Don't fall for a huge, elaborate theatrical performance, global in scope, whose goal is "trading away" and selling off OUR planet and our entire future!


Britons and (we) Americans need to know something. We have frustrated "expectancies" but increasingly, thanks to GATS, the proposed UK-US FTA, TISA and others, not any kind of real property interest in our nation's futures.

These agreements push our rights out of our future. They attempt to irreversibly gut public services like the UK's NHS and will most certainly totally block the proposed "Medicare For All" as well as procurement proposals that employ our nations workers if international temping firms bid on those jobs and win. So they will outsource millions of now stable jobs, turning them into entitlements of foreign firms to do, if they are cheaper. They replace legal immigration with temporary subcontracting and its likely that because our countries will be overwhelmed by corporate temporary migration, (GATS Mode 4) developed nations may turn against the one part of it we can control, permanent migration. So this corporate capture of migration will push out refugees and likely also temp workers possibility of permanent migration. It will also displace millions of workers in dozens of high skill service sectors, starting with professionals and fields like IT, nursing, teaching, engineering, etc, and then working its way downward, and undercut the wages of the remaining workers across the board.

Neither Americans nor Britons seem to be able to admit that both our governments are lying to us across a broad spectrum to hide GATS.

Neither country seems willing to put two and two together, for example, about the healthcare held hostage, and obligations on procurement, (and potential large scale job outsourcing) due to committments in GPA/GATS (This also applies to Brexit's potential monetization of the NHS and likely giveaways of vanishing jobs in the UK). Why? Ask the dishonest insiders who promote these deals! You'll get an earful. They have dozens of sketchy, often conflicting reasons. But those reasons are based on junk trickle-down economics and don't add up. They don't stand up to scrutiny. And they know it. A growing number of economists have pointed out that the assumptions they make (such as assuming that workers displaced by large scale services liberalization would or could change fields and find new jobs) don't add up. For decades smart economists have been saying this.

WTO Dispute DS503 is still a wild card that could turn the lives of millions of workers upside down.

A few days ago I was reading British news where they were reporting on the expectations of Leave voters for what would be done with Brexit.

Large scale privatizations of once-public (services) are the first steps in a global scheme to outsource and/or offshore them internationally at low wages.

turning many professions into precarious low paid labor- The inclusion in the WTO of billions of jobs in the category of potentially "tradable" services, is turning them into bargaining chips in a vast international trade - while lowering quality and professionalism to least common denominator levels. Turning people and their lives, hopes and dreams, into "inputs" - and "markets" basically commodities.

Britain is literally being TRICKED out of their NHS and other social services by UK government and business interests, recent events, public documents prove. (Part One of a series)

Events that are unfolding now were predicted by other, credible entities, including articles in well known international media and by the Director-General of the WTO itself. This must mean they are deliberately creating this unfortunate situation.

Problems Britons blame on their EU membership are largely rooted in their WTO membership, not their EU membership. So Brexit won't fix them, in fact it will almost certainly make them all much worse.

Something struck me yesterday while looking for videos to explain Dani Rodrik's "Trilemma of globalization" adequately.

Cost of having a baby in the US if you are uninsured could be as high as $287,453 (2009)

This figure is from the KFF publication Maternity Care and Consumer-Driven Health Plans

"You no longer had to kill yourself” to avoid being “a burden on your children”

:The Great NHS Heist is a topical and riveting film about the neoliberal attack on the British National Health Service - A documentary from the UK about an unspeakably wrong situation, the intentional gutting of the NHS by neoliberal politicians and the corporate state in the UK.

Focus on Medicare For All - Single Payer - Urgent - Please Read

The Potential Impact of the World Trade Organization's General Agreement on Trade in Services on Health System Reform and Regulation in the United States. (2009)

In this 2009 paper, the late Nicholas Skala explained the "GATS" agreement, its implications for US healthcare reform (its many conflicts with many of the things that were done in the ACA and which are proposed for Medicare For All) and why we urgently need to get carve-outs in the WTO (and the WTO's implications for Social Security and Medicare). He even gave us a sample of a carve-out-Its urgent that we do this, soon. This paper is a must-read for anybody interested in US health care reform and the obstacles to it.

GATS and Public Service Systems

This is a must-read article as its by far the most concise and understandable explanation of the "governmental authority exception" an all important "two-pronged test" or definition, that defines the scope of what is allowed to be a public service and what is not, in the GATS agreement. In other words, what is subject to privatization rules, and what isn't. This definition is also borrowed or imported, in the computer programming sense, "as is" into hundreds of other trade agreements all around the globe. So this essay is extremely useful in understanding which healthcare or higher education proposals could work (and which ones would be subjected to a death of a thousand cuts, and couldn't) for example. The essay was originally written and published by the government of British Columbia province in Canada.

Putting Health First - Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

Canadian Health Care Reform, Trade Treaties and Foreign Policy - this essay describes the traps in the GATS agreement for Canadian health care, it also discusses 'carve outs' and why they are needed by Canada to protect their Medicare (public health care) from Trade Agreements that try to destroy, and privatize them. This death of a thousand cuts is caused by GATS, that is what's been done to the UK's NHS.

GATS and Financial Services Deregulation by Patricia Arnold

Medicare, Social Security and other governmentally subsidized financial services are put in grave danger by the GATS - This paper by a noted professor in accounting who has written a great deal of highly readable material on the WTO and its interaction with financial regulation is a short and concise intro to many of the major issues, particularly the threats GATS poses to Social Security and Medicare if those areas are allowed to compete with commercial banks or insurers. Caution is needed because millions could see huge changes in their only retirement benefits just as they were needed the most if Social Security and/or Medicare lose their protection from GATS rules, which is likely if current proposals are implemented,- see the Annex on Financial Services.

How the World Trade Organisation is shaping domestic policies in health care

"The previous round of WTO ministerial talks (the Uruguayan round) allowed governments to protect health and social services from GATS treatment by defining them as government services. According to GATS Article 1.3, a government service is one “which is supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers”. Article 19 of GATS is, however, intended to end this protection. “Members shall enter into successive rounds of negotiations . . . with a view to achieving a progressively higher level of liberalisation.” The WTO secretariat has argued that for services to be classified under Article 1.3 they should be provided free. Many governments initially protected health services from GATS treatment by defining them in this way. But the WTO has highlighted the inconsistencies in this approach. 12 “The hospital sector in many counties . . . is made up of government-owned and privately-owned entities which both operate on a commercial basis, charging the patient or his insurance for the treatment provided. Supplementary subsidies may be granted for social, regional, and similar policy purposes. It seems unrealistic in such cases to argue for continued application of Article I:3, and/or maintain that no competitive relationship exists between the two groups of suppliers of services.” In addition, Article 13 of GATS calls for the end of subsidies that distort trade and requires members to negotiate procedures to combat them. Therefore, according to the WTO, wherever there is a mixture of public and private funding, such as user charge or private insurance, or there are subsidies for non-public infrastructure, such as public-private partnerships or competitive contracting for services, the service sector should be open to foreign corporations. Health-care systems across Europe are vulnerable on all these counts."