As we hurtle through space on our small terrarium, we are engaged in a battle for leader of the most powerful sovereign to ever exist. Yet, there are mechanisms in place that make it increasingly more difficult to preserve our ecosystem and our Constitution, and more crippling measures waiting in the wings.
The TPP.
As you may or may not know, during Clinton’s tenure as President, the US entered into multiple trade agreements. Clinton signed GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs And Trades], and GATS [General Agreement on Trade in Services]. While the GATT part is mainly about stuff and pretty straight forward, we already have problems with transnationals like Monsanto and Bayer being intransigent about what their products actually are and where they come from, drug companies having patents and supplies being interrupted because of market fluctuations or transport issues because of geographic constraints etc.. These are tangibles and the issues are mostly clear although there are problems that arise regularly.
The GATS portion is concerned with services, and this is where it gets hairy. Consider that financial services are part of the mix. Add onto that the repeal of Glass Steagall, which Clinton also signed and it gets very complicated. GATT/GATS has the tribunal element that alarms most constitutionalists and rational people everywhere. Somewhere out there, there is a panel that hears disputes and they are NOT subject to our laws. The intent of these trade agreements is ostensibly to keep trade and supply on an even keel and remove barriers to trade, their underlying purpose is to liberalise, ie., monetize, privatize and marketize. GATT is the vehicle that brought us the MFN, Most Favored Nation status, a WTO term.
Services include such public services as education, health care, prisons, the military etc.. Financial services includes insurance of all types, financial instruments, investments, banking, incorporation, stock sharing etc. Countries within the WTO can opt in and out of certain sectors but movement on these preferences is frowned upon generally, with most countries having proscribed their choices before GATT was ratified. Opting out of a particular component can trigger a complaint based on violation of the agreement. Legislation can also trigger a complaint before the tribunal.
Much scorn has been heaped on the people on the DKOS that have been screaming about the TPP and TISA. “It’s a trade agreement, so what?”. But then not much is known because the people behind it don’t want us to know. Who are those people you ask? Primarily Obama at the top and Hillary Clinton, who touted it as “The Gold Standard” and has since walked it back, as she has also walked back her support for KXL after Obama nixed it. We’re now into silly season and major environmental catastrophes and news of war are blacked out of the MSM. People in the MSM that questioned and reported on what little could be gathered on the TPP have been fired or issued orders to stay mum about it. But then it’s just a trade agreement….
Hillary says she is going to tinker with the ACA, and never, ever will we get single payer or medicare for all. Recently she says OF COURSE she’s for universal healthcare! [but incrementally, or something] Nowhere are there actual plans for perusal, just vague murmurings after the never, ever declaration. Why is that? Hillary demanded Bernie submit a plan. She has no plan. Bernie came up with a plan. It has been vetted and found to be a comprehensive and workable plan, by a Hillary supporter, no less.
Now you are thinking what does this mess mean? First GATT, then GATS, Glass Steagall and now the TPP/TISA and the ACA. I am coming to it.
‘Single-payer is both proven and popular, but constitutes exactly the kind of threat to transnational investor interests that GATS rules are designed to neutralize. The GATS treaty is structured to award the home nations of multinational investors compensation for domestic policies that adversely affect their investments, such that the implementation of far-reaching social service programs would become extremely difficult. If single-payer legislation such as Representative John Conyers’s United States National Health Insurance Act (HR 676) were to be implemented, foreign-owned hospitals, drug companies, disease management programs, and other service companies could (through their home states) claim a violation of GATS rules in a WTO tribunal. A WTO dispute resolution panel would first determine whether the single-payer program was in conflict with the United States’ existing GATS commitments.
“….establishment of a single-payer system of health insurance that barred the provision of private health insurance that duplicated the benefits of the single-payer may be claimed to be a new “monopoly right” and hence a violation of the GATS prohibition on new monopolies. In addition, under the interpretations advanced in U.S.-Gambling, any outright ban on the provision of a service (i.e., private health insurance, for-profit hospitals, or disease management programs) may constitute an impermissible “zero quota” on the provision of the service and may hence be claimed to be a GATS violation. Finally, regulations prohibiting investor ownership of health delivery facilities are potentially banned by GATS market access rules, which forbid limitations on the type of legal entity a service supplier may assume. Should the WTO tribunal find a single-payer system to violate any of these rules, it would first ask the United States to bring the system “into conformity with the covered agreements” (3, Art. 22(1)). This would be the same as asking the United States to dismantle the system. If the United States refused, it would be obligated to negotiate compensation equivalent to the level of expected harm to international investors, and if it failed to do so, equivalent trade sanctions could be authorized. Medical Facilities Corporation, a Canadian firm that owns a controlling interest in a multistate U.S. specialty hospital chain, reported $169 million in revenue in 2007 alone (17). The cost of claims against the United States for implementation of a single-payer national health insurance system could be in the billions of dollars under current GATS commitments, and if further liberalization is undertaken, as is currently planned, the costs could be astronomical. The ability of the United States to implement a popular and effective single-payer national health program hence faces potentially severe constraints under existing GATS rules and commitments.”
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/…
Now we could have opted out of the healthcare sector in GATS, but we didn’t. It’s hard to believe that our trade representatives didn’t know what we were doing. It’s equally hard to believe that Hillary and Bill didn’t know. From the same paper:
“In other words, any attempts to restore Medicare to a true single-payer system could conflict with GATS obligations. Finally, anecdotal evidence exists that such an interpretation was intended by adherents of neoliberal economic ideology, who dominated negotiations over the GATS and financial services texts. House Speaker Newt Gingrich told insurance executives in 1995 that he couldn’t get rid of Medicare immediately “because we don’t think it’s politically smart.” But, he said, he could cause Medicare to “wither on the vine” by having for-profit plans compete against it and cripple it (20). In sum, it appears that a WTO tribunal could find ample reason for concluding that the United States intended to commit Medicare to the GATS, and its commitments under current agreements obligate it to maintain Medicare’s 1998 level of privatization. If an Obama or subsequent administration were to try to restore Medicare to a full single-payer form by prohibiting competition by private insurance, affected foreign insurance firms may be able to invoke GATS provisions in an attempt at rescission or compensation. If the restoration of Medicare to single-payer form were to be interpreted by a WTO tribunal as a new “monopoly right,” schedule modification rules requiring the negotiation of compensation would be triggered. An alternative claim could be made that the restoration of a single-payer system constitutes prohibited “limitation on the number of service suppliers.”
I urge you to read the entire article, written by a person that was a tireless single payer activist and scholar. Think about what it means regarding not just only healthcare but climate change, sustainable energy, water supply, and just about any good or service that can be monetized, liberlised and marketized. The game IS rigged. And not for the country, for the elite.
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/…
www.nakedcapitalism.com/…
illinillinois.blogspot.com/...
