Throughout , infantry attacks were preceded by as massive an artillery bombardment as possible, intended to pulverize both the enemy troops and their defenses.
The barrage could go on for hours, even days, with the aim of destroying everything under them. Then, at an allotted time, this barrage would cease - usually switching to deeper secondary targets - and the infantry would climb out of their own defenses, rush across the contested land and, in theory, seize land which was now undefended, either because the enemy was dead or cowering in bunkers. In practice, barrages frequently failed to obliterate either the enemy's deepest defensive systems and attacks turned into a race between two infantry forces, the attackers trying to rush across No Man's Land before the enemy realized the barrage was over and returned or sent replacements to their forward defenses Barrages could kill, but they could neither occupy land nor hold the enemy away long enough for infantry to advance.
Some tricks were played, such as stopping the bombardment, waiting for the enemy to man their defenses, and starting it again to catch them in the open, only sending their own troops later on. The sides also became practiced at being able to fire their own bombardment into No Man's Land when the enemy sent their troops forward into it. Beginning close to their own lines, the 'creeping' barrage moved slowly forward, throwing up dirt clouds to obscure the infantry who advanced close behind.
The barrage would reach the enemy lines and suppress as normal by driving men into bunkers or more distant areas but the attacking infantry would be close enough to storm these lines once the barrage had crept further forward before the enemy reacted. That was, at least, the theory. Apart from Adrianople in , the creeping barrage was first used at The Battle of the Somme in , at the orders of Sir Henry Horne; its failure exhibits several of the tactic's problems.
The barrage's targets and timings had to be arranged well beforehand and, once started, could not be easily changed. Those with some knowledge of American history can also see that this new calumny about Islam has precedents, in the McCarthyism of the Cold War era and the anti-Catholicism of the 19th century. Read Mikaeel Ahmed Smith, for example.
Perhaps nothing marks this liberal trend more than the skyrocketing acceptance of gay marriage, which, as a poll showed , is now stronger among American Muslims than among white evangelical Christians. It is also reflected in the pro-L.
But custom integrations are just a pain. Healthcare is a national competence, not the remit of the EU. This article explores the EU policy areas — and the role of corporate lobbying — that help create this pro-privatisation orientation in the field of healthcare: marketisation, trade, public private partnerships, and economic governance. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Two points: first, even if "solid" universities are right to run away from this and IMO they don't run away from it, they just move the IT program into the business school where you don't see it any more there are still many other universities pumping out students into a dead career field, which should be concerning. Mainframe still rules many companies.
This month, Ms. There are two distinct lines in this trend toward American values. One is a kind of anything-goes social liberalism, spearheaded by small groups like Muslims for Progressive Values. The application to healthcare of the principles behind EU internal market rules, like non-discrimination, underpins this claim.
Or features intended to make it difficult to roll back existing levels of liberalisation, like ratchet clauses. German private healthcare company Fresenius , the largest private hospital provider in Europe as of March , has been a vocal promoter of TTIP. There are already clear precedents showing how private companies have used ISDS mechanisms to successfully seek colossal sums of money from governments that have attempted to reverse previous healthcare privatisation policies.
For example, in , Dutch insurer Achmea formerly Eureko sued Slovakia via its bilateral investment treaty with the Netherlands because the Slovak government had required health insurers to operate on a not-for-profit basis. Where healthcare services are open to competition, it says, and remember, few national health services are entirely public anymore foreign suppliers think giant US for-profit healthcare firms should face no restrictions, nor be disadvantaged by public-sector health services receiving public subsidies ie they should get EU taxpayers money too.
The Commission commissions its own echo chamber: Despite concerns repeated widely by public health and legal experts, unions, and civil society, the Commission insists its trade deals cannot fuel healthcare privatisation. These conclusions provide DG Trade with the echo chamber it desires. There is a shared ideological underpinning of much of the European Commission and the corporate lobbies it has a close relationship with: business knows and does best.
The Commission promotes PPPs as a way to reduce government spending.
It would be cheaper for government to borrow money directly. Even in light of the dire results of some PPPs see box 4 , the Commission seems reluctant to draw negative conclusions. Ideologically-driven austerity policies have forced the public to suffer for the profligacy and greed of the financial sector.
National healthcare reform is often a target of EU economic governance, which ranges from macro-economic surveillance and policy recommendations e. These are not neutral facts but ideological assertions; shared by the private healthcare sector, but not by vast swathes of the European public s. The European Semester has not been used as a blunt tool to push privatisation, but rather to push for cutting public expenditure on healthcare.
Or, lead to shifting healthcare expenditure from the public purse to patients out-of-pocket payments.
And when public cuts lead to a worsening public healthcare sector, those who can afford it are more likely to seek private healthcare alternatives. The combined effect of EU-level policy pressures has been the incremental encroachment of an increasingly privatised model of healthcare provision across Europe.
Views in this article do not necessarily reflect those of interviewees. There is a reversal of Alma Ata Declaration of Health for All to Health for the Rich after the adoption of neo liberal economic reforms the world over. It is high time that Multilateral bodies along with concerned citizens and NGOs should support the publicly supported health care ,especially to the poor all over the globe.