TTIP

[Dylan]

Lets be clear here, it opens up governments to proper scrutiny according to the law. It isn't likely to be the case that Acme Inc can demand a new law be created and that's the job done, but it does seem likely that it will hold governments to account according to the laws of their own land. That doesn't seem so bad, does it? I mean if a government decided that smoking was too dangerous to health and decided to ban it, I very much doubt that any court would say they wouldn't be able to do so.

Look, I am for the trade agreements. But as seen with the TPPA, there are too many special provisions for the mega-corporations.

Again, if the deal is so damn sweet, why hide it from the public?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Look, I am for the trade agreements. But as seen with the TPPA, there are too many special provisions for the mega-corporations.

Again, if the deal is so damn sweet, why hide it from the public?

I can't speak for the US side, but the EU have released a number of documents around the negotiations that outright say what they are and aren't trying to do.

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/index_en.htm

It just isn't the core document itself. For me it's like you see a start-up and they say they have no competition whatsoever. When you speak to someone about this and you get the impression from them that there are no benefits to such a trade deal (or with past trade deals), then it does smack of having an agenda to fill.

I don't doubt that trade will bring negatives as well as positives, with some of those outlined above clearly evidence of that, but a bit of balance would be no bad thing.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

UK NHS taxpayers money is the principle driving force behind the US wanting the UK to stay in Europe. That is why the Tories agreed not to fight for the NHS to be exempt from the negotiations. As TTIP is nearly completed, US health companies are gearing themselves up for an assault on the NHS. If the UK leaves it will put back their attempts to get their hands on public money. Expediency has become the order of the day.

Seeing as you have intimate knowledge of this - what American health companies, and what are they gearing up to do?

 

[Elong]

Look, I am for the trade agreements. But as seen with the TPPA, there are too many special provisions for the mega-corporations.

Again, if the deal is so damn sweet, why hide it from the public?

It's been released months ago in NZ. Be arsed finding it but it's public.

 

[Dylan]

It's been released months ago in NZ. Be arsed finding it but it's public.

Yes I know the TPPA was released as it was signed (Sky City in Auckland for the whole thing!)

It is the little things like mentioned above that irk me. I think overall it will be good for NZ as it should eventually bring down the cost of living, making it a little more palpable living here, but some transparency up front would have been nice.

 

[Elong]

Yes I know the TPPA was released as it was signed (Sky City in Auckland for the whole thing!)

It is the little things like mentioned above that irk me. I think overall it will be good for NZ as it should eventually bring down the cost of living, making it a little more palpable living here, but some transparency up front would have been nice.

For me, I'm not too worried about transparency, especially when every other trade deal in the past has had the same treatment. We vote people in to do a job, and trust that they do it right. In NZ's case, when the ball was rolling, both left and right parties would have signed up to it. Helen Clarke is a big fan of it.

Overall for NZ, a small country in the middle of nowhere with limited resources, this will be terrific.

 

[Clint Planet]

Some interesting reading.
http://www.thecanary.co/2015/11/05/ttip-leak-reveals-draconian-reading-rooms-secret-documents/

Earlier in the year an EU ombudsman published a damning report on the transparency of the negotiations, pointing out that there is little or no access to US proposals or to details on how corporate lobbyists are seeking to influence talks. There is also massive secrecy around the so-called “consolidated texts” that will form the treaty itself.

The European public won’t have access to these documents until after the treaty has been concluded – effectively too late. And currently only 40 out of 751 MEPs (just 5.3%) have access to consolidated texts, with just 14 (1.9%) having access to all of them, according to an insider in Brussels who informed War on Want.

Currently for an MEP to see key TTIP documents, they must book an appointment to visit one of the Brussels or US embassy reading rooms. They must then sign a 14-page non-disclosure agreement and agree to draconian security measures, such as handing in all electronic equipment and being accompanied at all times.

Nothing fishy going on there, then.

 

[Groucho]

Look, I am for the trade agreements. But as seen with the TPPA, there are too many special provisions for the mega-corporations.

Again, if the deal is so damn sweet, why hide it from the public?

I can't speak for the US side, but the EU have released a number of documents around the negotiations that outright say what they are and aren't trying to do.

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/index_en.htm

It just isn't the core document itself. For me it's like you see a start-up and they say they have no competition whatsoever. When you speak to someone about this and you get the impression from them that there are no benefits to such a trade deal (or with past trade deals), then it does smack of having an agenda to fill.

I don't doubt that trade will bring negatives as well as positives, with some of those outlined above clearly evidence of that, but a bit of balance would be no bad thing.

Can't remember if I've mentioned this before ( lol ) but there is an underlying fear round these parts that TTIP is going to see the dismantling of the NHS.

Anyone who listens to Roger Phillips' phone-in* during the week will be aware of the concern, and that everyone who calls in seemingly has a different idea of the mechanics of the thing.

I think if the NHS was guaranteed to be protected from it, there'd be a lot less 'resistance' in people's minds.






*BBC Radio Merseyside weekdays 12:00 - 14:00 - @Bruce Wayne, @Clint Planet, look it up on iplayer, you'd probably like it.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Can't remember if I've mentioned this before ( lol ) but there is an underlying fear round these parts that TTIP is going to see the dismantling of the NHS.

Anyone who listens to Roger Phillips' phone-in* during the week will be aware of the concern, and that everyone who calls in seemingly has a different idea of the mechanics of the thing.

I think if the NHS was guaranteed to be protected from it, there'd be a lot less 'resistance' in people's minds.

The thing is, the notion that it needs to be protected assumes that no good can come from working with outside parties. I know, for instance, that the Dutch co-operative group Buurtzog are helping out with a trial in London around community health. Likewise, places like the Mayo Clinic or the Massachusetts General Hospital are both incredibly highly regarded and the NHS is actively looking at places like that and leading institutions from around the world for help on improvement. Indeed the whole Boston area is arguably the world hotspot for biomedicine.

For instance, researchers at Harvard have made some big strides with robotic surgeons, which opens up the prospect of a surgeon operating on a patient from anywhere in the world. If the best in the world is in Timbuktu, would you not want them working on your loved one because they're not local?

I've no idea how things will pan out to be honest, but we shouldn't be afraid of what those outside of Britain can offer to the NHS, and there's a reality that healthcare has always been a partnership between public and private, and that's only going to become more so as we start using machine learning to make sense of the huge amount of data around our health (both genomic and behavioural). Should the NHS not work with the likes of Google and IBM in this area because they're a) private companies, and b) American?

I've spoken to a number of the AHSNs, and know that they're looking anywhere and everywhere for ways to improve the NHS. I'm not convinced that they're doing a good job of it, but fully support the ethos.

 

[Groucho]

The thing is, the notion that it needs to be protected assumes that no good can come from working with outside parties. I know, for instance, that the Dutch co-operative group Buurtzog are helping out with a trial in London around community health. Likewise, places like the Mayo Clinic or the Massachusetts General Hospital are both incredibly highly regarded and the NHS is actively looking at places like that and leading institutions from around the world for help on improvement. Indeed the whole Boston area is arguably the world hotspot for biomedicine.

For instance, researchers at Harvard have made some big strides with robotic surgeons, which opens up the prospect of a surgeon operating on a patient from anywhere in the world. If the best in the world is in Timbuktu, would you not want them working on your loved one because they're not local?

I've no idea how things will pan out to be honest, but we shouldn't be afraid of what those outside of Britain can offer to the NHS, and there's a reality that healthcare has always been a partnership between public and private, and that's only going to become more so as we start using machine learning to make sense of the huge amount of data around our health (both genomic and behavioural). Should the NHS not work with the likes of Google and IBM in this area because they're a) private companies, and b) American?

I've spoken to a number of the AHSNs, and know that they're looking anywhere and everywhere for ways to improve the NHS. I'm not convinced that they're doing a good job of it, but fully support the ethos.

Aye I'm all for improvement, perhaps though best to treat it carefully, such is the nation's general fondness for the NHS.


People see 'outside company' and assume 'privatisation'.

 

[magicjuan]

The thing is, the notion that it needs to be protected assumes that no good can come from working with outside parties. I know, for instance, that the Dutch co-operative group Buurtzog are helping out with a trial in London around community health. Likewise, places like the Mayo Clinic or the Massachusetts General Hospital are both incredibly highly regarded and the NHS is actively looking at places like that and leading institutions from around the world for help on improvement. Indeed the whole Boston area is arguably the world hotspot for biomedicine.

For instance, researchers at Harvard have made some big strides with robotic surgeons, which opens up the prospect of a surgeon operating on a patient from anywhere in the world. If the best in the world is in Timbuktu, would you not want them working on your loved one because they're not local?

I've no idea how things will pan out to be honest, but we shouldn't be afraid of what those outside of Britain can offer to the NHS, and there's a reality that healthcare has always been a partnership between public and private, and that's only going to become more so as we start using machine learning to make sense of the huge amount of data around our health (both genomic and behavioural). Should the NHS not work with the likes of Google and IBM in this area because they're a) private companies, and b) American?

I've spoken to a number of the AHSNs, and know that they're looking anywhere and everywhere for ways to improve the NHS. I'm not convinced that they're doing a good job of it, but fully support the ethos.

If you don't understand that it boils down to nothing but the absolute principle of the NHS being protected, as a last remaining provision of need for ordinary people the you're missing the point. The public have had the trickle down, privatise this and that shoved down their collective throats and nothing has seriously improved.

The collusion of public private partnerships, especially the PFI deals hasn't benefitted the public or public purse and despite the presumed research benefits, people distrust that they will be available to the masses, think genome patenting etc and the influence that will have on insurance premiums and if brought in, medical insurance, imagine what it would cost if you had to be tested prior to getting medical insurance?

Thst is the direction this pushes us towards.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

What TTIP will eventually look like if it goes ahead

 

[hullefc]

TTIP allows the NHS to be fully privatised, with the introduction of health insurance, by the back door because the Tories can't do it by the front door, because it would be too politically damaging.

 

[daylightrobber]

TTIP allows the NHS to be fully privatised, with the introduction of health insurance, by the back door because the Tories can't do it by the front door, because it would be too politically damaging.

Exactly. And anyone who argues that we're safer from TTIP if we leave the EU is off their rocker.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Aye I'm all for improvement, perhaps though best to treat it carefully, such is the nation's general fondness for the NHS.

People see 'outside company' and assume 'privatisation'.

In reality it's been a blurred line for a long time though. GPs are private entities. The drugs and machinery we use are done privately. Our medical staff are trained by private universities. If I'm honest, the way I can see it going is that the NHS will continue to be a 'free at the point of care' service, but who you go to for the actual service will be more open. I mean lets say you get your genome sequenced by 23andme, you have a wearable device/s by Garmin (for sake of argument - I know they don't offer this yet), and so on. You'd want that data available to your GP and so on. That kind of thing is being developed, but it's not being developed within the NHS (sadly) but by external providers like Babylon. I have a lot of warmth for the NHS, but it's struggling hugely to keep up with the pace of change, so I can really see a point where it admits defeat in that and just provides the marketplace where people can get free healthcare from whomever wishes to supply it (and they'll provide a kind of quality control/regulatory aspect).

If you don't understand that it boils down to nothing but the absolute principle of the NHS being protected, as a last remaining provision of need for ordinary people the you're missing the point. The public have had the trickle down, privatise this and that shoved down their collective throats and nothing has seriously improved.

The collusion of public private partnerships, especially the PFI deals hasn't benefitted the public or public purse and despite the presumed research benefits, people distrust that they will be available to the masses, think genome patenting etc and the influence that will have on insurance premiums and if brought in, medical insurance, imagine what it would cost if you had to be tested prior to getting medical insurance?

Thst is the direction this pushes us towards.

The principle of the NHS is the provision of healthcare that's free at the point of care. I can't see that changing at all and there seems to be zero will for it to do so. What I can see changing is who provides that care, but I'm not really that fussed about that. Essentially, all that really matters is that people get top notch care and that it's taxpayer funded, but that does lead on to...

TTIP allows the NHS to be fully privatised, with the introduction of health insurance, by the back door because the Tories can't do it by the front door, because it would be too politically damaging.

...healthcare tends to suffer at the moment from Baumol's disease, in that despite the 'information revolution' reducing costs dramatically in most areas of life, costs have risen in healthcare. So that's a challenge. We also spend roughly 1/3 of the health budget on the final year of someone's life, and that expenditure seems to have little real impact on extending that persons life, so it raises the question of whether we're spending the money in the right way (cure that doesn't cure, rather than prevention).

This isn't a UK specific problem as most countries face a similar issue, but nevertheless we have costs that keep on going up, a demographic change that is shrinking the taxpayer base, and a seeming reluctance amongst the taxpayers that remain to dig deeper into their pockets. That's kind of the reality at the moment, and I'm not sure carrying on as usual is really an adequate solution to it.

I'm not sure TTIP will change that one way or another really, but it is more indicative of the inability, or challenge at least, of having any kind of serious discussion about the NHS without it rapidly descending into politicized mud-slinging.

None of this is really new thinking, and Simon Stevens was quite open about all of these things in his five year forward view from a few years ago - https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/5yfv-web.pdf

By and large I think the people at NHS England are good people, and are doing a lot of the right things, yet I've seen too many examples of the right ideas failing to be delivered well. It's a huge challenge, not least because of the vastness of the institution. The idea that it can be solved (or ruined) by soundbites is I'm afraid not the case.