The Esk
Player Valuation: £70m
There's no-one in international business that will sign a trade contract under US jurisdiction unless they absolutely have to. Everyone I know will stay clear of the US Courts if they possibly can.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )
- Thread starter rascal
- Start date
- Status
There's no-one in international business that will sign a trade contract under US jurisdiction unless they absolutely have to. Everyone I know will stay clear of the US Courts if they possibly can.
You do realise that the commissioning groups aren't duty bound to accept every tender they receive, right? It sounds more like they'll have to accept whoever the best bidder was, which hardly seems a bad thing at all. Isn't that what we want? The best people providing health services?
I mean Tirone David is one of the best cardiac surgeons in the world, so if the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre he works at it Canada bid to offer cardiac services in Britain you'd say no because he's non-NHS?
The Esk
Player Valuation: £70m
Please define "best"
Isn't this an international thing though so US jurisdiction shouldn't apply? I'd have thought the World Bank would be impartial, or at least should be, even if they are based in NY?
Who is behind Reform's call for NHS charges?
By Tamasin Cave
Spinwatch.
"Will he, won't he?" ponder NHS pundits plucking the petals of the privatisation daisy, as they consider the position of Simon Stevens, the incoming chief executive of NHS England, outgoing president of the global health division of the American United Health Group and former health adviser to Tony Blair".
US health insurance giant United Health, which has faced accusations of overcharging and malpractice".
"
There aren’t enough doctors for these areas. Surely a United Health practice is better than
none at all?
In the case of Creswell there were 17 other bidders including local and experienced NHS health
professionals. UnitedHealth won the contracts despite having no experience of providing GP
services in the NHS. There are serious questions as to what criteria were used to select
UnitedHealth from the other bidders by local PCTs. We need to know if Trent SHA, the authority
that covers both practices, is deliberately and inappropriately favouring United Health and whether
this is part of a broader aim to increase the role of profit-making companies in the NHS.
If we fail to stop this development, we could be on a very slippery slope heading towards a
commercialised market place for primary care that would be bad for doctors, bad for patients and
bad for the principle of fair and accountable health care for all. We could see surgeries being
merged and unprofitable practices being closed and it will be difficult for the public to challenge
decisions made by private companies according to commercial logic".
By Tamasin Cave
Spinwatch.
"Will he, won't he?" ponder NHS pundits plucking the petals of the privatisation daisy, as they consider the position of Simon Stevens, the incoming chief executive of NHS England, outgoing president of the global health division of the American United Health Group and former health adviser to Tony Blair".
US health insurance giant United Health, which has faced accusations of overcharging and malpractice".
"
There aren’t enough doctors for these areas. Surely a United Health practice is better than
none at all?
In the case of Creswell there were 17 other bidders including local and experienced NHS health
professionals. UnitedHealth won the contracts despite having no experience of providing GP
services in the NHS. There are serious questions as to what criteria were used to select
UnitedHealth from the other bidders by local PCTs. We need to know if Trent SHA, the authority
that covers both practices, is deliberately and inappropriately favouring United Health and whether
this is part of a broader aim to increase the role of profit-making companies in the NHS.
If we fail to stop this development, we could be on a very slippery slope heading towards a
commercialised market place for primary care that would be bad for doctors, bad for patients and
bad for the principle of fair and accountable health care for all. We could see surgeries being
merged and unprofitable practices being closed and it will be difficult for the public to challenge
decisions made by private companies according to commercial logic".
That's up to the commissioning group I guess. It seems an implied admission that these groups are useless and not to be trusted if they can't be relied upon to select the best bidder, both in terms of quality and cost.
Surely they should be the target of our ire rather than trying to place restrictions on who can bid for services?
You've copied and pasted that before in this thread.
The Esk
Player Valuation: £70m
If you looked very carefully you would have noticed that I didn't post this bit.
There aren’t enough doctors for these areas. Surely a United Health practice is better than
none at all?
In the case of Creswell there were 17 other bidders including local and experienced NHS health
professionals. UnitedHealth won the contracts despite having no experience of providing GP
services in the NHS. There are serious questions as to what criteria were used to select
UnitedHealth from the other bidders by local PCTs. We need to know if Trent SHA, the authority
that covers both practices, is deliberately and inappropriately favouring United Health and whether
this is part of a broader aim to increase the role of profit-making companies in the NHS.
If we fail to stop this development, we could be on a very slippery slope heading towards a
commercialised market place for primary care that would be bad for doctors, bad for patients and
bad for the principle of fair and accountable health care for all. We could see surgeries being
merged and unprofitable practices being closed and it will be difficult for the public to challenge
decisions made by private companies according to commercial logic".
I didn't know that it was not allowed to post something twice.
Surely the problem isn't the people bidding for the tender but the people buying it? Focus on the PCT rather than this trade bill, they're the ones that will sign the contracts here. It's not as though there isn't a whole lot that couldn't be done to improve the procurement process in the NHS.
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
Well, whadaya know? Who'd have thought it, eh? Pfft....
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
*drops bacon sandwich*
Damn those 'foreign' states for not playing fair.
"The General Assembly, voting nearly-unanimously, adopted its twenty-second consecutive resolution calling for an end to the United States’ decades-long economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba.
By the text, adopted by a recorded vote of 188 in favour to 2 against (United States and Israel) with 3 abstentions (Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau), the Assembly expressed concern about the continued promulgation and application by Member States of laws and regulations, such as the 1996 “Helm-Burton Act”, the extraterritorial effects of which affected the sovereignty of other States, the legitimate interests of entities or persons under their jurisdiction and the freedom of trade and navigation.
Many speakers expressed concerns about the extraterritorial dimension of the blockade. The representative of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said United States’ legislation had extended the effects of the embargo to third countries. The European Union continuously opposed such extraterritorial measures. While appreciating small measures that lifted remittance obstacles, she could not accept unilaterally imposed restrictions that were contrary to international trade rules and impeded the European Union’s economic and commercial relations with Cuba".
From http://www.un.org/press/en/2013/ga11445.doc.htm
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ion-on-Cuban-sanctions-hits-UK-companies.html
Under the TTIP directives any company will be able to make any element of the public sector to be put out to tender. Whether the government want it or not, they will have no choice. There is no point any of the political parties in Britain, or the rest of Europe saying they will do this or that. Any form of regulation will be brushed aside, as it 'restricts' a particular company. When a health company, for instance, isn't doing as they said they would and there is a major failing, what next? The government will have to buy out their contract and pay them compensation.
TTIP will run roughshod over any government in any European country. Some will go against it but the track record of the political parties in the UK will see them 'take it on the chin' like they have with the way the US government, urged on by Wall Street, are constantly fining the UK financial service sector and attacking the City of London, for 'underhand' methods, that Wall Street also do and therefore 'not playing fair'.
Why vote, when whoever gets in will not have full control of the country. But will be further at the beck and call of those that jump of the publicly funded gravy train, for the benefit of shareholders and not the people of the UK.
"The General Assembly, voting nearly-unanimously, adopted its twenty-second consecutive resolution calling for an end to the United States’ decades-long economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba.
By the text, adopted by a recorded vote of 188 in favour to 2 against (United States and Israel) with 3 abstentions (Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau), the Assembly expressed concern about the continued promulgation and application by Member States of laws and regulations, such as the 1996 “Helm-Burton Act”, the extraterritorial effects of which affected the sovereignty of other States, the legitimate interests of entities or persons under their jurisdiction and the freedom of trade and navigation.
Many speakers expressed concerns about the extraterritorial dimension of the blockade. The representative of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said United States’ legislation had extended the effects of the embargo to third countries. The European Union continuously opposed such extraterritorial measures. While appreciating small measures that lifted remittance obstacles, she could not accept unilaterally imposed restrictions that were contrary to international trade rules and impeded the European Union’s economic and commercial relations with Cuba".
From http://www.un.org/press/en/2013/ga11445.doc.htm
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ion-on-Cuban-sanctions-hits-UK-companies.html
Under the TTIP directives any company will be able to make any element of the public sector to be put out to tender. Whether the government want it or not, they will have no choice. There is no point any of the political parties in Britain, or the rest of Europe saying they will do this or that. Any form of regulation will be brushed aside, as it 'restricts' a particular company. When a health company, for instance, isn't doing as they said they would and there is a major failing, what next? The government will have to buy out their contract and pay them compensation.
TTIP will run roughshod over any government in any European country. Some will go against it but the track record of the political parties in the UK will see them 'take it on the chin' like they have with the way the US government, urged on by Wall Street, are constantly fining the UK financial service sector and attacking the City of London, for 'underhand' methods, that Wall Street also do and therefore 'not playing fair'.
Why vote, when whoever gets in will not have full control of the country. But will be further at the beck and call of those that jump of the publicly funded gravy train, for the benefit of shareholders and not the people of the UK.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status