Harry Pollard wrote: > Chris, > You deemed this worthy enough to send to us. It's from the idiots who spend > their time condemning the people trying to put things right. Of course, > actually taking on the Fat Cats awash in privilege might be even more > worthwhile, but that's difficult so let's try something easier.
On the contrary -- the WTO represents the fattest cats and is the most difficult 'target'. > First the disclosure of "secret meetings" to arrange horrible things, then > the "we know what they're up to" clairvoyance, followed by the listing > of the "harm that will happen to everything we hold dear, such as the > waiting on gurneys lined up in the National Health hospital corridors, or > the vital service that teaches more than half the children of England to > read, or the potholes and garbage collection, or the coppers who manage to > keep violence to such a low level that only Australia has a greater level > of criminal violence than Britain Looks like Keith isn't the only UK-centric poster on this list... Hints: - Not all public services are as bad as in the UK. - They are bad because of neoliberal UK policies. - But don't worry -- GATS will manage to make them even worse... > This is from the WTO web page on GATS: > > The GATS applies in principle to all service sectors, with two exceptions. > > Article I(3) of the GATS excludes "services supplied in the exercise of > governmental authority". These are services that are supplied neither on a > commercial basis nor in competition with other suppliers. Cases in point > are social security schemes and any other public service, such as health or > education, that is provided at non-market conditions. If you think that this means that healthcare is exempt from GATS, think again. Public services "such as health or education" can be --and increasingly are-- provided at "market conditions", so they're NOT exempt from GATS: In the background note on health and social services (S/C/W50, 18-Sep-1998), the WTO Secretariat has argued that for services to be covered by this exception, they should be provided for FREE. It pointed out that "The hospital sector in many countries 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 1.3 and/or maintain that no competitive relationship exists between the two groups of service suppliers." So, Harry, please start to think before you call the GATS opponents "unthinking" and "idiots". Chris
