On 08/02/2018 19:26, tim... wrote:


"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 16:40:59 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 22:06:17 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"RJH" wrote in message
news On 07/02/2018 14:38, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7548156.html



That article doesn't reflect anything like your header - or indeed
what
the government has said: 'The NHS will never be part of a trade
deal'.

Quite why May is not ruling out US involvement in UK healthcare is
probably because it's already he

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/08/us-firms-look-to-capitalise-as-nhs-becomes-increasingly-privatised


Yep

I fail to see any reason why, if were are going to have an NHS that
buys
in
services from private concerns, that these concern shouldn't be
American
(based or owned).Â* If they do an acceptable job at a lower price,
what's
the
problem.

Because that wouldn't happen.


I unwittingly had a series of tests at a local private hospital - the GP
referred me under the NHS. No complaints about the service (although I
have no real idea what they did, the accuracy of the results or how they
were interpreted). The car park was, or course, stocked with row upon
row of £100k+ cars. Be assured, mine lowered the average ;-)

oh I agree it's unlikely

So why do it?


The private health provider, propped up by hedge funds, provide the
*capital* (equipment and buildings) that the NHS can't afford up front.
The revenue costs are difficult to track - they're generally tied to a
geared contract that includes 'benign' services - cleaning, maintenance
and admin - which is where real money is to be made later into the
contract. Once it's changed hands several times and nobody can track any
hint of goodwill.

The costs are now pretty much on record - factors of several what the
NHS would have paid, had it had access to capital. it obviously varies
by contract. Virtually all contracts involve a loss leader. Renal, say,
may show remarkable value - and that's the contract that'll be wheeled
out as an example, should anyone have the audacity to ask about costs
and benefits. The rest will be concealed under a 'commercially
sensitive' gagging order.

Near daily news reports on this from politicians and journalists on all
sides. And of course the academic literature.


--
Cheers, Rob