Search Result(s)

The Necessity Test The following communication has been received from the delegation of Korea with the request that it be circulated to the Members of the Working Party on Domestic Regulation.

COMMUNICATION FROM THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA 1. There have been many constructive discussions on how to define the “necessity test” in the context of domestic regulation for trade in services. The proposals made by Canada, Australia, and EC have each contributed to stimulating and advancing the discussions in this area. However, as each proposal and relevant agreement uses different wording for outlining and defining the necessity test, there has been some confusion as to the exact meaning and implications of its use. 2. Korea is of the view that the different wording – such as “trade-restrictive” or “burdensome,” – despite some variance in nuance and focus, does not differ in their implications. This paper thus aims to clarify any differences that exist, elaborate on the possible alternatives that can be used, and suggest a draft provision for the necessity test that could be used in establishing multilateral rules for domestic regulation. 3. In the meantime, there still remain unresolved issues like what should be considered a “legitimate policy objective,” or what factors should be considered to determine the feasibility of an alternative measure. For an effective and strict application of the necessity test, these two issues need to be resolved. However, they will have to be discussed at another time.

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.

Towards Developing Subsidy Disciplines Under the GATS

Read this carefully so you can understand how the GATS is undermining public education and pulling up the ladders that might otherwise improve social mobility, such as subsidized higher education. All around the world, We are doing this, as are many other rich nations. Its a stealth war on the very idea of a middle class. Everywhere. Note also that this is an Indian government funded think-tank. GATS is really a global con job to con countries out of funding public education, holding out the bait of lower taxes to the wealthy. Judging by email, some readers of this site seem unable to grasp what is going on, as its so far away from what we're fed on TV. Note: "Trade Distortion" is when the normal hierarchies of quality/value/cost (i.e. poor people getting poor services, rich people getting acceptable ones) are disrupted by government intervention or lack of intervention or any other "measure", "devaluing" a service. See also the related principles of minimal derogation, (minimal trade restrictiveness") and proportionality. This applies to healthcare too. Any tiers at all will be expanded. The only way out is to make services free. Thats the only way to preserve their jobs too. Otherwise GATS will outsource them eventually. Unless professionals are willing to work for even less than people in developing countries with rich families who view it as part of the cost to educate them. People with advanced degrees from developing countries are never poor, always rich. So these trade deals do not hep the poor in any way shape or form, they help those who have the most money in very poor countries.

Medicaid Expansion in Health Reform Not Likely to “Crowd Out” Private Insurance

"Contrary to claims by some critics, the Medicaid expansion in the new health reform law will overwhelmingly provide coverage to people who otherwise would be uninsured, rather than shift people who already have private coverage to Medicaid." --- comment: This concept of "crowd-out" was literally created by the GATS and it's concept of minimal trade restrictiveness which requires that all government-subsidized measures be the most minimal possible - as well as possibly time limited, for example, only available to either an individual for only a few years, or possibly a country - for only a short period, perhaps a decade or less, (or perhaps only if they are and remain an LDC) . In this case, Medicaid is kind of a loan, not an insurance program, as it is subject to repayment, and only available to the destitute, and near destitute with assets that will only become available at their deaths, such as a home - after their other options have been used up. This "prevents healthcare prices from falling", and "preserves the profit in selling insurance", and "the value of the insurance companies investment". These are the most important things in a for-profit healthcare system. Especially as it becomes "The one bright spot in a dismal economy"

The real cause of Bernie Sanders' problems with the DNC (and America's healthcare mess!)

Basically, 2/3 of Bernie's much-needed platform, as well as the self-stated agendas of (all?) other politicians, to a large extent are potentially blocked by trade agreements that (the leaderships of both) US parties have been cooperating in hiding! They represent a huge betrayal of the American people by both parties. And the reasons for this are complicated and urgently need the nation's attention, or else the policy trap could become so costly to reverse it could become permanent, at a cost of as much as 41% or more of the nations jobs according to a Harvard study. (the agreements also potentially trade away service jobs, basically the 80% of the economy that isn't manufacturing.)

Trading Health Care Away? GATS, Public Services and Privatisation

"But talks have since begun to change one of the 28 agreements overseen by the WTO -- the General Agreement on Trade in Services or GATS. The US, EU, Japan and Canada are trying to revise GATS so that it could be used to overturn almost any legislation governing services from national to local level. And non-government organisations (NGOs) and trade unions are demanding that services in the public interest be clearly exempt from GATS. It details how public services may not in fact be excluded from GATS and explores the implications for public health care."