Member Info for Tricky_Dicky

My point is that TLY are paying excessive attention to small amounts of money by scooping up NHS contracts that produce meager profits.
They hope to benefit from money poured in from limitless government sources.

I am not talking about the NHS funding private healthcare companies.
I am talking about people with money having the ability to pay for treatments not available on the NHS.
How much are TLY involved in that?

Outsourced health services, by definition, piggy-back onto the NHS.
I don't have a problem with that.
Sometimes the NHS does not have not enough money to provide the latest diagnostic services.
But outsourcing itself does not provide the latest diagnostics, people have to pay privately for that.
Outsourcing just provides extra capacity resources (piggy-backing onto the NHS).

It's called a box-ticking exercise.
It is becoming part of people's jobs these days.
It actually satisfies the people who get good ticks.
It's 'Noddy-Level' stuff.
People spend their time getting approvals in order to justify their jobs.
Often the person being quizzed is put in a position of trust and told how important good reviews are.

It's on the level of the G.P. or NHS staff who respond to complaints of huge pain by asking:
'Where is it on a scale of 1 to 10?
Hardly scientific, is it?

There are many reason why CQC cannot - as it is currently organised - be effective:

CQC focuses on meaningless processes, rather than the quality of human relationships
CQC places inappropriate burdens onto a struggling system
CQC does not respond to complaints, but rewards organisations that fill in forms correctly
CQC is expensive, bureaucratic and disconnected from real communities

The picture which emerges from these facts is of an NHS poorly equipped
to ensure that healthcare services outsourced to for-profit providers will
provide safe, high-quality care and good value for money.

If you can think for yourself that would be helpful, Qwerty.

I tried to say re-tar-ded

Or backward will do

Nothing remains the same going forward.
The V.I. character is ******ed.

More pure bull from the fool, he is making it up as he goes along.
His behaviour merits three lashes of the whip.

Why a certain person is so fixated on the sp I fail to comprehend.
The overacting character doth protest too much, methinks.
His protestations and diagnosis are too excessive to be taken at face value.

There can be no full value, it's a moveable feast.
Nothing stands still.
It's like saying I'll sell my house when its fully valued - Capeesh?

'It's pointless buying in once they are at full valued!!!'

A very dumb remark.

Qwertyii and stt1 took puberty blockers.

I agree with doggy,

If posters are upset about the sp girations they ought not to be involved in the markets.
I am up 27.5% on my investment, admittedly from years ago, but what do I care, I am in profit.
I no longer trade as I am too busy elsewhere.
All good luck to those who manage to play the markets!

If contracts are awarded directly to private healthcare companies without any open competitive procedure taking place then something may be amiss.
Also:
Government regulations require all contracts with a value of more than £10,000 to be published, and to be sent for publication within 30 days of being awarded.

I meant to say:

The NHS have previously stated that they were wasting precious resources on tendering processes.

It is true that quality is (and should be) the most important factor in awarding a contract.
But can NHS bodies simply award contracts to private healthcare providers without considering other bids?
The NHS have preciously stated that they were wasting precious resources on tendering processes.

So, did actually TLY win the bid stated by 'surprised', (against competition by others) or were they awarded it without a typical tendering process?

They could be alive or dead but we will never know.
And I don't think we even care.

Anyone can 'win' a bid by paying over the odds, but what it is 'expected' to be worth is another matter entirely.
That sounds like a gamble where the outcome is uncertain.
Making bald statements is schoolboy stuff.

I assumed they were holding as ADS's because they were reporting their share holdings, in some detail, to the U.S. SEC.