Home | About | Donate

'If You Like Your Insurance, You Can Keep It'–Until You Can't

“Up in Smoke” indeed. One would have thought Cheech and Chong had taken over Congress as members cared little to none about “How to pay” for the largest wealth transfer in American history.


Bernie Sanders in both of his 2016 and 2020 campaign websites elucidated how his proposals would be funded. He laid the cards on the table as it were and to my knowledge was never challenged in either race on his numbers. The powers that be had to stab him in the back as that is their way…


I can just hear the typical Frisco dem saying, “You want my taxes to help pay for a poor person’s medical bills? If they can’t afford COBRA, they should have thought about that when they were younger and decided not to be rich!”

I fear that city is so “gentrified” that Nancy could completely take her mask off and admit she’s in the pockets of the insurance and banking lobbyists, and they would say, “all the more reason to vote for her!”–much the same way Donald’s fans say that when they hear that he just loves him some KKK Boogaloo crackers.


I imagine that the Pelosi/McConnell axis of evil is hoping to thin the population of the poor and old people (like myself) as well by letting the virus run wild. Then they can funnel the saved dollars to the MIC and the rest of the donor class.
Good luck on your campaign Mr. Buttar!


1 Like

Thanks for fixing the Democratic Party mantra of “If you like your health insurance, you can keep it. Until you can’t.”

Those last three words mean everything.

During the presidential campaign, I got sick of hearing every candidate repeat the company line, except for Senator Bernie Sanders.

Thank you, Rebecca and Shahid.


We can afford to rent politicians sometimes but industry can afford to buy them.


1 Like

Love your comment, except we should always remember that “the largest wealth transfers in American history” are the Grand Theft Continental of original colonization, the genocide against indigenous peoples, and the enslavement of Africans, which founded “America.”

We really should “figure out how to pay for that.” As best as is possible at this point in history.


I lived in SF for more than half of my life.

It used to be a great place before the tech bubble attracted a lot of scam artists and after they arrived, they never left.

we should know, now our healthcare is literally rigged - its been made into an international issue!
They never told us this all important fact.

See (h)ttp://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Nick%20Skala%20GAT%20and%20Health%20Reform.pdf

I really regret the (seems like a great many times) that I voted for Pelosi. If I had only known what a monster she would turn into.

Shahid Buttar, should know, Twitter censors people who try to explain this issue there. we should not use Twitter as a contact address. Nor any other corporation. As some bad actors among them are literaly trying to take over the world.

I attempted to tell people the truth about this scheme. I am certain I exchanged tweets with Shaheed too. But I doubt if most people, even political candidates, (especially them) really grasp the danger thats posed to us and democracy by these things.

We need to get out of them before we get single payer. Either that or dump all FTAs pending a total reevaluation. Because they are a trap See the Annex on Financial Services, the first portion.

Almost all blogs censor this body of fact.

See that paper above thats not linked.

1 Like


You always take a wider view of the problems we face, and state the definitely more profound solution.


Thanks PonyBoy. i’m always trying to take another step back for a wider view. Of course the view can get so wide you lose sight of what’s right in front of you! It’s important to try to have a sort of “binocular vision,” to compare the close-in view and the long-distance view, to have a sense of how to move forward. Both kinds of truth have to be faced, if we actually want to deal with racism and white supremacy in the USA.


Here are the problems,

“Broadly speaking, there are three “tiers” of GATS rules affecting health care.
The first tier of rules, General Obligations and Disciplines, apply equally to all
service sectors of all WTO member countries, regardless of whether those sectors
are committed in a country’s schedule or not. The second tier, Specific Com-
mitments, apply only to those sectors that a country commits to its schedule. These
rules are more far-reaching, and members were given the opportunity to write
any exceptions or limitations to them into their schedules. Finally, under GATS
Part III, Article XVII, WTO member countries are allowed to negotiate a third
“tier” of rules to govern their commitments above and beyond the underlying
Specific Commitments rules that normally apply. Citing this provision, the United
States has inscribed its Financial Commitments schedule with the “supplemental”
rules of the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services. These rules
apply in addition to the underlying GATS Specific Commitments rules on
Market Access and National Treatment”

"General Obligations and Disciplines. These rules apply to all service sectors of
all WTO member countries, regardless of whether or not the sectors have been
committed to a nation’s schedule. While these are generally the least controversial
provisions, several may have serious implications for reform or regulation of
the health sector (4).
Most-Favored-Nation Treatment: This provision requires a member to give
service suppliers of any other WTO member no less favorable treatment than it
gives service suppliers of “any other country” (4, Art. II).
Prohibition on New “Monopolies”: This provision requires that if a country
grants new “monopoly rights” regarding the supply of a service covered in its
schedule, the country granting the “monopoly” must enter into negotiations to
provide compensation to any other member adversely affected by it. If an agree-
ment is not reached, the affected member may refer the matter to arbitration, and
the “monopoly” may not go into force until the compensation required by the
arbitration has been made. The term “monopoly rights” is not defined anywhere
in the agreement (4, Art. VIII).
“Disciplines” on Domestic Regulation: In sectors where no commitments
have been undertaken, the GATS states that a special Council for Trade in Services
shall develop “disciplines” that assure that qualification requirements and proce-
dures, technical standards, and licensing requirements for the provision of services
are “not more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service.”
Regarding sectors in which commitments have been undertaken, however, it
is unclear whether such a “necessity test” is already in force (4, Art. VI).
Specific Commitments. These rules apply only to service sectors that members
have volunteered to submit to the rules by inscribing them in their schedules.
Members were also given an opportunity to reserve specific exceptions to the
rules during the negotiations of their schedules. Rules in this section fall into two
broad categories, Market Access and National Treatment.
Market Access: The rules in this section are aimed at preventing governments
from limiting the number, type, form, or size of foreign service suppliers in their
markets or intervening to affect or regulate the way the firms provide the service.
Examples of prohibited measures include (4, Art. XVI):

Limitations on the number of service suppliers
Limitations on the total quantity of service output
Requiring a specific type of legal entity (e.g., nonprofit)
Limitations on the “total value of service transactions or assets”
National Treatment: This set of rules requires that foreign service suppliers
receive, “in respect of all measures affecting the supply of services,” the same
treatment that a nation gives to its own service suppliers. It is easy to think of
situations in which a country may want to shape policy to favor domestic industry

over foreign operations, but the GATS rules go even farther than these require-
ments. Under the National Treatment rules, any measure that modifies the condi-
tions of competition in favor of a domestic supplier is a GATS violation. In other
words, even if a policy has no intent to discriminate against foreign service
suppliers—indeed, it can be totally unrelated to service provision at all—if it
has the effect of disadvantaging them, it is potentially a violation of the GATS
(4, Art. XVII).
Special Rules for Health Insurance. The United States committed health insurance
to its schedule under the Financial Services section. Two special sets of rules
apply to commitments made under this section. The first is the Annex on Financial
Services, a unique set of constraints that apply to all commitments in financial
services, no matter what nation makes them. The second is an even more expan-
sive Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services, a set of extreme
liberalization rules that are an optional “attachment” to commitments in finan-
cial services that the United States has chosen to take. These rules go so far in
constraining governments that only developed countries have signed on to them.
The Annex on Financial Services: Most financial services are related to banking
and investment, hence the Annex provisions pertain mostly to them. One provision
in particular is significant in assessing the impact of the GATS on health care:
• Subjection of “Public Entities” to GATS Rules: Normal GATS rules make an
exception for government services and procurement (with significant limita-
tions). The Annex specifically states that if a nation allows domestic service
suppliers to compete with “public entities,” those entities are subject to
GATS rules. This will have significant implications for Medicare, as we will
see (4, Annex on Financial Services, §1(b)(iii)).
The Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services: The most far-
reaching document in the GATS, the Understanding binds signatory nations to
an extreme level of financial services liberalization. The commitments undertaken
by signatories to the Understanding include (interpretation of the Understanding
[5] aided by Kevin C. Kennedy, Professor of Law, Michigan State University
College of Law):
• The “Standstill” Provision: The signatories pledge that any exceptions to
the commitments they have made are limited to existing measures. The
implications of this vaguely worded provision are not entirely clear. Some
commentators believe that the signatories bind themselves to never enact a
limitation on their commitments in the future that was not in effect when
the Understanding was inscribed in their schedule. In effect, the level of
privatization at the time of the implementation of the Understanding is
“locked in” (5)."

— there is much more-

This was a quote from the 2009 paper by Nicholas Skala that I cited earlier.

1 Like

Indeed we do, my good man.

No need to wax eloquently…insurance is a financial product, not a health care product sums the issue up succinctly.

Perhaps explaining motive also helps…that the best Congress money can buy has never met a corporate welfare program it didn’t love…the military industrial media infotainment complex (MIMIC) and medical industrial complex being its two favorites.


They want other countries firms to come in to handle those with pre-existing conditions and the poor. This is illustrated by the talks they have been having in TISA.

If the DNC and media actually bothered to crush Sanders, twice (more intentionally blatant, each time), fearing M4A and Keynesian infrastructure relief and higher wages might lead to actual taxation. Can you imagine what’s about to happen NOW, with scores of millions losing their “beloved employer insurance,” homes, jobs, retirements, solvency, votes, vulnerable loved ones, as they’re simply sacrificed to a pandemic for bossman’s profit & start receiving $40K ER, ICU and mortuary bills for family members they’ve infected? If half both halves of the working class start comparing the lies they’re being sold, it’s going to take lots more than PR-24, pepper gas, flash-bangs and tasers?

Investment to China soared after the 1989 crackdown, which according to classified documents leaked from the PRC killed around 10,000 people.

What does that tell us about the investment habits of rich people?

Not good things, thats for sure.

I’d been helping a crazy (Hui ethnic minority) Beijing English professor videotape various “visiting scholars” 1984-1989. Her baby brother was one of the PRC militia involved in the Tiananmen Square Massacre. These were the kids being sent over to facilities like CMU’s robotics lab and UPMC’s research center to “move China into the 20th Century.” I’m guessing, though many were woke Muslim minorities, the government was reticent to slaughter what’s become the brightest part of my meagre equities portfolio? Jeepers, wasn’t replacing pensions with IRA & 401k a swell idea?


Quelling the People: The Military Suppression of the Beijing Democracy Movement. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-3638-1. (2,700 sounded like the 3K dead, she’d guessed? My fearless friend Zhang Luping, warily whispered, “Chinese government, very cruel!”)

PLEASE delete any identifying info of anybody in China who has any kind of opinion about anything, or doesn’t.

Some of your posts seem bot-like to me. I’'m not saying you are, just that at times Ive been unable to figure out if they were or not.

BTW I was one of the first people to demonstrate here in the US, in 1989 when they sent the tanks in. Because I was a shortwave listener, I heard on the BBC (this was before the Internet was a thing) that one of their reporters whose home was along a back alley near the Square had been awoken in the night by the sound of tanks creeping up a back alley behind their home, crushing flower pots, etc. as they moved along. Everybody had been wondering whether they would come back, stronger because the people of Beijing has been so pursuasive to the first bunch of soldiers that they refused to do their mission. the second batch were indeed ethnic minorities who did not speak the capuital residents dialect.

He died in 1998, in the USA. If you disagree with posters, you’d do well to question the veracity of their source. This entire Atlantic Council, CAP “Rooski Bot” schtick has gotten creepy? I’d rather not emulate their paranoid government?

Pathological projection