Manchester Protest Against NHS Privatisation and Austerity.

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.

The Verizon Buyout of Vodafone's 45% Share in ......'Verizon'.....& the Media Circus..........It's Not Such a Great Deal !... In Fact Far From it !!

The United States' biggest mobile phone company has just agreed to acquire a proportion of the 'Verizon' business which is Verizon Wireless, currently owned by the U.K.'s Vodafone, which is 45% of Verizon.
.

It has been portrayed as the third biggest buyout in history by much of the media. But when you look at the details of the deal, it raises questions as to why so much of the main stream media is getting so excited over it.

Verizon Wireless was formed when Vodafone merged with Bell Atlantic in1999. This is when the Verizon name first appeared.

To begin with, here are a few of the generally publicized details of the acquisition....

Much of the media is claiming the deal is worth $130 Billion in total.

According to the 'Washington Post'
Verizon will pay $58.9 billion in "cash", $60.2 billion in "stock" and $5 billion in "notes". Verizon also raised $61 billion in finance.

The Washington Post goes on to say that the buyout will, "give Verizon complete ownership over it's cellular company and marking the third largest such deal in U.S. history."

It also says, " The Verizon-Vodafone deal ends a 14 year partnership in the United States."

So......

.... Verizon is to buy a 45% stake of the 'Verizon ' business which is owned by Vodafone

....But in payment for this....Verizon will give Vodafone $60.2 Billion worth of 'stock' or shares in the new enlarged post buyout version of Verizon........(Stock means shares)..

This means....... Verizon will be giving back shares in Verizon to Vodafone. Almost half this deal is no more than a straight swap of shares...........In fact, part of the same company is actually being given straight back, to Vodafone............So calling it a straight swap of shares in two companies in this particular part of the deal  would be making it more of a deal than it really is.......
Any way, this basically removes all most half this deal from the buyout spectrum (..if you was to bring this deal from the fanasy world of banking into the realms of reality where most of us live !....).
So...$60.2 Billion of this deal is no more than a swap of shares, and even that statement would be at a stretch of the imagination.

...Also in payment for this so called buyout or acquisition, Verizon will give Vodafone $5 billion in 'notes'.

Notes in the finance world are a type of bond......

These notes are investments. They are effectively debt. Or a bit like a large scale I.O.U. The holder receives regular interest payments on the debt, but the actual debt will not usually be paid until the maturity date, which may be ten years. However there is no guarantee that the original debt will ever be paid (or all the interest) back to the investor......
It basically means that Vodafone are lending Verizon $5 billion for the buyout !.....(or put it this way....this part of the deal means Verizon owe Vodafone $5 billion......Which needs interest paying until the 'maturity' date when the original $5 billion must be paid).

Verizon I Phone Ad.

...These bonds could be put at risk if Verizon was to get into difficulties, by getting into vast amounts of debt, for example !

The final part of this deal is the one that raises most questions, in view of the fact Verizon pays out not a penny of cash in the two afore mentioned parts of the transaction.....

.....Investment banks are lending Verizon $61 billion to cover costs of this acquisition. The biggest part being the $58.9 billion 'in cash'. 

This reference to 'cash', I think many people will find misleading.The kind of people who take a passing interest in the financial pages so they can just fantasize over how well their pension scheme or share investments might be doing.  I think this wording is intended to mislead. It's often used with reference to these deals....But these references to 'cash' virtually always are actually referring to borrowed money. But you will notice that the financial media avoid talk about businesses getting into debt whilst share prices and asset values are at a vulnerable point......But as they are reporting what you are told is the business news, they should report it in full......Which in general, does not happen.

The average reader is likely to think that Verizon is swimming in cash and has this sort of money laying around. Unfortunately, this is clearly not true, because Verizon wouldn't need to borrow the $61 billion !

But the big question is;
If Verizon are not putting up any of the money for what is, we are told one of the biggest buyouts in history, how the hell are they getting finance of $61 billion???

It's difficult to answer that.....Maybe if you know the the advisers and people involved in this deal....You might like to know what the incentives of the banks providing this finance were...

Vodafone's advisers were led by Goldman Sachs deal maker, Karen Cook and UBS...Simon Shaw...These two alone are potentially going to collect £76 Million.

Verizon's advisers have been Bank of America, Guggenheim, Morgan Stanley and J P Morgan who will receive a total of £80 Million.
                    .........................These are fees for only 'advising'.........And you can bet your bottom dollar that the advice given by these advisers involves placing a business in rafts of unjustified debt !

If this buyout gets the go ahead, which they generally do, Barclays, Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase will be providing the finance.

As mentioned above, the financial media don't like to give details on current debts or debt about to be taken on by a business during a merger or buyout.......But as the BBC won't tell you....Verizon will be $120 billion in debt after the merger as they are already in a mass of debt.

To recover this money they are attempting to issue around $50 billion in bonds. 

I won't be investing and neither should you.
I'm Out !

Angela Merkel Renews Pressure for Regulation of Hedge Funds.

Angela Merkel in the past week, announced on her weekly televised message that she was to push for faster progress in financial market regulations, regarding hedge funds. This talk has actually been going on for some years, but Britain under the current government and similarly under the last labour government was opposed to new regulations in the finance industry.

You can rest assured that the current government won't budge on this matter unless Europe was to threaten something extreme like air strikes. I reckon the government may threaten to leave the European Union if radical changes in regulations are forced on them by our neighbours. But it wouldn't be the first time our government (or more specifically, David Cameron) has threatened to leave the European Union even though we, the people were never consulted on the matter.

The reason why our politicians are reluctant to changes within the financial system is because Britain is so dependent on financial services which include banking, hedge funds, asset management companies and private equity companies........
...............But the reason why we are so dependent on these businesses is.............

 We still have dominance in financial services in Europe and much of the world !
-This doesn't mean we have the biggest banks.  Financial services are businesses which are mostly related to investments. But they have a dominating affect on the world because banks from all over the world will invest in the financial service businesses which are the most successful.......The most successful of these businesses are currently in the U.S. and the U.K. These include hedge funds, asset managers and private equity companies.

Because of our lax regulations in the financial industry........ which were deregulated by Margaret Thatcher in the seventies. After her deregulations, Britain's finance industry grew rapidly. Because she made it easier for people from around the world to move their financial related business in to London, and gave all these businesses an easier time whilst also taxing these businesses lightly. The U.S. has had to relax it's regulations since then as London was leaving the U.S. behind, and the U.K.would be dominating the world in finance if the U.S. had not made changes.

The problem is deregulation is good for people in the finance industry but those out side the industry will suffer for it....Regardless of the misconception of the financial media (& Sky, BBC etc) But as the financial industry controls not just their own money, but all of ours.......and now....many peoples' round the world........There is an endless stream of cash for manipulation of both the media and governments.....This is the reason why our financial industry is possibly still the most unregulated in the world, and why it is difficult for people like Angela Merkel who want to make changes. Also because in the world of finance, borders mean very little. When the 'climate' changes as far as making easy money is concerned, you simply move your money to where the climate is more to your liking........ But where ever the profits are easiest......The probability is the less good your money is actually doing for the world.

In her TV announcement, Angela Merkel said, "Germany will, along with other countries exert pressure so that we not let up regulation of financial markets."

It is isn't clear exactly who this is directed at, but my mind reading skills tell me that she is thinking most about U.K.....She is just being much more tactful in her approach than our politicians would be......For Europe to have any influence on the UK,..... we need to remain in the European Union!

One of her proposed controls of Hedge funds is to add extra charges to them to restrict the profits they can make. .....
......Unfortunately the profits them selves are not the problem, and I think those running the European Union are only to aware of this. It's how they make those profits, which is where the real focus of these regulations should lie............................If they were doing useful things with our money, we would tolerate the profits they are making. But more and more people are now realizing that hedge funds make money at the cost of us all................. It is only the manipulation of the governments and the media which is keeping the truth hidden from the majority.................................................
                                                  .... But for how long?

Irish Credit Unions; Being Taken Over by Irelands Central Bank; Under Supervision of European Central Bank ? !

Credit Unions have provided an alternative to the big banks to people all over the world. They have become more popular than ever since the financial crisis.

Ireland's central bank has pretty much been given control of Ireland's credit unions under a "Resolution Scheme", which is being claimed is actually to protect investors from failing credit unions......and not as the majority of people see it, a way for the banks to gain control of the billions that are invested in Ireland's credit Unions. This resolution is backed up by the ECB.

73% of Ireland's population are signed up to credit unions, the second highest proportion of any country in the world

This 'take over' of the credit unions of Ireland by the Irish central bank is being over seen by the European Commission. How much influence Europe is having on this development is unclear, but is certainly something that any person with money invested in a credit union should be concerned with, where ever they may be in the European Union, or in fact the world.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the reasons that have been used to justify this take over (It's not actually a take over as we know it but the central bank now has enough influence on the credit unions to determine whether they can continue to compete with the banks)  is that credit unions no longer comply to new regulations which affect the credit unions.............But this is because rules for credit unions have been changed........Many supporters of credit unions believe the new regulations have been brought in to create problems for the credit unions........to make it impossible for them to compete with banks..........I have to say that there were experts on the finance system, whilst unable to explain their opinions through the standard main stream media who have actually been warning about this scenario for some years. They also warned that the credit unions were being set up to fail.........

.........Remarkably, many credit unions have failed since and have become insolvent...........Because they began investing in the same kind of things the big banks had been investing in, but losing substantially. There is no doubt that some of the losses incurred will have ended up as gains for the big banks.......But there is no corruption involved....You know the big banks would never be involved in that!

Landlords Increasing Property Portfolios are Potentially Adding £700 Million a Year to the National Debt...And That's Just With Their New Property Purchases ! !

Questions need to be asked and need answering about all these austerity measures which are taking place all over the world......The reason being that the policies are supposedly put in place to reduce the national debt of the countries being affected by the austerity cuts. But if any thing, the austerity measures appear to be making the situation worse.

The national debt was going out of control long before the financial crisis....Why ??..

In the case of the UK we often hear our leading politicians going on about the need to reduce the national deficit. In fact the politicians mention the deficit so often that you might then forget about the national debt or may think they are one and the same thing........The bad news about the deficit is;  Reducing it simply isn't enough to help the economy.......To make a difference you need to wipe it out completely......Only when the deficit becomes zero and moves into the positive, can it help reduce the national debt. Whilst the deficit exists it will also be a burden on the national debt.......Even whilst the deficit reduces, it will still continue to add to the national debt until it becomes zero !!

(The deficit is the shortfall between the cost of all government out goings and what comes in to the government, in taxes and other sources of income. In other words the amount the government is having to borrow to cover the costs of the country's public services). 

Any way to get back to the main point of this post........
The government tells us it is trying to reduce the deficit and thus presumably wipe it out so reducing the national debt........

The problem is.....Whilst the government has been unable to persuade banks to lend money to ordinary people to buy homes, the banks have been causing both the deficit and the national debt to rise!.......
The reason this is, is that lending to ordinary people to buy their own homes actually reduces the burden on the government and tax payers......The reason for this is in the way the benefits system works......

If people buy their own home with a mortgage they have got from a bank, tax payers do not become responsible for the payments on that mortgage when the home buyer loses their job. They may be entitled to unemployment benefits but the tax payer does not become burdened with the housing benefits for the costs of the home. However if this same person rented their home instead of buying it through a mortgage, the costs then become the responsibility of the government and the tax payers....!! We pay housing benefits to those who rent their homes, but not to those who buy their homes !  Because the government is in debt and tax payers are not covering the governments expenditure, these landlord costs are currently adding to the national debt !.....
.......But it gets worse.........
Recently in England......In fact over the last ten years, landlords have been buying more properties than the combined purchases of ordinary domestic home buyers!

In one year, 2011 to 2012, £22.7 Billion was paid in housing benefit in the U.K.

Housing benefits are paid to something in excess of 25% of homes owned by private landlords.

 Landlords are increasing the number of homes they own by something in the region of 8% a year!

 Based on those figures about 300,000 properties are being added to the potential housing benefits bill each year.....If  the unemployment level of 25% in homes owned by private landlords continues, then within the next year, we can expect to be paying housing benefits for a quarter of these homes. About 80,000 then.

The housing benefit on these extra homes per year at the national average of £736 per month comes to.........

 .............. an extra £706,560,000 

This 25% figure is much higher than the unemployment statistics, but this is because you are more likely to be unemployed if you rent. For some, this can be explained by the tenant's inability to get a mortgage so they rent......But for a number which we can only estimate.......They are unemployed because they rent their home! Costs of rented homes cost more and need more of an income to cover their costs......If employers can not meet the demands of landlords, the people will become unemployed or the local economy will be affected in away that it will be difficult for businesses to flourish and create the needed jobs.......
.......Landlords are not only adding to the national debt, but making it more difficult for tax payers to pay off the national debt, by adding to unemployment and reducing the number of tax payers! 

Of course my figures are assuming that the costs of renting property from landlords is the reason that 25% of the tenants will be unemployed. This is a difficult one to prove. But I would certainly put money on the fact that many people who move into the new properties of landlords over the next year will find themselves unemployed in the near future and the costs of their home will be a major influence. A good government wouldn't allow this to happen.  

Home ownership is falling and is currently at it's lowest level for decades. Whilst landlords are increasing the numbers of homes they control.

The banks have therefore made profits for themselves, through lending fortunes to landlords which are in fact debt which has been added to the national debt...............(Which the banks are making money from!!!!)....(Also this was actually part of what we were told was the boom- which affected house prices!.....- also funded by the national debt !!!).........

...............But then the obvious question is ;
"Why would the banks favor the lending of mortgages to landlords as opposed to lending of mortgages to ordinary people who work and deserve the right the right to buy their own home ?"

~Unfortunately, I have already answered that question. It's all about safety nets. The banking system is full of safety nets which unfortunately protect the bankers but not us. In fact we are the safety net in this particular case...All of the tax payers !

The reason why banks prefer lending to landlords as opposed to the rest of us is because of the fact that a person renting can claim housing benefit as soon as they become unemployed. This means that mortgage payments that a landlord is paying are less of a risk..........Less of a risk to the bank lending.....But a bigger risk to the economy.........In fact not a risk to the economy, but a guaranteed blatant destruction of the economy !

There are some other important issues here......

One.......

The banks caused the national debt of the UK and many other countries to rise significantly due to bail outs which were given to the banks by governments after the financial crisis in 2007.

two......

The banks seem to be behaving as if these bail outs were a Heaven sent God given gift which they have no need to be thankful for or repay.

three......

We are not asking the banks to repay our money, but to carry out their duty to use our savings and investments responsibly, which they are clearly continuing to take for granted.

Before the financial crisis and since then, the policy of banks giving preferential treatment to the lending of mortgages to landlords has been making money for the banks.......But during this time....Before and after the financial crisis......the profits of both the landlords and the bankers funding the landlords has been funded by adding the costs to the national debt !!

four.......

Whilst the banks are making decisions on how our invested money is being used, they are continuing to invest it unwisely in the name of their own profits.........But banks don't use their own money for investments...It belongs to us.......

Five

The benefits bill is rising and will continue to rise, even if unemployment falls, because as shown above, landlords are buying up property and raising the overall costs of housing benefits. Neither the unemployed occupiers of the homes or the tax payers or the government can afford to pay the housing benefit bill. Yet landlords continue to be paid through adding to the national debt......With every one else suffering wage cuts and job losses in every other business, surely it is time for some cuts in the landlord business. The landlords currently being our biggest cost behind the banks.......Regardless of whether their income should be cut, we need to stop the banks lending them money, which is ultimately being piled up on top of our national debt......And an other banking crisis is surely on the horizon.

Conclusion
The only logical explanation for the government's 'ring fencing' of landlords from austerity or cuts to it's sources of finance through the banks, is because landlords are a good source of profits for banks....

The problem is much of those profits for the banks and the landlords are actually being funded by the national debt. 

So when banks lend to a landlord, they know there is a safety net which is the government and the tax payer.

But as the national debt rises the government is trying to close the gap with Austerity measures,job cuts. NHS cuts. Fire service cuts........Which add to the benefits bill.....and the national debt.
The action taken by the government that is being inflicted on millions of innocent people is causing suffering and in extreme cases in the U.K. losses of life.............Whilst this happens the landlords appear to have been ring fenced from the cuts....along with the banks.
We have let the government get away with this for too long. What they are doing is not working and never will. They are simply maintaining the financial system at the expense of the economy. The national debt problem will simply be handed to the next government and will not be paid. The landlords will continue to be ring fenced from austerity as they provide income for the banks......  .....Landlords are just another way for the banks to get on payrolls of our lives.................

*********************************************************************************

Whilst we continue to hear David Cameron and George Osborne trying to justify the cuts and austerity, they often claim they are "...paying down the national debt....", this just isn't happening.

Bain Capital.....The New Owner of Britain's Freely Donated Blood Plasma Supply......

Under Section 75 of the NHS reforms in the UK the blood plasma supply has been sold to Bain Capital. Bain Capital is an American private equity company.

X-Economics has already posted two articles on the subject of Bain Capital as it was formed and run by Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney is still paid many millions of dollars per year by the company.

The previous posts were in August 2012 and October 2012.
"Mitt Romney...Would he make a good president for the U.S.?"     in August 2012.

"Mitt Romney....This is the wrong Man for president !"       in October 2012.

Please take a look at the older posts.......They should raise questions over what is going on with the main stream media.......

The main problem with this deal is that Bain Capital has an absolutely appalling record when it comes to buying and running businesses.

The business in question gets acquired by the private equity company through borrowing the majority of the money from banks.

 Immediately jobs get slashed.

Assets get sold off.

 Many of the businesses collapse within years of jobs being cut and being asset stripped.

 However Bain Capital has made money because it sells the businesses off just before their imminent collapse.

Bain Capital clearly has a complete disregard for people and businesses whilst it behaves as some kind of capitalist monster which destroys every thing in it's path in the name of profit. To say that the management of the UK blood plasma supply by Bain Capital will cost lives may be jumping the gun. But the company's previous links to medical and pharmaceutical businesses have without any doubt had this effect.

Bain Capital has owned and 'run' many hundreds of companies in it's history. Although much of the financial press and media more often than not seem to reflect the opinions of those running Bain Capital, in other words, show support for the business......A comprehensive investigation of Bain Capital owned businesses, by the 'Wall Street Journal' discovered that 22% of businesses that had been run by Bain Capital either filed for bankruptsy or liquidated by the end of the eighth year after Bain Capital invested.

Although pension funds linked to Bain Capital will have made money for their investors........Think of those people who are investing in companies that buy businesses off Bain Capital.......These will have lost money.....This could be your pension fund or savings which could be being used when the companies being off loaded by Bain Capital onto a stock exchange......Which often happens to companies after they have been asset stripped......Only later to collapse under debt and lack of staff to satisfy its customers.

The NHS is Being Sold Off Behind Our Backs; We Must Send a Message to this Government That We Intend To Get It Back !

On the 24th of April the House of Lords voted in favor of privatization of the NHS. It took place with little publicity from the main stream media. Had the main stream media done their job in informing the people of extremely important matters like this, the public may well have been able to take some form of action that would make clear to the government that the privatization of the NHS is not what the British public wanted. In fact a referendum would surely have quashed the government's plans. But this is not the most disappointing thing about this situation. More disappointing is the governments ability to get away with this vote whilst keeping it away from the knowledge of the majority of the public. The evidence is clear. The government knew the public would have voted against this in a referendum. They took action to keep the details away from the public.

Here are a list of facts you should have been told by the government before they decided to privatize your NHS.


1..Approximately one third of all the Lords and MPs that voted in favor have interests in private health companies.
This interest would involve ownership or running the company or both. 

The interests these Lords and MPs have varies.

Some own private equity companies that own private health businesses.

Some own shares in health care companies.

Some own or have part ownership on companies that buy patents related to new health treatments.

Some own or have part ownership in businesses that specialize in financing private healthcare businesses.

So as you can see, a third who voted in favor of privatization of the NHS are going to be able to profit from it's privatization.

I don't think this is any one's idea of democracy.

2..Substantial debt will be added to the Health Service.

All kinds of investment businesses will be used to buy NHS contracts and services. Although Lords will be involved in buying up these services........They will be using debt from investment banks........The risk involved in this debt however will be removed from those directly involved, including the banks onto the public.......Because pension funds will be used to pay off the debt. This means the Lords and private equity companies can be 'successful' themselves whilst regardless of how successful the business is. Executives and owners of a business can benefit from debt being added. These people are simply a cost of the business. A cost that can be funded by debt. When the debt gets out of control it is the people payiing in to pension funds who will lose their investment, not the Lords, private Equity companies, or the banks. .....Does this explain why they borrow the money rather than using their own? ....There is no risk to the borrower or bank.... Only to pension funds.

3..Services provided by the NHS will be subjected to a tendering procedure which means existing organisations including charities which carry out healthcare will have to bid against the new debt backed businesses.
This is a quite important one.......
Just say Marie Currie Cancer care was in a situation where the charity organisation was bidding against one of the private medical for a service Marier Currie are providing at the moment........

Marie Currie may have to offer a financial incentive to the government in order to secure the business. Remember the farce over the contract renewal between Virgin and First rail service providers? First initially won the bid,  simply because they were willing to borrow more money to pay the government for the contract.Although after a lot of fuss by Richard Branson and others, the bids are still awaiting review! The bidding process has been proved a failure, but the government has not admitted this.
This system for awarding contracts is no different to just legalizing bribery. But the NHS is going to be up against this legalized corruption.

The other problem is that because the private companies will on the whole be backed by pension funds, removing risk from the banks- Access to money from banks is easier for them. They will have better chances to win contracts.....They will be able to spend fortunes on glossy PR Campaigns that will deceive the public........But the charities could be put at risk and face closure..........But when the private companies screw up the service......Collapse due to debt.........Reduce  their services by two thirds due to rising costs.......In other words, provide services to a fraction of the patients that their charity backed counterparts used serve........The charity organisations may be unable to pick up the pieces because they have lost funding and donations. Then we will be left with no Public health service, no private or even charity driven service.

4..The private companies will be able to cherry pick from the NHS, choosing the health services which are the easiest to make a profit from.

Potentially profit making NHS Services which could have helped carry the NHS forward as a public service will be lost to the profit vultures. Banks will want to get on the 'payrolls' of these businesses and contracts. But tax payers will be left to foot the bill for services regarding the old and disabled. Because these people are less likely to be able to pay for their health care personally.

5..Tax payers will still be paying for what will be both price inflated and reduced services.
Tax payers paying national insurance will be paying for services to private companies. The higher staff costs. The many more executives that will be in the health service. And all the banks and financiers and their investors. The reality of this is quite clear. The services are going to be unaffordable to tax payers. They will be cut as a national health service. If you need the services of these private companies in years to come you will have to have cash to them.........Or suitable health insurance.........It's just as well the Lord's have thought of this and have investments in various insurance companies that specialize in health insurance !

6..Tax payers have, and still do pay for education and training for health professionals who are being poached by the new private companies.

The private companies and the NHS are currently in competition for staff and will be more so as Section 75 rolls into action. Private companies will be able to pay more staff for two reasons;
 a).....Businesses they are involved in will charge a premium to what will on the whole be services to the more wealthy among us.
b)......The businesses can feed off a wealth of debt from banks and investors.

7..Due to what will certainly be a reduced public health service, the public will be forced to pay for their healthcare where the healthcare would be free today.

As the costs of the private services rise.....And they will rise to pay the additionally executives, investors and of course debts, these services will be with held from the NHS as the NHS pulls plug on funding (Or signifiantly raises taxes to continue to pay for them).

8..A & E is not likely to prove popular with these businesses, so will stay public. But because hospitals will lose funding and staff due to losing their payment for other services, A & E departments are likely to face closure due to lack of funding.

9..Times for people receiving healthcare will differ considerably. Private care companies have an incentive to keep people in hospital whilst they have money to pay for their care. Whilst those who have little money and are suffering from an illness may find they can not get any care at all. This is known to be a problem all over the world where healthcare is privatized.
The U.S. pays over twice the amount that we pay per capita for health care  and health insurance combined. It is clear that private health companies have incentives to keep the wealthy or those with health insurance in their medical centers, whilst their insurer is paying their hotel.....Sorry medical bill !

10..You will be unaware of using many of the privatized services as they will be allowed to use the NHS logo. Tax payers will be paying the costs of the businesses, whatever those costs may be. Costs which also now include private equity partners, bankers and pension funds.

11..Whilst people will feel they are forced to take on health insurance, these insurance companies will avoid paying out where they can. They will also be able to exercise their exclusive right to discriminate! Offering healthy people unrestricted services whilst keeping their grubby services away from those who may need it most, because they will be unwilling to insure people of higher risk of illness. I find this beyond belief. It makes apartheid look like a minor issue!

12..The financial problems that PFI has caused in the NHS, has created a shortage of cash leading to all kinds of problems which we are now hearing about every day. Shortage of hospital beds, waiting lists, increasing dieing patients, short staff. The government is using these problems contributed by PFI as a reason to justify, "more efficient privatization".

Whilst doing this it blames failings in the NHS system on individuals over burdened by government caused problems. Such as blaming training standards of nurses!

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here are a few of the businesses that would prove that lords and MPs have a strange attraction to businesses linked to the health industry. It has not always been this way. This addiction has developed mostly over the last few years. There were were cynical people who predicted that something was about to change in the National Health Service a few years back, because politicians and lords were all investing in private health related businesses. I must admit I found it difficult to believe this could happen to the NHS. But it is happening, and it is clear the House of Lords has been preparing for this for a few years.

The majority of the businesses below are businesses which provide medical and pharmaceutical products or services. Some of the others are businesses which are providing contractual services to medical organisations such as the NHS. Some of these businesses providing services which for example charge the NHS for consultancy services will raise questions and doubts as to whether it is really necessary for the NHS to be paying out for such services. It may be raises questions about those who are at the very top of the NHS and whether they can be trusted to spend tax payers money responsibly without being influenced by 'lobbying' by many of the businesses below. The remaining companies listed are businesses which provide finance to buy the medical and pharmaceutical businesses. They will also provide finance to buy the NHS under section 75 over the next months and years. Some of these financially orientated businesses will provide the pension funds which will carry all the risk involved with the debt put onto many of the medical businesses below and also the NHS services. The people buying the services will not use their own money. It will be borrowed. But the banks won't be at risk. Because pension funds will be paying off the mortgages of the business or service regardless of how well the privatized services perform financially. It means any idiot can run one of these services without any financial risk to them selves. Those on the payroll of National Health services is on a dramatic increase. They include the Lords themselves, the executives and staff of private equity and asset management companies. The pension investors who will be carrying most of the financial risk for these executives, the banks and the Lords.

How can all these extra people on the pay roll of the NHS not affect it's ability to actually make ill people better. The size of the industry will reduce because the costs have just gone up significantly. Over all staff will be reduced, thus jobs will without doubt be lost. ......Tax payers are likely to pay more in the future, but then pay again when they find the NHS is not going to be able to provide the care they need.  It's difficult to see how this won't happen. The U.S. health services, public and private combined including total health insurance costs the U.S. people individually almost twice the amount per capita compared to the U.K.  !

 People here are going to suffer and die if we let this happen. It is going to cost thousands of lives.

 The evidence is clear for all to see.

To cap it all.......The Condem government has put in place rules which prevent a future government from re-nationalizing health services once privatized. These private companies will apparently have the right to sue the government and make us tax payers pay out again, should we return the services to public ownership......

Strange that isn't it.....It seems they've predicted the public wouldn't want the NHS handed to to profit motivated, debt backed, government corrupted private profiteers.

It's time to get the parasites out of business and government. You should be protesting against this just as many around the world are protesting against dictatorship.!...........

Below are just a few.......Yes there are many more........Of the companies which the Lords who voted in favour of Section 75 (Privatization of the NHS), have interests in !
That is they are directors, executives, or have ownership in the businesses.

 

                                         
                                                               

The Businesses.......

Bupa.

Baroness Bottomley is Director of Bupa.
Bupa has recently issued £500 Million in Corporate bonds. One of the worlds most successful health care companies has issued these bonds probably to buy NHS services. This is debt added to our health services which will end up paying on top of the Doctors and nurses we already pay.........It means there will be less doctors and nurses on the front line of the health service. 

BUPA Finance PLC.

Lord Edmiston has shares.

GlaxoSmithkline.

Lord Boswell, Baroness Byford, Lord Charrington, Baroness Eccles, Lord Glendon Brook have shares.

Reckit Benckiser.

Lord Boswell, Baroness Byford has shares.

Vectura.

Lord Charrinton, Baroness Byford have shares.

Alere.

Lord Feldman has shares.

The Priory.

Lord Ashcroft has a 34% stake of this company. Bought in 2010 for £44 Million.

Interserve.

Lord Blackwell is Chairman.

BTG. (Owner of  Biocompatibles since 2010)

Lord Feldman has shares.

Marsh Inc.
Insurance Broker

Lord Ashton has shares.

Zurich.

Lord Ashton has shares.

Chime Communications Group.

Lord Bell is Chairman.

Reynolds Mackenzie.

Lord Bell is Chairman of holding company- Chime Communications Group.

VCCP Health.

Lord Bell is Chairman of holding company- Chime Communications Group.

Open Minds.

Lord Bell is Chairman of holding company- Chime Communications Group.

Open Plan.

Lord Bell is Chairman of holding company- Chime Communications Group.

Greenhill.

Lord Blyth of Rowington is Senior Adviser to the Investment Bankers who specialise in Healthcare and medical investments.

Odgers Berndtson.

Baroness Bottomley is Chairman.

Teijin.

Lord Brittan is Advisor.

Unilever Ventures / Unilever PLC.

Baroness Byford, Lord Glendon Brook, Lord Charrington have shares.

Croda International.

Baroness Byford has shares.

Huntsworth.

Lord Chadlington is Chief Executive.

AMT-Sybex Group.

Lord Coe is Director.

Cumberlege Eden & Partners.

Baroness Cumberlege runs the company.

Synergy Pharmaceuticals.

Lord Deighton has shares.

Fidelity International. (Owner of Telehealth Solutions Ltd since 2011)

Lord Edmiston has shares.

Investec Asset Management.

Lord Flight is a Director.

Arden Partners. (Investor in Deltex Medical Group which supplies NHS)

Lord Flight is Chairman.

Evercore Bank.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

Chairman of the Advisory Board.

Parity Group PLC.

Lord Freeman is director.

UBS Bank.

Lord Garel Jones is Managing Director.
Baring in mind that the purchases of the NHS contracts will be through the use of debt, this Lord may come in very useful and this is why UBS is included in this list.

Ansell Ltd 

Lord Glendon Brook has shares.

Abbott Laboratories.

Lord Glendon Brook has shares.

Astrazeneca.

Lord Glendon Brook has shares.

Johnson & Johnson.

Lord Glendon Brook has shares.

Novartis.

Lord Glendon Brook has shares.

Novo Nordisk.

Lord Glendon Brook has shares.

Pvizer.

Lord Glendon Brook has shares.

Serco Group.

Lord Glendon Brook has shares.

Siemens AG (Medical).

Lord Glendon Brook has shares.

Smith & Nephew.

Lord Glendon Brook has shares.


THIS LIST IS YET TO BE COMPLETED.................