Christopher Reuss wrote: >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'.
Such as? > > 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 . . . Yes, I must apologize. I got it into my head that you were operating out of England - which is why I tarred you with the same brush. No more. Your country is fortunate - like Sweden - not to be involved in a World War. You cannot help but profit from others misery - for which I don't blame either country, though perhaps the 'planes that bombed London contained Swedish steel - as well as Russian fuel. But, you both were trying to survive in the face of awesome power and dangerous people, so what else? But, without doubt, the two countries came out of the war in good shape, whereas Britain and, I suppose, most European countries, were close to bankruptcy. So, you invested in social services and they are good. Yet, my health services are also good - and probably as good, or better, than yours. Of course, I have to pay for it - but I probably pay less than you. Service is excellent - the necessary rationing isn't particularly evident. I remember having a suspicious sore. I called the doctor on Wednesday and got an appointment next morning. He looked at it and immediately sent me to the specialists. They checked it and put me through 'pre-op', which means a trip through the hospital visiting everyone who has anything to do with your operation. The anesthesiologist tells you the choices and offers his recommendation, all kinds of nurses and doctors explain things. Monday morning - first thing - It was done and I left the hospital with a wrapped rose. We don't have gurneys in the corridors either, Chris. Though, I can't speak for the inner cities of New York, and Chicago, and suchlike. > > 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". OK, I've thought. Here is what I was objecting to. "go further and further until all public services are privatised - health, education, local council services, the police, and the rest." Omigawd! It's enough to get your knickers in a twist. Yet, you point out that "Public services "such as health or education" can be --and increasingly are -- provided at "market conditions" - and these you suggest are the ones that would be affected by GATS. So, one may infer, non-competitive public services are unaffected (which is a pity). You can't have it both ways, Chris. Services that are competing will not be allowed to prevent competition. Services that are non-competitive are unaffected. What's the problem? Harry ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
