run GP health centres or surgeries. Chilvers
McCrea, described as a GP led company runs 35 surgeries across the country. Care
UK and Assura (currently selling to virgin), both public companies have the largest
number of contracts to run the large health centres with 11 and 12 each.
Local GP practices are finding it hard to afford to bid for contracts according to
anecdotal evidence, which could lead local GP practices to be squeezed out as the
NHS market matures.

Once there is a bidding for services anyone can enter the market. The Tories refused to protect the NHS during the TTIP. Why?

Key Facts of interests in healthcare



The research looking into Lords and MPs connections to private healthcare through the register of interests is complete. Below are listed some of the key findings. Research into the murky and dangerous Health and Social Care bill is ongoing and more facts will be added here as and when they arise.

• 225 parliamentarians have recent or present financial private healthcare connections
• 145 Lords have recent or present financial connections to companies or individuals involved in healthcare
• 124 Peers benefit from the financial services sector
• 1 in 4 Conservative Peers have recent or present financial connections to companies or individuals involved in healthcare
• 1 in 6 Labour Peers have recent or present financial connections to companies or individuals involved in healthcare
• 1 in 6 Crossbench Peers have recent or present financial connections to companies or individuals involved in healthcare
• 1 in 10 Liberal Democrat Peers have recent or present financial connections to companies or individuals involved in healthcare
• 75 MPs have recent or present financial links to companies or individuals involved in private healthcare
• 81% of these are Conservative
• 4 Key members of the Associate Parliamentary Health Group have parliamentarians with financial connections to companies or individuals involved in healthcare
• 4 Patrons of the pro-reform think tank 2020health have Peers with private healthcare links
• Nearly 40% of the most powerful individuals in healthcare are from companies with links to Lords and MPs.
• 4 MPs and 1 Lord have worked for Huntsworth Health, run by a Peer who gave money to Cameron’s leadership campaign
• 25 of the Finalists in the HealthInvestors Awards 2012 have parliamentarians connected to them
• 2 companies, DACBeachcroft, Cumberlege Connections, which have Lords as a partner and as an owner respectively, moved themselves into a position to make money from the reforms as the Lords voted on the bill, and before the bill became Act
• 5 organisations link to Baroness Cumberlege: Her company, Cumberlege Connections, Associate Parliamentary Health Group, 2020health, Huntsworth plc, MJM, healthcare solutions
• 19 Lords and MPs have financial links to Pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline
• 9 Lords and MPs have received payment from a company run by Baroness Cumberlege, called Cumberlege Connections, which is a healthcare training and political networking company
• 1 – the amount of times the BBC challenged Andrew Lansley in the last three years on his donation received to fund his private office when shadow health minister from John Nash the chairman of Care UK. Mr Nash was made a Lord.
• All were able to vote on the Health and Social Care bill (now Act), despite having a prejudicial interest, which would not have been allowed at local council level.

When TTIP happens the NHS market will be opened further allowing anyone to bid for services. All NHS services will be open to bids. Private insurance will quickly follow.

 

[Clint Planet]

I actually think TTIP is a very clever backdoor way to privatise the NHS, it's a terrible deal which basically means that Britain won't have as much sovereignty as before which is why in all the polls it's across the board whether left wingers or right wingers that it's a terrible deal for Britain, it's not even a left vs right issue. TTIP damages British sovereignty that's a fact. I do think that the NHS will eventually be privatised though, you can see the mood of the people changing on programs like BBC Question Time etc. there seems to be more acceptance to the idea that it's "difficult" to keep funding the NHS, that's it's a drag on the budget etc. I think people are slowly buying into the idea that eliminating the NHS is the way forward. I could be wrong but that's what it seems like to me.

And to me. Good post.

 

[Clint Planet]

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is a series of trade negotiations being carried out mostly in secret between the EU and US. As a bi-lateral trade agreement, TTIP is about reducing the regulatory barriers to trade for big business, things like food safety law, environmental legislation, banking regulations and the sovereign powers of individual nations.

With regards to the health service US companies will be able to bid for tenders in the NHS and in the event of not being allowed to bid or for example a Government creating legislation stopping them from bidding they will have the right to sue the Government for loss of profits.

You couldn't make it up, could you?

 

[hullefc]

I have only read what you posted mate. Never heard of it, well I had, but didnt know its name, if that makes sense. In a nutshell, it removes tariffs for non EU countries to export into the EU? And by extension, for outside companies to compete on an equal footing for government contracts, be they be defence, health, whatever?

TTIP
Sign the European Citizen's Initiative against TTIP and Ceta!
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a comprehensive free trade and investment treaty currently being negotiated – in secret – between the European Union and the USA.

The intention to launch TTIP negotiations was first announced by President Barack Obama in his State of the Union address in February 2013, and the first round of negotiations took place between European Commission and US officials in July of the same year. The aim is to rush through the talks as swiftly as possible with no details entering the public domain, in the hope that they can be concluded before the peoples of Europe and the USA find out the true scale of the TTIP threat.

As officials from both sides acknowledge, the primary aim of TTIP is not to stimulate trade through removing tariffs between the EU and USA, as these are already at minimal levels. The main goal of TTIP is, by their own admission, to remove regulatory ‘barriers’ which restrict the potential profits to be made by transnational corporations on both sides of the Atlantic. Yet these ‘barriers’ are in reality some of our most prized social standards and environmental regulations, such as labour rights, food safety rules (including restrictions on GMOs), regulations on the use of toxic chemicals, digital privacy laws and even new banking safeguards introduced to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis.

The stakes, in other words, could not be higher.

In addition to this deregulation agenda, TTIP also seeks to create new markets by opening up public services and government procurement contracts to competition from transnational corporations, threatening to introduce a further wave of privatizations in key sectors, such as health and education. Most worrying of all, TTIP seeks to grant foreign investors a new right to sue sovereign governments in front of ad hoc arbitration tribunals for loss of profits resulting from public policy decisions.

This ‘investor-State dispute settlement’ mechanism effectively elevates transnational capital to a status equivalent to the nation-state itself, and threatens to undermine the most basic principles of democracy in the EU and USA alike. TTIP is therefore correctly understood not as a negotiation between two competing trading partners, but as an attempt by transnational corporations to prise open and deregulate markets on both sides of the Atlantic.

There is a growing body of concern among EU and US citizens at the threats posed by TTIP, and civil society groups are now joining forces with academics, parliamentarians and others to prevent pro-business government officials from signing away the key social and environmental standards listed above.

 

[roydo]

TTIP
Sign the European Citizen's Initiative against TTIP and Ceta!
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a comprehensive free trade and investment treaty currently being negotiated – in secret – between the European Union and the USA.

The intention to launch TTIP negotiations was first announced by President Barack Obama in his State of the Union address in February 2013, and the first round of negotiations took place between European Commission and US officials in July of the same year. The aim is to rush through the talks as swiftly as possible with no details entering the public domain, in the hope that they can be concluded before the peoples of Europe and the USA find out the true scale of the TTIP threat.

As officials from both sides acknowledge, the primary aim of TTIP is not to stimulate trade through removing tariffs between the EU and USA, as these are already at minimal levels. The main goal of TTIP is, by their own admission, to remove regulatory ‘barriers’ which restrict the potential profits to be made by transnational corporations on both sides of the Atlantic. Yet these ‘barriers’ are in reality some of our most prized social standards and environmental regulations, such as labour rights, food safety rules (including restrictions on GMOs), regulations on the use of toxic chemicals, digital privacy laws and even new banking safeguards introduced to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis.

The stakes, in other words, could not be higher.

In addition to this deregulation agenda, TTIP also seeks to create new markets by opening up public services and government procurement contracts to competition from transnational corporations, threatening to introduce a further wave of privatizations in key sectors, such as health and education. Most worrying of all, TTIP seeks to grant foreign investors a new right to sue sovereign governments in front of ad hoc arbitration tribunals for loss of profits resulting from public policy decisions.

This ‘investor-State dispute settlement’ mechanism effectively elevates transnational capital to a status equivalent to the nation-state itself, and threatens to undermine the most basic principles of democracy in the EU and USA alike. TTIP is therefore correctly understood not as a negotiation between two competing trading partners, but as an attempt by transnational corporations to prise open and deregulate markets on both sides of the Atlantic.

There is a growing body of concern among EU and US citizens at the threats posed by TTIP, and civil society groups are now joining forces with academics, parliamentarians and others to prevent pro-business government officials from signing away the key social and environmental standards listed above.

Yeah, but still a bit confused mate. Are you saying that the Governments of the EU, many of which are socialist, are willing to allow US companies to cherry pick the health services across Europe, at the behest of Obama, to stimulate their economies? And if they dont get a contract they, sue the Government?

And when you answer a straight question, which I have asked before, please dont just post a page of stuff you have downloaded from god knows where. I am genuinely interested.

 

[Lids1978]

As a foreigner at least Ukip have pokicys ! the other crowd just want to jail innocent irishmen

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Yeah, but still a bit confused mate. Are you saying that the Governments of the EU, many of which are socialist, are willing to allow US companies to cherry pick the health services across Europe, at the behest of Obama, to stimulate their economies? And if they dont get a contract they, sue the Government?

And when you answer a straight question, which I have asked before, please dont just post a page of stuff you have downloaded from god knows where. I am genuinely interested.

Especially as the source appears to be a campaign group against the whole thing. It might be true, but something at least a little impartial would be good.

@hullefc you mention previously that some people have seen copies of early drafts of this thing. Presumably they're on the web somewhere?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

You couldn't make it up, could you?

I don't know about the first half (the relaxing of laws), but what is possibly wrong with the second half? Surely as part of any tendering process you want to attract bids from as many places as possible in order to get the best candidates possible.

I mean we (rightly) have laws saying you can't discriminate against job candidates based upon their nationality, and I'm fairly sure if a candidate can prove they have been thusly discriminated against they can sue the organisation. Why should it be any different for people tendering?

As I've said before, it should be about the best person or organisation for the job. Their nationality should be irrelevant. Or are we going all UKIP on our trade policy now?

 

[The Esk]

Yeah, but still a bit confused mate. Are you saying that the Governments of the EU, many of which are socialist, are willing to allow US companies to cherry pick the health services across Europe, at the behest of Obama, to stimulate their economies? And if they dont get a contract they, sue the Government?

And when you answer a straight question, which I have asked before, please dont just post a page of stuff you have downloaded from god knows where. I am genuinely interested.

Yeah, but still a bit confused mate. Are you saying that the Governments of the EU, many of which are socialist, are willing to allow US companies to cherry pick the health services across Europe, at the behest of Obama, to stimulate their economies? And if they dont get a contract they, sue the Government?

And when you answer a straight question, which I have asked before, please dont just post a page of stuff you have downloaded from god knows where. I am genuinely interested.

It's a good point you make mate. Almost all the European Governments are convinced that TTIP will stimulate economic growth and most importantly job creation.

To be honest it is difficult how they reach that conclusion. More likely they are looking at their budget deficits and using TTIP as a means of introdicong cuts to services (and costs) which woul be difficult politically to do otherwise.

Also remember that there's no direct equivalent of the NHS in Europe with most countries operating a hybrid system partially funded by the State and topped up by private (often mutual) provision. The opening of those health markets to private provision is far less sensitive than it is here.

 

[hullefc]

Yeah, but still a bit confused mate. Are you saying that the Governments of the EU, many of which are socialist, are willing to allow US companies to cherry pick the health services across Europe, at the behest of Obama, to stimulate their economies? And if they dont get a contract they, sue the Government?

And when you answer a straight question, which I have asked before, please dont just post a page of stuff you have downloaded from god knows where. I am genuinely interested.

Yes that will be the outcome. If I am not mistaken you are from Bristol and you have Helio GP surgery which is a German company. Circle are a private health care company that runs NHS Hinchingbrooke hospital in Cambridgeshire.

As soon as there is procurement for services the market is open. US health companies along with US insurance companies are big business.

The NHS has a vast budget, something like 90% publically funded. And already there has been many European health companies bidding to run services. That was the basis of the Health and Care Act 2012. Other European countries have differing rates of public finance for health. And TTIP will open up all health care in Europe for anyone to bid.

If a country decides to go against the TTIP after it is passed then a country can take another country to the World Trade Organisation and complain about restraint of trade. That is the basis of the Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), which allow companies to sue governments if those governments’ policies cause a loss of profits.

When I hear about something I do my own research and read around the topic. Courtesy of wanting to know things.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It's a good point you make mate. Almost all the European Governments are convinced that TTIP will stimulate economic growth and most importantly job creation.

To be honest it is difficult how they reach that conclusion. More likely they are looking at their budget deficits and using TTIP as a means of introdicong cuts to services (and costs) which woul be difficult politically to do otherwise.

Also remember that there's no direct equivalent of the NHS in Europe with most countries operating a hybrid system partially funded by the State and topped up by private (often mutual) provision. The opening of those health markets to private provision is far less sensitive than it is here.

Presumably the growth stimulus will come via European companies having easier access to the US market? It cuts both ways, and the US market is (I think) a larger one than our own, so that's a benefit you'd imagine?

Yes that will be the outcome. If I am not mistaken you are from Bristol and you have Helio GP surgery which is a German company. Circle are a private health care company that runs NHS Hinchingbrooke hospital in Cambridgeshire.

As soon as there is procurement for services the market is open. US health companies along with US insurance companies are big business.

The NHS has a vast budget, something like 90% publically funded. And already there has been many European health companies bidding to run services. That was the basis of the Health and Care Act 2012. Other European countries have differing rates of public finance for health. And TTIP will open up all health care in Europe for anyone to bid.

If a country decides to go against the TTIP after it is passed then a country can take another country to the World Trade Organisation and complain about restraint of trade. That is the basis of the Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), which allow companies to sue governments if those governments’ policies cause a loss of profits.

When I hear about something I do my own research and read around the topic. Courtesy of wanting to know things.

They'll surely only be able to sue anyone if:

1) a service is put out to tender
2) a US (or indeed any other nationality) organisation bid for that tender
3) they are refused the right to bid on the basis of their nationality

That seems the only way that legal action will occur here, and that seems perfectly right and proper to me. If I'm a patient in the NHS I want to know that I'm getting the best care. I couldn't really care less if they're British or German, public or private. Good care, decent price (if only for the tax payer). Surely that's all that matters?

 

[sd_1992]

Presumably the growth stimulus will come via European companies having easier access to the US market? It cuts both ways, and the US market is (I think) a larger one than our own, so that's a benefit you'd imagine?



They'll surely only be able to sue anyone if:

1) a service is put out to tender
2) a US (or indeed any other nationality) organisation bid for that tender
3) they are refused the right to bid on the basis of their nationality

That seems the only way that legal action will occur here, and that seems perfectly right and proper to me. If I'm a patient in the NHS I want to know that I'm getting the best care. I couldn't really care less if they're British or German, public or private. Good care, decent price (if only for the tax payer). Surely that's all that matters?

Not if you are looking for an excuse to bash the tories

 

[hullefc]

Who is behind Reform's call for NHS charges? - Spinwatch

A service is put out to tender? All the NHS can be put out to tender any that have been missed from the Health and Care Act 2012 can be included in the next. All parties in England have said that the funding of the NHS is unsustainable. Private companies are already running NHS hospitals. Once that has happened the door is open for all NHS hospitals and/or trusts.

If a government refuses to offer a hospital and/or trust open to the market it will be at that point a company can sue.

There is no need to refuse the right due to nationality because the US health firms backed by the their insurance industry are so powerful they will swamp the NHS. And charging at source or paying weekly will follow.

 

[The Esk]

Presumably the growth stimulus will come via European companies having easier access to the US market? It cuts both ways, and the US market is (I think) a larger one than our own, so that's a benefit you'd imagine?



They'll surely only be able to sue anyone if:

1) a service is put out to tender
2) a US (or indeed any other nationality) organisation bid for that tender
3) they are refused the right to bid on the basis of their nationality

That seems the only way that legal action will occur here, and that seems perfectly right and proper to me. If I'm a patient in the NHS I want to know that I'm getting the best care. I couldn't really care less if they're British or German, public or private. Good care, decent price (if only for the tax payer). Surely that's all that matters?

I am not convinced of the growth stimulus argument.

Furthermore I do not believe there has been enough analysis of the impact in corporate tax revenues by allowing US companies unfettered access to European markets.

I can see exactly why the Americans want it but the bozos in Brussels are sleep walking into an agreement which once signed is almost impossible to reverse.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I am not convinced of the growth stimulus argument.

Furthermore I do not believe there has been enough analysis of the impact in corporate tax revenues by allowing US companies unfettered access to European markets.

I can see exactly why the Americans want it but the bozos in Brussels are sleep walking into an agreement which once signed is almost impossible to reverse.

You think the access to American markets will be a mirage? Even if it's lopsided (which hopefully it won't be), you would think having extra competition would prove a better deal for customers, whilst also providing potential new jobs if they decide to setup shop in Europe.