Fake "Public Option" scheme trotted out every four years to hide the GATS lock-in for another four years.

What they call in Europe "services of general economic interest". Why can't it work here? Because the EU services were pre-existing to GATS, so are grandfathered in. If they made any changes, like Brexit, they would break too. Just ike the UK's have been gradually being privatized. And like us, they are not allowed to create any new ones unless they modify their GATS commitments, and if they had committed healthcare they likely have to pay a high price for doing so.

"Fake public option" is what I call it. Because the WTO constraints mean its designed to fail.


See this Note from the WTO Secretariat on health and social services.

Amazingly, people don't call foul when the same lie is rolled out again and again .

People don't want to be milked by insurance companies. But politicians emphatically do not want the moral hazard of the responsibility. They are willing to pay a very high price in lives.

None of this can be discussed honestly because they have behaved very dishonestly.

So we are being manipulated shamelessly in a way that it seemsnobody is smart enough to recognize.

This is what's called manufacturing fake consent.

I hope that everybody reading this theater realizes that we had signed away the right to have real public healthcare when we joined the WTO in 1995.

And then they made it much worse with the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services with its standstill (It confined regulations to those already existing on the standstill/rollback date of Feb 26, 1998) and its promise to eliminate or reduce in scope all the remaining pieces of our safety nets. Unless they conformed to GATS .. _Do any? 

That ceiling - February 26, 1998 or maybe earlier, was temporarily violated after the 2008 financial crisis which was caused by GATS,a change proposed in another document filed in Geneva on the very same day.

*reform* of the Glass_Steagall Act was proposed to the WTO, so the US conformed to GATS, on Feb 26, 1998. Glass-Steagall was *repealed* the next year.

ACA violated the standstill but it was allowed in the context of post 2008 temporary protectionist measures around the world, "because of the financial crisis".  Note above that GATS itself arguably caused the financial crisis.

See this video where they argue with Lori Wallach of Public Citizen and evade questions about this.


If we want our rights back, we're going to have to buy them back.  Otherwise we will lose our middle class jobs first and then lose our lower paying jobs.

Dysfunctional by design healthcare problems, none of which would occur under single payer (which only exists in Canada, and could not be created new in the WU post GATS. The UK's NHS is not single payer, its a fake public option, fake because its gradually being dismantled in conformance with the longstanding WTO rules described in this Lancet article from 1999.

US healthcare is being used as a unnecessary, manufactured emergency to justify massive globalization of all its decent jobs.

Americans are being held hostage at a huge cost in human life.

Until we get out of all these deals we have to get the worst deals of them all because of this ideology.

the deal received by the public has to get worse and worse, even as the profits corporations are entitled to rise due to mandatory deregulation.

Below is a snapshot from 2009. This all was political theater because the only kind of healthcare that isnt subjected to this one way progressive liberalization (it also will offshore jobs) is the very narrow kind of healthcare that is completely noncommercial and also lacks even just one commercial competitor - that means nobody can sell healthcare or health insurance, in the entire country. The rich must use the same healthcare as everybody else. Literally the President and Senators must use the same healthcare as everybody else. That will be a point of pride, Otherwise it falls apart. Otehrwise we go the path of today's United States and a total global mess which results in worse and worse healthcare for the vast majority of the planet will soon follow.


We need to get out of the GATS. There isn't any nice way to say it, we were betrayed and we've been lied to by both parties, in collusion with one another,  for 25 years.

Big Internet companies are blacklisting this site. because it tells the truth, this is factual information that would unite the country against this takeover.

The very same thing is likely happening to public higher education and a plethora of other services, all that receive subsidies, unless they are "supplied in the exercise of governmental authority".


June 4, 2009 – 12:45 p.m.
Blue Dogs Demand Tight Constraints on Any Public Health Plan Option
By Alex Wayne, CQ Staff

Conservative House Democrats set strict conditions Thursday for any government-run insurance plan Congress creates as part of a health care overhaul, ruling out support for a plan that resembles Medicare — the option favored by many liberals.

The lines drawn by the Blue Dog Coalition, if adhered to by lawmakers crafting the health overhaul, would result in a government-run plan that works much like private insurance plans.

“How a public option is constructed and allowed to compete are critically important to ensuring families have the ability to keep their current health coverage and continue to see the doctor of their choice,” the Blue Dogs said .

Their manifesto complicates an already difficult task for Democratic bill drafters and the party leadership.

A government-run insurance plan, which Democrats call a “public plan option,” is the biggest issue dividing Republicans and Democrats in this year’s health care debate. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose the idea. Many Democrats say it is vital to ensure real competition by private insurers and reduce health costs. President Obama sent a letter to senior Senate Democrats on Wednesday strongly endorsing a public plan, but without specifying how it should be structured.

Details are important; a public plan could operate like Medicare, dictating prices to health providers and undercutting private insurers, or it might be constructed to operate more like a private insurance plan, in which payment rates are negotiated with providers.

Lawmakers might open the plan to every American or only to those without employer-sponsored insurance. Some lawmakers are discussing including a “trigger,” in which the public plan would begin operating only if a set of conditions are met, such as a lack of affordable private insurance plans in a given geographic area.

It is not clear whether Republicans would support a public plan even with a host of restrictions — or if liberals would support a bill with the kind of restrictions demanded by the Blue Dogs.

Among their requirements: The public plan must negotiate payment rates with providers; participation in the plan must be voluntary for both providers and patients; premiums and copayments under the plan must pay for its operations; and the plan must follow the same actuarial standards and regulations required of private insurers.

Some conservative health policy experts have questioned whether it makes sense for the government to create a public plan that essentially replicates plans offered by private insurers. A public plan would draw most of its cost-cutting power from its ability to dictate prices, like Medicare, these experts argue; without that ability, it might save the government and consumers little or no money.

Politically, the Blue Dogs’ document sets the coalition’s 51 members squarely at odds with a group of 78 liberals in the House who have cosponsored legislation (HR 676) by John Conyers Jr. , D-Mich., that would expand Medicare to all Americans and outlaw most private insurance.

Conyers and his cosponsors represent a base of adamant supporters for a strong, Medicare-like public plan. House Democratic leaders will have to somehow reconcile the two blocs in order to pass any health care overhaul measure.

Related content