Search Result(s)

Failure to Protect: Why the Individual Insurance Market Is Not a Viable Option for Most U.S. Families (2009)

The US public is being deceived, private insurance is not a valid "option" because we knew it would fail to be affordable to all, ever. This problem isnt getting any better, and a very dirty trick has been used to con the country into it. Major parties are shamelessly lying to the entire country. Maybe a million of us have died before their time under it. (Not including any dead from COVID-19, before that) It was a mistake from day one. Almost nobody can afford adequate nongroup insurance. So "deciding' permanently to use it (using GATS, a treaty) dishonestly, in a treaty we had no input into, was an indefenseible crime against humanity.

Cafeteria Style Coronavirus Insurance Coverage, coming here soon?

These attenuated Third World health insurance plans that allow you to pick from a menu of diseases you fear most, are coming to the US soon. This kind of "GATS-legal" viciously attenuated coverage for the financially unsophisticated American may be the only future that is legal to offer the poor, under OUR pre-existing conditions, the WTO financial services rules and their standstill. Disclosure requirements may be one of the only restrictions that is still allowed under GATS.

Crowd-Out Ten Years Later: Have Recent Public Insurance Expansions Crowded Out Private Health Insurance?

This concept is important in countries like the US (and UK as part of the EU) who have made GATS and similar commitments, because whatever it does, any public option is not supposed to cut into a co-existing insurance industry's core customers, if it does, the country's laws are subject to challenge by any interested party. (typically a country, like the US) under GATS rules, which are very broad and designed to create and support new rights of corporations, as protected by countries. If a country feels its insurance industry could do better if the other country was forced to "discipline" its domestic regulations to comply with WTO rules. In the case of health care and health insurance, this key gotcha would not apply in a country where there was a single payer system like Canada's - Don't confuse a system like England's (whose NHS, despite its dominant position, is only a 'public option' therefore quite vulnerable to external challenges) with Canada's (totally single payer+exempt) . See discussions elsewhere on here of "GATS Article I:3" and the "Governmental Authority Exclusion" - use the keyword/tag interface - currently in the left hand column, you may need to scroll down, to find them.