Archive

Monthly Archives: September 2014

An interesting article (thanks to let me look ‏@letmelooktv for sharing the info)
Opening the oyster: the 2010–11 NHS reforms in England
Lucy Reynolds, Research fellow⇓ and Martin McKee, Professor of European public health

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE http://www.clinmed.rcpjournal.org/content/12/2/128.full
with links to documents and papers.

How Rothschilds privatization unit members Oliver Letwin & John Redwood proposed plans to gradually privatize the NHS

http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/111027171245-BritainsBiggestEnterprise1988.pdf

Some excerpts :

We argue that a clear narrative does underlie the bill, but that it is very different from that advanced by ministers. It can be traced back to the mid 1980s and the search for ways to increase private sector opportunities in healthcare provision in the UK. An important background context is the evolution of not-for-profit health organisations in the USA. In the 1970s, American investors took over many of the non-profit health maintenance organisations (HMOs) that had, since 1929, been created to provide medical care for communities and workforces in the USA.17 By the mid-1990s, the health insurance market in the USA was saturated, with little scope for further growth.18 Its investors started to look elsewhere for profitable opportunities and identified Latin America, where healthcare was paid for from social security funds, which presented an attractive target for investors.19 As Latin America’s high sovereign debt became increasingly unaffordable following a rise in interest rates in the late 1970s, creditors were able to force the opening of the public sector to international investors through a large-scale privatisation programme (‘structural adjustment’) of all public sector services.20 By the late 1990s, managed care was established through much of the continent, albeit against some resistance.21

The NHS in the UK, funded from general taxation and directly managed by government, offered little in the way of investment opportunities in the 1980s. The scope for growth in the indigenous independent sector was very limited because of the high quality of the national system. New ideas were needed to open gaps through which corporations could enter. The arguments were the same as those used to support structural adjustment in developing countries, propagating a narrative of intrinsically inefficient state provision (while downplaying its strengths) and extolling the virtues of operating public services through a market (neglecting to mention the substantial literature on market failure in health care21 and, especially, the cost of paying a substantial return to investors).

One can thus discern a sustained assault upon the values and organisation of the NHS in the UK, which has gradually laid down the framework within which a market could operate. Small reform by small reform, it has moved us toward thinking in terms of an ill-fitting consumer model of healthcare and away from the original paradigm of a communal pooling of resources to provide care according to medical need. Because of strong public support for the NHS, this transition has been slow and has been masked by concurrent changes that partially addressed some of the system’s weaknesses, such as inflexibility and weak management information. After a quarter of a century of opening to the market, only around 5% of the NHS’s budget for secondary care is spent on private provision22 and forays into primary care provision, although subsidised, have so far largely failed.
We are now reaching the point when that oyster will finally be opened wide by the current reforms, which will bring fundamental changes in our healthcare provision,23,24 by which the introduction of private sector competition throughout both primary and secondary care will be funded on equal terms with existing NHS public sector organisations. Investors will be able to achieve their goal of direct and large-scale access to tax funding and, as Tim Evans, chief negotiator for the now defunct Independent Healthcare Association, stated: ‘The NHS would simply be a kitemark attached to the institutions and activities of a system of purely private providers’.10

In 1988, the pro-market Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) published a series of short studies exploring this agenda (although step 6 vanished as inexpedient, as reflected in Tim Evans’ comment cited above). One study was published as a pamphlet entitled Britain’s biggest enterprise by Conservative members of parliament (MPs) Oliver Letwin and John Redwood.30 Around this time, both of these MPs headed NM Rothschild bank’s international privatisation unit,31 and in 1988 Oliver Letwin published a book Privatising the world: a study of international privatisation in theory and in practice, with a foreword by John Redwood.32

Letwin and Redwood summarised and tried to justify the 1987 plan,30 starting by identifying their perceived failings of the NHS. These were not concerned with poor health outcomes; in fact, outcomes were not mentioned at all. Instead, Letwin and Redwood identified the ‘minimum’ components of reform, as follows:

NHS to be established as an independent trust (or trusts)

increased use of joint ventures between the NHS and the private sector

‘extending the principle of charging’, starting with a system of ‘health credits’ to be combined with a contributory national health insurance scheme based on personal health budgets.

The pamphlet’s final statement comments on the political feasibility of the reform:
A system of this sort would be fraught with transitional difficulties. And it would be foolhardy to move so far from the present one in a single leap. But need there be just one leap? Might it not, rather, be possible to work slowly from the present system toward a national insurance scheme?
One could begin, for example, with the establishment of the NHS as an independent trust, with increased joint ventures between the NHS and the private sector; move on next to use of ‘credits’ to meet standard charges set by a central NHS funding administration for independently managed hospitals or districts; and only at the last stage create a national health insurance scheme separate from the tax system.

In a subsequent CPS pamphlet also published in 1988,33 Redwood proposed that groups of GPs could act as HMOs, purchasing services from capitation fees received. Another pamphlet, coauthored by MP David Willetts, suggested importing the American model of competing HMOs into the NHS.34 A series of documents over the subsequent 20 years echoed the same themes as preparations were put in place that would allow the Lansley reform to ‘liberate’ the whole system.

The next stage: health insurance to pay for NHS services

The conservative think-tank Reform has, according to the British Medical Journal, been funded by at least three of the prospective entrants to the new English healthcare regime (General Healthcare Group (GHG), KPMG and McKinsey).46 Reform’s 2008 paper on the NHS sets out a plan for conversion of the NHS to an insurance-based system with personal top-up payments. This plan is alluded to in the 2010 white paper in the opaque phrase ‘money will follow the patient’. This refers to the impending roll-out of personal health budgets for all those registered with the NHS. These have been greeted with enthusiasm by patient groups, somewhat strangely when one considers that the NHS currently undertakes to cover all costs of care, whereas the concept of a finite budget implies that it is possible that the actual costs of care could exceed that budget, leaving the patient to cover the excess.

Advertisements

Latest developments in the syrian regime change mission.
Now ISIS are such a threat to mankind-Obama is authorising air strikes against them in Syria-with no permission from assad,and if syria dares to shoot any US planes down there will be trouble!

Be prepared for another MH17 style incident !

President Obama recently vowed to retaliate against Syrian President Bashar Assad if Syrian forces shoot at U.S. military planes, according to The New York Times.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/217673-report-obama-would-retaliate-if-assads-troops-shoot-at-us-forces#.VBcFYBid7sc.twitter

Was the Syrian rebellion instigated by NATO/USA/ Council on Foreign Relations?
The rebellion started in 2011
from CFR website in 2005
“In 2005 and 2006, the U.S./Middle East Project joined in consultations among leading policy institutions in the Arab world in the formation of an international consortium that focuses on issues associated with democratization and regional reform. The purpose of this network is to mobilize Arab research capacity in support of reform in the Arab world that is realistic and home grown. In September 2005, the Arab founding members of the initiative jointly chose Dr. Bassma Kodmani to be the full-time director for the program. From October 24-25, 2005, the Secretariat of the Arab Reform Initiative convened in Cairo to discuss the organization’s work plan for 2006. The Arab Reform Initiative’s website is accessible to the public (in both English and Arabic) at http://www.arab-reform.net.”

Link to article here

 

2012 bilderberg
“The presence of Syrian National Transitional Council head Bassma Kodmani at the 2012 Bilderberg conference clearly indicates that power brokers at the elite confab will be discussing the effort to topple President Bashar Al-Assad and install a NATO-friendly administration in the violence-stricken country.
Syria Regime Change On Bilderberg Agenda
Kodmani is the Head of Foreign Affairs with the SNC, a coalition of Syrian opposition groups based in Istanbul, Turkey. While at the Bilderberg meeting she will be in the company of the likes of former Secretary of State and accused war criminal Henry Kissinger, warhawk Richard Perle, and Thomas E. Donilon, National Security Advisor for the Obama White House.”

link to complete article
http://www.prisonplanet.com/syria-regime-change-on-bilderberg-agenda.html

“Attending Bilderberg 2012 as an ‘international’ participant was Bassma Kodmani.

So who is Bassma Kodmani? The answer to that question is also the answer to the question: what the hell is happening in Syria? This is where it gets interesting (and worrying) for Bilderberg followers.

Kodmani was at Bilderberg in 2008, the last time it was here in Chantilly. She is a member of the European Council on foreign relations – its parent group, the council on foreign relations, is a sort of über lobby group, a couple of rungs down from Bilderberg, but still hugely powerful.

There’s a lot of CFR/Bilderberg crossover. Honorary chairman of both is David Rockefeller; co-chairman of the CFR is Robert Rubin (he was here); and on the CFR’s board of directors are Fouad Ajami and Henry Kravis, both at Bilderberg 2012.

Bassma Kodmani is also the executive director of the Arab Reform Initiative. This body, set up in 2004 by the CFR, is helping to steer “a comprehensive process” of “democratic reform” in the region. In 2005, the Syrian National Council came into being. Bassma Kodmani was a founding member, and is on the executive committee. Kodmani is one of the SNC’s two spokespeople, alongside Radwan Ziadeh (who has a flawless Washington pedigree – look him up). According to its website, the SNC is a non profit public policy research organization register in the District of Colombia and headquartered in Washington DC. Just up the road.

I asked Tarpley about Kodmani. He doesn’t mince words. “She’s a Nato agent, a destabilizer, a colour revolution queen. The fact that Kodmani was there is a scary one for Syria”, says Tarpley.

To those gathered outside, at least, it looks increasingly like, at this year’s Bilderberg, the war of regime change got signed off. In the airport lobby, on the way home from Bilderberg, I looked up at a TV monitor to see Bilderberg attendee and CFR board member Fouad Ajami talking about how Syria is about to become another Libya. That sound you can hear? It’s all those juicy defence contracts being scratched out around Chantilly. Fuel the jets and open the champagne, boys. We’re going in.

link to full article
http://gu.com/p/38536/tw via @guardian

Syrian National Council (SNC)
Background
Since the beginning of the Syrian Revolution, the opposition has worked to unite its
efforts to create an all-inclusive representative body for the nation. The goal of this
body is to support the Syrian people’s revolution and their struggle for freedom, dignity,
and democracy. Over the course of six months, the concept of a political umbrella
organization, which encompasses the youth of the revolution, the nation’s political
forces, and national figures emerged. This organization would deliver the message of
the Syrian people in the field of international diplomacy, with the aim to overthrow the
regime, its figureheads, and the pillars on which it stands in order to establish a
democratic, multi-party, and civil state.

LINK TO FULL DOCUMENT TRANSCRIPT
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/110916_About%20SNC.pdf

Bassma Kodmani -more from the arab reform website.
http://www.arab-reform.net/bassma-kodmani-0

Reforming Syria’s Security Sector in the Post-Assad Era
July 2014
, by Murhaf Jouejati
link

http://shar.es/LYegX

CHARLIE SKELTON http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking

 

%d bloggers like this: