In order to make any changes like this we need to leave the General Agreement on Trade in services or substantially modify our 1995 and 1998 committments that make it impossible. We would do that by announcing our intention to do so in the manner described in the GATS agreement, Article XXI. (which you can read in the PDF whose URL is below) Basically other countries may make claims against us at that point asking for compensation of their perceived losses, (jobs which they claim to have been promised) in some service sectors the claims may be small but in others they may be very very large, however if they have not begun to do business in the US the cost would be much lower , one they begin operating here, the cost could be astronomical as its based on optimistic estimates of perceived lost profits. Its imperative that we not touch Medicare or Social Security (Medicare is part of Social Security for the purpose of the GATS) until after we have left the GATS or we will lose it because its only allowed because its part of our statutory social security system. See the text at the beginning of the Annex on Financial Services (found in PDF below) and also
GATS Article I:3 b+c (the two different applical definitions of "services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority)
Once we buy our freedom we need to make sure we dont lose it again by ceasing all sales of health insurance and also carving out all related servces, only totally noncommercial services are allowed to be sustainable This will also protect healthcare jobs from privatization and globalization - like the others. At least then we’ll be able to save healthcare jobs, accept no substitutes - anybody who says we can do whats needed for a subsidized healthcare plan to be sustainable without leaving GATS first is WRONG. For proof of what I just said see WTO document S/C/W/50 18 September 1998 (98-3558) Council for Trade in Services HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES. Background Note by the Secretariat. Page 11
Here is the GATS formatted nicely for printing.
Please dont ignore what I am telling you, we need to follow the rules or the penalty could be the entire country’s retirement and any chance of success - we eed to do this soon or the cost will become so high it will be out of reach forever because all the job losses will make it impossibly expensive- forever and thats an awfully long time.
I can see you asking, why was the ACA allowed if sustainable partially subsidized healthcare is impossible?
Well, if you look at the PDF above in the section entitled “understanding on commitments in Financial Services” you will find a portion called “Standstill” it is exactly what it says its a standstill that limits regulations in financial services to those “existing only” on its official date which is February 26, 1998. Was was the ACA allowed then, in 2010. It seems to me that the ACA is likely a Article II exception to MFN (Most favored nation) which seems to have an informal time limit of 10 years, (I am not 100% sure - in fact please disregard everything I am saying here its all speculation and may be wrong- okay-
SPECULATION- about any of this ACA may have been an emergenccy protectionist (delaying the outsourcing/offshoring/insourcing of the jobs and possibly -patients- first an exception because of the 2008 financial crisis, a one time emergency exception,
the new crisis coming along right now, I suspect it cannot be used for the same thing also its supposed to only allow the minimum possible measures, healthcare during the lockdown, only to people with taht specific disease who are also uninsured. That sounds about right for GATS. See the problem, what politician is going to admit that?
but I think that the standstill date basically prohibits the ACA in its totality, they broke the rules planning for a Republican to take the reins of power and predictably repeal the ACA after only 9 or 10 years thereby keeping the WTO rules See what I mean about us living in a simulacrum?
Everything done while we relain in GATS must be pre-crippled…
among many other limitations which explain why it is so crippled and doesnt help large numbers of people. If you read the rest of the GATS and a paper written by the late Nicholas Skala - which you can find on CiteSeerX (or pnhp dot org ) you’ll have a good start on this but be aware that the rules on GATS are very opaque to non trade lawyers and likely have not even been decised yet, however, one can get a lot of ideas as to what they might be from reading the various Notes from the secretariat and similar and if you do you will not find much to put your mind at rest at all, quite the opposite. You’ll see that in the GATS, anything thats still within its scope (see the all important govt authority exclusion) and is partially subsidised is supposed to be temporary, merely serving as a bridge to commercialization. After all the market is “perfection” you cnt reform the perfect, it does not need any reform… This kind of thinking is similar to that in North Korea, its cult like thinking, we are being ruled by a cult…
It is only by getting OUT of the GATS and remaining completely noncommercial (that means free) and by not allowing the sales of like services at all that a public service is allowed to exist, and the rule is very rigid, its found at Article I:3 b+c and in the Annex on Financial Services for the other version. How does the UK have the NHS? [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Anyway, the situation in the UK is a lot like the situation here, much worse than ANY politician is going to admit. Its that way for a reason, as they are trading so many jobs away (ITS CHEAPER AND BUSINESSES EXIST FOR PROFIT) they dont want to have to be held responsible for services like peoples retirement or healthcare, because huge numbers of people will need those services and wont have enough money… No neither we nor they can do it without leaving gats and they already created a huge debt in our name which developing countries now are demanding we pay in jobs- our peoples jobs, (that our leaders put on the table as bargaining chips) thisis what I mean about dirty deals between oligarchs- they dont want to be responnsible, they want them to do whatever it takes to get them and blame others when it doesnt work out. Same thing in the UK. Business wants to cut its costs, so it wnts to outsource lots of jobs, so does government. This is going to mean a lot of unemployed people whose careers were cut short early, that right there is going to be problematic for them. they dont want to icrease taxes on the rich which would be the obvious solution Both the US and UK have huge amounts fof money invested in tax havens like some Channal islands and here, its Delaware. The US is a major tax haven. SO people are on their own unless we get out of the GATS. And they will lie about this, dont expect honesty, we wont get it. We have noit gotten it we’ve gotten a cover up. So far, Yes, even nice rich people do that. As they dont want you to get worried WHEN YOU SHOULD BE GETTING WORRIED, because they know what they are suggesting wont work without the missing piece they are not telling us about.