Rank and file Democrats don't know about the GATS, nor does it seem do many Congresspeople. Also, PLEASE submit "claims" made here, to fact checking sites, whether you doubt them or not.

is this for real, or not? Of course, with rank and file Dems, it almost always is. But with Congress? I think they often ARE telling the truth, they don't know about GATS, etc. The entire nation - including the media has been brainwashed. If you are reading this site, you would be doing legislators and yourselves a great favor to read about these deals that literally trade democracy away and make government totally dysfunctional, inform yourselves, and then bringing this up to them. As the credibility of such Internet sourced information is often impugned to be disinformative, I urge you all also, if you have not been satisfied that I have documented them adequately, to contact me asking for proof, and/or investigate these "claims" that I am making here, using so called fact checking web sites. Please do this and do it now!

What does "brainwashed" mean when I use the word here? It means convinced of something that is vastly untrue, a "simulacrum".

For example, although our government can still make laws about things covered by GATS that violate it (the ACA is a good example) if the US refused to change the laws to conform to WTO rules if brought up in a "request for consultations" and lost, we would have to do that or be sanctioned by them. That would be very embarrassing, as it would expose the entire scheme.

Please read the late Mr. Skala's paper.

If you don't like it, take it up with our dear leaders in Geneva.

This already happened with guest work visa quotas, and it could happen (or have already happened with the ACA, which was violative of the "standstill" and other parts of the GATS, for example, we were supposed to have submitted it earlier, in 1998, if we planned to make those changes.

We're officially supposed to use the regulatory level in 1998 as our ceiling.

Of course thats not practical regulations in healthcare insurance were brutal in 1998.

Yes, they were but they were more profitable.

Thats the whole idea.

This is the United States, where healthcare is for profit.

Bidens and Trumps over and over again.

We need to stop pretending to ourselves that government is going to work for anybody except the business of business.

Sorry to be so frank.

We are similarly brainwashed with devastating effect on us on a number of important issues related to trade policy's hijacking of national policy. Its not a secret to people in the trade community, however Americans are still in the dark about large chunks of policy space that have been taken away. We desperately need to know. Now, because of the election. Its URGENT. because we are walking into a trap.

We're going to have to learn the truth. The longer we wait, the worse it gets, so we should make it our business to learn it now.

A NOTE ON FACT CHECKING THE "CLAIMS" MADE ON THIS SITE.

PLEASE FACT CHECK CLAIMS MADE ON THIS SITE, that means, submit any claims you want to know are true or false,  to "fact checking" sites.

If you represent a fact checking site, and are looking for verification of anything here, email or use the feedback/contact-info form. 

You can save time by scanning the Links directory for the subset of articles that are from very well trusted sources, notably academic journals that peer review articles, or government entities, or global governance organizations.

Also, please contact this site's management using the feedback / contact form for questions. I realize that some of the "claims" I made would most certainly be controversial, but as I say up above, There is a reason for that and indeed, if you really are interested in knowing the truth and truly experiencing the issue of fact checking and determination of facts under the most adverse conditions possible outside of actual totalitarianism this issue is for you.  It could literally make your career and earn the forever gratitude of an entire country and the world.

-----SO------

I would be overjoyed to provide all the information you require when I make a claim that is obviously attempting to make some factual point.

For example, below and right here, I state that its almost certain that [unspeakably large number] of poor Americans have likely died needless deaths (that they would not have died in developed countries with the better performing healthcare systems, (all spending less than we do since we spend the most)

In other words, we spend the most and get the criminally least healthcare, to the point that at least [unspeakably large number]"excess deaths amenable to healthcare" or "excess deaths amenable to improved access to healthcare" have occurred. during the 25 years our healthcare has been rendered "unfixable" by FTAs like GATS - unfixable the way we are directed to fix it, via elections - This election is proving to be a perfect example of the problem and illustrates how the system has been rigged.

if we lack the information of how to get out of GATS, thats an assertion that is just screaming, literally, for fact checking, isn't it?

Lets fact check it together.

This is an important claim. I assert that we have violated commonly accepted norms and international rules on healthcare to the degree that it is a crime, a crime against all humanity to have done what we have done.

I extend the responsibilities of doctors to all who control anything medical. I do not think that is any kind of illegal assumption, as similar responsibilities were clearly made during the Nuremberg Trials and elsewhere, under international law.

(For more on the Nuremberg Trials see http://Nizkor.org )

Please notify me of your results, so they can be put online here.

Some of the things that I say here to me are clearly speculative, when I am doing that I try to make it clear with my language. 

(where I try to project a bit into the future and make estimates of what might happen)

For example, I am guessing when I try to extrapolate from studies like Alan Blinder's "How many US jobs might be offshorable" (which found 26% were and the Harvard replication study of his work, which found 41% were. Many of those jobs are less skilled jobs (call centers, desk jobs requiring a human but not a high skilled human. Outsourcing is different, and maps to the GATS Mode Four non-immigrant visas currently being issued, more closely, but the percentage of jobs which the number would naturally rise to is unknown. However, it is reasonable to assume that the two categories have a great deal of overlap and that the number of jobs outsourced (which is currently subject to limits) does have  a bearing on the number of jobs offshored because typically one outsourced workers is enabling a substantially larger number of US jobs to be done elsewhere than simply one.

Also, Blinder and the replication study of his work both omitted public services and quasi public services, jobs which would be likely to see the biggest changes (nursing and teaching and of course, IT, in particular).

So, although we could nitpick about those estimates, I think that if we estimated "half" of US jobs lost in the future because of GATS and TISA, etc. we likely would be within 25% of the mark. That would not mean that the remaining jobs would be insulated from the INTENDED wage lowering effects, because many might be SMEs that were simply driven out of business by a dearth in customers, not the direct effects of GATS. And of course AUTOMATION is also a huge factor, but the way GATS would likely work, job losses to automation would almost entirely impact Americans not reduce the numbers of jobs outsourced. because the regulatory direction can only deregulate, we cannot re-regulate!Trade deals are like that. You know they also severely impact things like minimum wage laws, (if they are even held applicable to guest workers)

I am not saying they are bad people, they aren't. I am just saying that we have 350 million people here in the US who our leaders owe allegience to many sem to have forgotten long ago.

We've been lied to for more than two decades about GATS.

so all that time, although we thought we could, we could not fix our healthcare. taht means that a lot of what we have lived though has been FAKE.

A theatrical performance.

All that time, behind our backs, trade negotiators have been negotiating a scheme to outsource and offshore potentially millions of the jobs we do, away.

Why? It's deemed "more efficient" They estimate that as much as $150 billion would be saved every year.

Basically, they give you every possible explanation you could ever imagine except the real one, greed. Most emphatically, their scheme does not help poor people in any way, shape or kind. It mostly helps rich people here, and also the already rich elsewhere, who are responsible for poor countries remaining poor.

If they had put even one quarter as much effort into economic development of the US as the oligarchs have put into these schemes, we would all be prosperous.

Instead they are "busting out the joint"

racking up this huge debt which they put in our names, while trying to extract value from the country, leaviing us all with a hell of a mess to solve.

The problem though is trade agreements award rights in perpetuity, not only when needed. So entitlements would persist even into a future where there were practically no jobs.

This is what happened with South Africa and GATS - on the national health Insurance they had voted for. Now its a decade later and they still do not have it.

This creates even now, an impossible situation, from the perspective of the American people, and I would hope that government officials in all the concerned countries and organizations could realize that. However, conversations Ive had did not reveal that kind of flexibility, ever.

People have staked out claims and facts don't matter to many of them. This is unreasonable when given the fact that these agreements frustrate the democratic values of the US, and so any agreement that so obviously violates those principles which government officials are trying to frustrate knowledge oif, should be seen as illegitimate, regardless of the efforts that have been made to "multilateralize" it in lieu of actual disclosure to the American public. (we have a lot of stuff here on this democratic deficit/legitimacy issue however, it is notable that NONE of it goes to the actual issue, of whether it is legal or morally right to attempt to do it without a disclosure and referendum ever having happened on the actual issues. Can you imagine, ifthe issues which needed to be discussed were in fact brought up? (Of course they would fail, here and everywhere else).

Were we to allow that theft to work, we could totally kiss democracy goodbye in those countries that still have it because only one bad Administration - one bad government is needed to steal it from their future citizens in perpetuity in a country, and that is exactly what seems to have been done here in the US and I venture to say, its also being done in the UK, likely for similar reasons (capitalism wants out of the social contract without having to pay the price of doing it in lost trust and loss of legitimacy of 'elected' leaders. I also venture to say that leaders elected on false promises, promises they knew could not be fulfilled, or politicians who pretend to be running to win who have no intention of actually winning and doing what they promised, should be disqualified and trigger a new election.).

So, to return to speculative claims. Sometimes i make them but I try to make them in such a way that its clear that I am speculating.

In a sense, this entire site is a mixed bag of factual claims (usually in the form of complaints about a situation most of us are not aware of)

When I speculate, on the general and broader outcomes that might be caused by the things i am pointing out, I also try to be conservative in my estimates.

As unusual as 'claims' on this site must seem to those convinced by mainstream media that their versions of whats going on is the only one, for me to simply say that "as far as I know its true" is actually deliberate understatement. I actually can't think of any way the gist of what I am saying here wouldn't be true because its easily verifiable as fact within the publications of the system of "global economic governance organizations" that's been set up above the nation-states. Numerous books and academic publications have been written on it, detailing many of the things I am telling you here. The scope of this site is fairly narrow within that context. I don't really go into trade in goods much, except in drugs and drug patent issues, which I only treat at a very basic level to point out how evil I feel it is, also because of the coronavirus epidemic, I feel that it needs to be changed and changed soon or we will see a great many people die as we did and still do from AIDS in some parts of the world (even with drugs being cheaper now, the waivers that allow it must be returned to and reissued every few years, also they do not apply to rich countries and in countries like the US a great many people die because for example, they cannot afford insulin that should be very low cost because it is long out of patent and when it was patented, its inventors intended it to be cheap and indicated that so, its not being available in generic form should be seen as a theft from humanity of a drug that preserves life in order to extort more money from people who can scarcely afford it, which should be a serious crime. 

Ive had extensive discussions in real life and online with trade negotiators about issues like TRIPS and GATS and NAFTA,  These were real experts, not Twitter's experts, who  gave me no credible reason to doubt what Ive said here. 

jhilary-NHS_is_not_protected_by_the_governmental_authority_exclusion.png

NOTE ON TWITTER's contractual? "FACT CHECKERS" and "EXPERTS"

When a dispute arises over the factual nature of something somebody claims there, Twitter has a bad habit of assigning people they call experts to issues they want verified and often those people are not that knowledgeable, because with issues like the ones discussed here, frankly, very few people understand some of them and the motive to lie is absolutely huge - in elections, especially.

This WTO publication has bearing to the question about the governmental authority exclusion John Hilary and I were discussing.  twitter's people seem to be consultants, and not very knowedgeable but hired because Twitter already decided to censor certain views and they just want some way to justify it post hoc.

Just because somebody is a candidate for a major political party doesn't mean anything. Those people often are the people with the most to hide and the most to lose personally from the uncovering of facts.They also are the ones with the resources to fund teams of people who go out intending to hide facts unfavorable to their candidates by setting up behind the scenes tag teams to mass report people, relying on social networks lack of knowledge to sustain their reports. For this reason, anybody who has some true but controversial fact is likely to be hounded off the platform. I'm sure the same also applies at any other online forum that is approved by the also often very dishonest media.

I am not saying they are dishonest in most areas, just a very few - but crucially important ones they are.

that is a problem.

(This is especially true with issues surrounding GATS and subsidies). 

they wont discuss them. Instead, they should discuss them and include the fact that the one thing the various entities that engage in the real debates and discussions on issues like the governmental authority exclusion and public services, the real experts, all say is that people should default to the precautionary principle.

Also, anybody who is observing should see that its obvious that both US parties are trying to make it unambiguous that everything the US does is does "on a commercial basis" and that there is no service in the US that is eligible for the governmental authority exclusion at the current time.

That changes everything and in particular, it means that all promises involving financial services are "stood still" so cannot re-regulate, can only deregulate, unless we get out of GATS, (similar procedures exist in other FTAS designed to make leaving them very difficult)  which takes some time, officially requires some time to finish (it also may require substantial payments in WTO concessions to countries that complain and demend compensation)

Information about the Understanding and its standstill clause from the late N. Skala's 2009 IJHS paper

Image from Skala:2009

which means that (assuming real Democrats wanted to do something that actually works)  in order for any of the Presidential candidates healthcare proposals to happen (including Bernie Sanders) the US would have to withdraw the relevant sectors from GATS using the Article XXI procedure first. 

This means that if the Dems nominated Biden he like Bernie would be subject to the same constraints. If he actually wanted to do anything that's sustainable, he would need to leave the GATS which might take several years (except in an emergency, perhaps)

However, unlike Bernie, Biden would most certainly be VERY unwilling to withdraw the US from GATS, as GATS is the darling of the neoliberal Dem clique which Biden is part of.ALSO, they are speaking to a foreign audience who invests here because they see the US as the country least likely to help the ever growing numbers of poor which will result from GATS policies.  China insists that their investment boom occurred in part because they cracked down in 1989, you see.

Similarly, its entirely possible that Trump is looking for an excuse to crack down on dissent here in the US. Oligarchs realize that as oligarchs think alike.

GATS is 100% oligarchical thinking so thats why they hide it. It contains dirty trick after dirty trick on we the people.

Therefore, because continued cuts in healthcare subsidies are only consistent with the GOP's agenda in the public's eye, not Democrats, but GATS rules would require them, Biden almost certainly wants to beat Bernie but then lose the general election.

In fact Biden literally would have to lose the general election to avoid blowing the Democrats cover because the promises he's made, to "expand the ACA" would likely violate (in addition to "standstill" ratchet, potential rollback, etc. - also all the jobs in all the many many GATS committed fields, could suddenly be subjected to outsourcing- via Mode Four, basically taken over to be outsourced by body shop firms, after employees finished trading their replacements, Nursing and teaching both would be heavily effected, both huge professions.- thanks to GATS - Even if they dont win DS503. (only then the outsourcing occurs upon completion of the WTO's "single undertaking")

This is a huge risk, one of a great many (Americans absolutely cannot afford the healthcare system we're being forced into and have not since GATS entry into force, we were tricked, a huge, 25 year long, national coercion that is quite arguably criminal under these conditions) ,

unless Bernie wins. This is because its only if a sector is immune from GATS, i.e. it must have been both pre-existing in 1995 or removed from it now, via Article XXI (21) or not committed to and 'a service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority' which means any service which is supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers." that it would be immune to a DS503 victory deeming quotas to be FTA illegal.

Dozens of service sectors would be impacted, not just healthcare, teaching, Ccomouter and related services, literally millions of jobs could be, and we would be forced to allow it. 

It wouldnt just impact us, all the countries of the world our size that had weak unions that had made similar WTO commitments, couldnt limit it. Even as jobs dried up in the future,

the several GATS rules that require progressive liberalization - a one way street with no backing up and no side streets are designed to be inflexible. By us, we designed them to be a trap. We and the UK, and EU, designed them to trap our own future Administrations. 

Biden therefore, I think its clear could NOT do what he claims and restore (or expand) the ACA, for the reasons laid out by the late Nicholas Skala in 2009.

Its clear to me that were he to win the general election, and actually try to reverse the repeals put in place by Republicans and improve the situation in Congress, it would not fly if any country challenged him in the WTO, which the US has been careful to ensure would happen,

its likely that the US would have to make additional  backroom deals to increase other nations take from this dirty deal beyond even the changes India is demanding in their DS503 WTO dispute with us. (To understand the things that are being asked for one needs to take the sections of GATS they bring up and read them yourself, in there is the prohibitions on rules limiting any numerical limits on work that a countrys firms can earn, by being cheapest.

It must simply be determined by the amount of work they can get, not by visa quotas. We can only limit immigration, not temporary movement of natural services.

The only service sectors likely to be excluded are those that are 100% free. And have no commercial competition.

Or are carved out at potentially astronomical costs. And you know they are doing their best to commit money so they can claim they dont have the money to pay for that.

thats what they always do. So this country needs to know some facts. the incriminating facts of how they sold all of us out so very badly and are continuing to do so.

Other countries really want the jobs they claim we promised them.

(thats their avowed #1 goal from the WTO, also those jobs would likely be lost permanently, even as the economy becomes more and more job sparse in the future, for proof see this letter from Congress begging the USTR not to sign any more of these trade agreements for that reason, BTW, the past commitment they refer to is GATS)

Do people understand what I am saying here?

Only Bernie has been operating in as good a faith as he could without telling the country about GATS, which although its a mistake, in my opinion, is a mistake done by an honest person because all indications are that he actually intends to get our healthcare and our healthcare jobs out of the GATS trap which frankly, the previous Administrations got us into AND HAVE BEEN LYING TO ALL OF US ALL SINCE THEN. So even if we lose millions of jobs in other sectors, then we have a chance of saving healthcare too, plus healthcare will be free (it has to be) One tier for everybody, is absolutely necessary. That means that like Canada, even Senators and Congresspeople will be treated by the same doctors and with the same medico-legal standards of care as the poor child of the single mom. That's the way things will have to be. No insurance companies.

We also have to do the same thing with both primary and secondary and tertiary education, as well as with water and other essentials of life

This should be such a big thing (its a crime against humanity since SO many have died because of it being unfixable) that all people involved in it should be brought up before a Nuremberg tribunal, (as similar crimes are involved) convicted and imprisoned for the rest of their lives with no possibility of parole (I don't believe in capital punishment)

I hope people understand me, if you have any questions, use the contact/feedback form to email me and I'd be happy to explain what I mean and why.

Basically, read the Nuremberg and Helsinki rules for medical situations. Politicians, especially not politicians from advanced countries that are trying to influence others to adopt "their system" as we are,  don't get  a free pass to deliberately fuck up and pretend its just their incompetence or inability to agree on anything, or (add any other ridiculous excuse here) or an (economics is a science) medical experiment  for 25 years while a trade agreement in fact has taken away their ability to fix it, deceiving the entire country all that time, while a great many poor people have died.

Thank you.

Site Management