On the 29th September 2013 a protest took place in Manchester against ConDem policies which include Bedroom Tax and general benefit cuts. But the biggest issue on the minds of many of 55,000 people who attended was what is now happening to the National Health Service.
The changes to the NHS are still irritatingly being called NHS reforms buy much of the main stream media including the BBC. Many of those who were at the protest will be aware that parts of the NHS service will inevitably be taken away from many of those on low income over the next months and years. Whilst many may still trust the news service provided by the BBC, the TV company has misled the the people on what is really happening. The BBC is still attempting to create an illusion that it believes the NHS will be better or none the worse for the so called 'changes' being made.......
.........But what is actually happening is a scandalous assault which will leave many ill people without a hospital bed, whilst many comparatively less needy people will spend days in those same beds, because whilst the patient spends time in a private hospital, their hospital bill will be paid by their health insurance provider, or out of the patients personal wealth.
Private businesses which will still be allowed to carry the NHS logo will have an incentive to find wealthy people who may or may not be particularly ill. But at the same time keeping people on lower incomes away from the privately run 'NHS' logo'd services.
It sounds like a crazy assumption to make doesn't it?
A government wouldn't do this to it's people would it?
Unfortunately privatized health services have a track record that will cause concern to many.
The questionable track record of privatized health services has been most clearly emphasized by the health service in the United States.
.....Incidentally the British Government has been sending over representatives from the UK to learn and gain knowledge from the U.S. health service. However, I have to question the reasoning behind this. The problem is the U.S. health service combined with health insurance costs more than twice per capita in the U.S. compared with the U.K! This is the total national and private health insurance bill, deducting costs of care where covered by insurance. Any healthcare not covered by insurance then added to total..
So then...Why do British politicians need to go to the U.S. to learn about their Health Service. When ours,though severely damaged by starving of funds by the current government and the PFI scandal, is
still more far more efficient than the U.S. equivalent, at least when total cost is taken into account ?
The U.S. has by far the highest health service costs. Doubling the cost of most countries.
The truth is likely to be that the politicians arranging the fact finding visits to the U.S. are not interested in making an efficient low cost service for the public. They seem to be preoccupied with making changes that will involve the finance industry becoming a permanent cost of this and other industries. Because of the U.S. and the U.K.s dependents on their finance industries, they have let's say 'a bigger than average' incentive to load people, businesses, services, major events, transport projects, etc with 'investment' or debt........It is this bias towards the finance industry that was surely a major player when the finance industry 'invested' in the national health trusts. The result is that many are at the point of collapse due to rising irresponsible debt.
..........Britain and the U.S. have historically been successful at attracting investment through, banking, pension funds, stock market flotations from all over the world.
...................Both countries therefore have a need to create reasons to load things and people with debt.......
..........If they didn't do this, their growing amount of investors money from around the world would have nothing to invest in. There fore it wouldn't be possible for a business or an individual to provide a return on the investment..............But if there is no return on investment........the money being sucked in from around the world will stop being attracted to U.S. and U.K. shores. (It is this that has maintained the U.S. and U.K.s position amongst the apparently wealthiest countries in the world even though their industry has been reduced radically over the previous decades.
................. Privatization provides a vehicle for this investment whilst also placing many billions of dollars or pounds into the hands of the governments for a service that had been paid for by their public.
The visits to the U.S. by British representatives are most likely to be focused on attracting investment from established private health care providers who may be financed by British banks or by the U.S.'s more successful investment banks. You see, Privatization is more about getting banks and other financiers like private equity firms and hedge funds onto the payrolls of the businesses and services that are privatized at the same time as providing a load of cash for the government which may or may not be used to contribute to running the country.
But the illusion that seems to be being created by the BBC, that protesters needn't be worrying about privatization will continue whilst we have the same Lords in control of the BBC whilst at the same time having a similar amount of their influence on how the NHS is being run. The BBC therefore has a vested interest in misleading the public. This is the reason why the majority of the U.K. are still in the dark where the NHS is concerned and privatization in general. We are being misled. You will find that the same conflict of interests also exists in the U.S. The U.S. and U.K.s media therefore would appear to work as a team which reinforces the lack of understanding of what is going on in the business and finance world of these two countries.
There is a likelihood that media companies will find themselves as a target for protests like the one against NHS privatization unless we can encourage the media companies to start telling the truth.
.........But what is actually happening is a scandalous assault which will leave many ill people without a hospital bed, whilst many comparatively less needy people will spend days in those same beds, because whilst the patient spends time in a private hospital, their hospital bill will be paid by their health insurance provider, or out of the patients personal wealth.
Private businesses which will still be allowed to carry the NHS logo will have an incentive to find wealthy people who may or may not be particularly ill. But at the same time keeping people on lower incomes away from the privately run 'NHS' logo'd services.It sounds like a crazy assumption to make doesn't it?
A government wouldn't do this to it's people would it?
Unfortunately privatized health services have a track record that will cause concern to many.
The questionable track record of privatized health services has been most clearly emphasized by the health service in the United States.
.....Incidentally the British Government has been sending over representatives from the UK to learn and gain knowledge from the U.S. health service. However, I have to question the reasoning behind this. The problem is the U.S. health service combined with health insurance costs more than twice per capita in the U.S. compared with the U.K! This is the total national and private health insurance bill, deducting costs of care where covered by insurance. Any healthcare not covered by insurance then added to total..
So then...Why do British politicians need to go to the U.S. to learn about their Health Service. When ours,though severely damaged by starving of funds by the current government and the PFI scandal, is
still more far more efficient than the U.S. equivalent, at least when total cost is taken into account ?
The U.S. has by far the highest health service costs. Doubling the cost of most countries.
The truth is likely to be that the politicians arranging the fact finding visits to the U.S. are not interested in making an efficient low cost service for the public. They seem to be preoccupied with making changes that will involve the finance industry becoming a permanent cost of this and other industries. Because of the U.S. and the U.K.s dependents on their finance industries, they have let's say 'a bigger than average' incentive to load people, businesses, services, major events, transport projects, etc with 'investment' or debt........It is this bias towards the finance industry that was surely a major player when the finance industry 'invested' in the national health trusts. The result is that many are at the point of collapse due to rising irresponsible debt...........Britain and the U.S. have historically been successful at attracting investment through, banking, pension funds, stock market flotations from all over the world.
...................Both countries therefore have a need to create reasons to load things and people with debt.......
..........If they didn't do this, their growing amount of investors money from around the world would have nothing to invest in. There fore it wouldn't be possible for a business or an individual to provide a return on the investment..............But if there is no return on investment........the money being sucked in from around the world will stop being attracted to U.S. and U.K. shores. (It is this that has maintained the U.S. and U.K.s position amongst the apparently wealthiest countries in the world even though their industry has been reduced radically over the previous decades.
................. Privatization provides a vehicle for this investment whilst also placing many billions of dollars or pounds into the hands of the governments for a service that had been paid for by their public.The visits to the U.S. by British representatives are most likely to be focused on attracting investment from established private health care providers who may be financed by British banks or by the U.S.'s more successful investment banks. You see, Privatization is more about getting banks and other financiers like private equity firms and hedge funds onto the payrolls of the businesses and services that are privatized at the same time as providing a load of cash for the government which may or may not be used to contribute to running the country.
But the illusion that seems to be being created by the BBC, that protesters needn't be worrying about privatization will continue whilst we have the same Lords in control of the BBC whilst at the same time having a similar amount of their influence on how the NHS is being run. The BBC therefore has a vested interest in misleading the public. This is the reason why the majority of the U.K. are still in the dark where the NHS is concerned and privatization in general. We are being misled. You will find that the same conflict of interests also exists in the U.S. The U.S. and U.K.s media therefore would appear to work as a team which reinforces the lack of understanding of what is going on in the business and finance world of these two countries.
There is a likelihood that media companies will find themselves as a target for protests like the one against NHS privatization unless we can encourage the media companies to start telling the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment