2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Clinton Administration OPPOSED SCHIP. People here are trying to re-spin the history of SCHIP.
This was back in the 1990s. I remember their opposition because I grew up poor and health insurance for children is an issue I feel is extremely important, and I was writing letters to legislators supporting SCHIP. I may even have some of them somewhere, in any case they opposed it. Kennedy was advocating for it
The Clinton Administration was not vocal in opposing it but they were opposing it. And a decade later the reason why hey did so became clear to me.
If anybody wants to know that why, look at the signature file after my posts and read the paper that's linked to there.
That paper will show you why he Clinton Administration opposed it and show that how and why they were so inflexible. Why they would not have taken any other position. That reason still applies today and its why, for example, Clinton i adamant that - as she puts it, Medicare for All "will NEVER come to pass".
The same issue explains why Clinton is opposes free public higher education and why she is such an ardent advocate of ill-advised water privatization, etc.
Its very bad policy.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Who to believe? Professional fact checkers, or internet bloviator?
Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Obama actually expanded coverage. WTFingF?
Baobab
(4,667 posts)which went into effect in I think January 1998. So, that likely is the standstill date - however, these are numerous other provisions which likely went into effect in 1994 or January 1995.
Read the paper linked in my sig which explains them all as well or better than any other paper I have read anywhere.
Here are some additional publications - both specific and general which will be helpful in understanding the bigger/global picture.
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/gats-and-south-africas-national-health-act
http://nl149.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/putting_health_first.pdf
http://www.citizen.org/documents/GATS-facing-the-facts-final.pdf
http://www.citizen.org/documents/GATS-financial-dereg.pdf
http://www.citizen.org/documents/PC_Gats_Backgrounder_05-05.pdf
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/divide-and-conquer-ftaa-us-trade-strategy-and-public-services-americas
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)There was no dismantling it. Stop spreading bullshit.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)and all public services, so that corporations can be given special rights that almost everybody who has any intelligence see are not just problematic, they are a threat to our future.
Thats why I ask that you read the Trading Lives publication from adaction written by Holly Jarman, their John Kenneth Galbraith Public Policy Fellow
which explains the clash between the two ways of seeing healthcare.
Hillary cannot serve both God and Mammon.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)On Page 7 - seven
it says the following:
If the plan... ...there is a greater risk that...
Creates a new provider in the health care market and subsidizes its consumers
This has the potential to take customers away from private insurers
and may provoke a challenge from associations of health insurance
companies. The plan may be particularly vulnerable to a challenge
from a foreign investor on the grounds of “expropriation” of profits.
Requires the purchase of public insurance
Foreign investors could challenge the new system on the grounds
that their profits have been “expropriated”. US agreements based on
the NAFTA model contain investment provisions that allow foreign
investors to claim compensation from the US government for lost
profits and potential lost profits as a result of changes in government
policy.
Creates a new independent body
How is the power delegated, is this objective? Who serves on the
body, is it representative of key stakeholders? Does it work in a
“transparent” way? These terms are ambiguous, yet form the core of
domestic disciplines on the GATS (General Agreement on Trade in
Services). For example, Maine’s ‘Dirigo’ plan has a unique funding
(savings offset) mechanism where money saved by other insurers as
a result of the plan is repaid to fund Dirigo. Opponents have (so far
unsuccessfully) argued that the mechanism favors Dirigo over other
insurers, and that the legislative basis for delegating power in this
way is too vague, arguments which could be used in a challenge
under GATS rules.
Creates new technical or
licensing standards
Are they “transparent”, “objective” and “appropriate to the service”? If
not, they risk challenges from WTO members under GATS rules.
These terms are ambiguous and yet to be clearly defined.
Expands Medicare, Medicaid or
SCHIP
Foreign investors could challenge the new system on the grounds
that their profits have been “expropriated”. US agreements based on
the NAFTA model contain investment provisions allowing foreign
investors to claim compensation from the US government for lost
profits and potential lost profits as a result of a change in government
policy.
Mandates importation of prescription drugs or advocates cost containment measures for
prescription drugs
Given their history of opposition to state formularies, big
pharmaceutical companies might either argue that formularies violate
current trade rules or seek to insert similar provisions in current or
future bilateral agreements. These provisions could well serve as a
basis to challenge any US law authorizing the reimportation of drugs.
Requires providers to take a certain legal form e.g. must be non-profit
Makes it more likely that the new system would be challenged by a
foreign government under GATS rules.
Requires a state to procure health services locally
Trade rules on procurement could prevent states from adopting ‘Buy
American’ policies that attempt to boost local economies.
Is anticipated by the federal, state or local government to violate US trade commitments
Arguments may be made for dropping a reform plan based on
incompatibility with trade commitments, or funding may be withheld
for this reason.
Provides truly universal health care
Any plan with the potential to expand public provision on a large scale
could be seen as breaking the spirit of US trade commitments, and
would be at risk. The plan could be challenged on grounds that it
establishes a de facto monopoly to provide health services, giving the
plan an unfair advantage. Regardless of the likelihood of this
scenario, the threat is that opponents of universal health care would
try to use ‘incompatibility with trade commitments’ as an argument
against universal health care.
-------
Source of the document-
AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION EDUCATION FUND
1625 K STREET NW, SUITE 210, WASHINGTON, DC 20006 PHONE 202-785-5980 FAX 202-785-5969
TRADING LIVES: DEMOCRACY, HEALTH CARE,
AND TRADE IN SERVICES
Holly Jarman
John Kenneth Galbraith Public Policy Fellow
August 2007
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Now you're presenting a letter written by lobbyists? Also, nothing in there about Hillary opposing SCHIP. Are you moving the goalposts again?
uponit7771
(90,302 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)and he wanted a minimal program which if signed into law then would likely be able to continue in minimal form for awhile despite the GATS already having been signed and largely prohibiting it, the elimination of it would likely have to wait until an "injured arty" petitioned the WTO after health insurance became world trade. The US has been trying to make it world trade continuously all this time but as far as I know countries want to be able to sell one policy for the whole country, not 50 policies for 50 states.
See this document >>> http://www.citizen.org/documents/usa.pdf
under financial services, do you see "NAIC Model Rule"?
Thats what they want. One policy thats the same for the whole country. Once that happens all public programs are likely to be toast and instead we'll get things like foreign health providers that will ship patients elsewhere for care if they have less expensive insurance. Also, the skilled trades will be globalized and massively subcontracted, nursing, teaching, IT, construction. Anything which uses public/tax money. etc. Which will depress wages a lot and make any future New Deal type stimulus impossible.
See
This aspect of the services liberalisation agenda is only now beginning to be recognized by the economics community, believe it or not they didn't know about it. The US economics community by and large were kept in the dark. Which makes me think that the trade agenda being pushed on us in these secret deals is going to be a real nightmare of unintended consequences.
That's pretty depressing.
Here is another global explanation:
The Wrong Model: GATS, Trade Liberalisation and Children’s Right to Health
http://www.iatp.org/files/Wrong_Model_GATS_Trade_Liberalisation_and_Chil.htm
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GATS is not what you think.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)The EUA (EUA.be) says it and the more recent deals are a threat to the continued existence of public higher education.
Even WHO says its an existential threat to public health around the world for dozens of reasons.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)leaving me unable to rebut these Clinton-supporters with the all important facts.
They don't appear to see any of my posts that contain actual information.
Give me a good answer, because this is an important question.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)suddenly let Poland -- or any other country -- run our health, education, fire, etc., systems/departments as you seem to believe. I think you have it wrong. GATS may be a bad thing in some cases, but not for the reasons you are posting.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)by millions of well informed people in other countries and you are in effect "gaslighting" me trying to convince me that the state of total ignorance here in the US - maintained no doubt by substantial efforts in some back channel are normal. They are not. And they wont be sustainable.
"oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive"
The more a country lies, the more energy is wasted maintaining the reality distortion field.
Words dont describe how huge the cost to society becomes - very quickly - if we stay on this road.
It will collapse. It will collapse and nobody will mourn it.
So many people have lived their lives and even died for an ideal, the ideal of freedom and democracy. And we are throwing that away, for what?
The future being pushed in these things is a false one. Even their strongest advocates don't understand the full implications of what they are doing.
there are better models we could all cooperate on. the future is a bright and exciting one if we change our model to one where we all win. Thats the natural path, that's what science gives us. The scarcity is faked.
Look at the fact that we'll have intelligent machines soon. We need o get our act together so we don't end up becoming the problem rather than the solution. Work is going away, what is replacing it is play. Its fun. We can have a truly GREAT future. Exploring the universe with friends, finding out about and answering big questions, solving big problems.
We're going to be parents! That could be a very good thing or a very bad thing. Choose life, Hoyt.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I just do not believe you are reading GATS correctly, and that it has sat around for 20 years, but is ready to take over the world's healthcare, education, public services, etc. I'm sorry, I just don't.
Now I agree with most of what you are saying, outside the GATS stuff. We've got some serious stuff to deal with.
If I'm reading you correctly, congratulations on being parents. I suspect things will workout for your children, but it might be very different from today. That could be a very good thing.
Take care.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Its the nature of exponential growth to be surprising if people base their expectations for the future on their past experience they are guaranteed to be underestimating the rate of change.
Now our top leadership is not exempt from knowledge and given as they have access to our best minds I think that its guaranteed that they know this is happening. Basically, we're in a transition period from a world where humanity needs to work all the time to a world where we don't.
Plus, as I said, we're going to have company!
We now have to figure out what to do!
What the hell are we going to do....
Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)with the help of some members of congress. I give you four pinocchios.
vintx
(1,748 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)on children and to them, that means that anything that has ever been done to benefit children was because of Hillary. You see?
Baobab
(4,667 posts)See The Wrong Model: GATS, Trade Liberalisation and Children’s Right to Health
Link: http://www.iatp.org/files/Wrong_Model_GATS_Trade_Liberalisation_and_Chil.htm
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)a total lie, and you know it. You "remember" the Clintons "secretly" opposed CHIP while publicly fighting for it?
Do you even think about this crap before posting it? Total bullshit. Are you trying to make SBS supporters look like liars and fools?
They should be condemning this crap.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Is it because he died just a few weeks after this interview was done?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And predictions of doom that never come to pass, quite common.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)discussions about SCHIP that explain all sorts of things about it- which surprised me at least..
the health insurance companies hate it and I got the distinct impression from the hearings that they had extracted promises that it was going to go away soon. (this was in 2009, I would love to be wrong) Key phrase they kept using "too attractive" another phrase "crowd out" - they used that a lot. "crowd-out" as in it cannot take away core customers from insurers.. it can only help people who could not afford it otherwise. That crowd out is problematic. the same concept comes up with other forms of public services now and its a creature of the GATS and its adoption of so called "competition policy"
There were also some strange comments in there about the Hyde Amendment- (I think that was it) people dont realize it but right wing churches make huge huge unregulated money off of adoptions and for that reason don't want young mothers to have access to affordable health care so they could keep their babies..
There is all sorts of strange stuff in there.
maybe they have it on some web site somewhere. I watched them on CSPAN and recorded them to dvds which I have somewhere. crappy cheap DVDs. 6 hours a pop.
I think they may no longer play but then they may. If I find them I would be willing to digitize / compress them and upload them somewhere.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)In 2009 as ACA was being developed. I watched them and the HELP ones. I recall nothing of the sort that you are speaking of.
As to this op, Kennedy, even when he supported HRC, credited her with important support on SCHIP. This even as he disputed her claim to the been involved in designing it.
vintx
(1,748 posts)The only voices saying she did anything are from her employees.
(snip)
But the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996.
"The White House wasn't for it. We really roughed them up" in trying to get it approved over the Clinton administration's objections, Hatch said in an interview. "She may have done some advocacy [privately] over at the White House, but I'm not aware of it."
"I do like her," Hatch said of Hillary Clinton. "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No - Teddy does, but she doesn't."
(more at link)
http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/14/clinton_role_in_health_program_disputed/
However it says it was due to politics. I'd like to see hard evidence of her supporting it.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)pedaled the whole thing. And Nc Caine jumped in to say she deserved no credit too.
This story leaves out a lot of key details.
vintx
(1,748 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Oct. 6, 2007: "The children’s health program wouldn’t be in existence today if we didn’t have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue."
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/giving-hillary-credit-for-schip/
It's actually in the first post replying to this OP. Never seen the Globe taken to task for such shitty reporting.
vintx
(1,748 posts)Thanks for the info, didn't click the link in the first reply.
The claims that she helped are all over the place. 'She helped get $', 'she helped fashion it', etc.
It's obvious that she helped in some way. Due to politics it is hard to believe exactly how much help she offered. Factcheck offers quotes from a few people, but only one from her. For someone who is said to have fought very hard for something, there seems scant evidence that this was so.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I don't vent know what this OP is getting at- claiming this incredibly popular and recently expanded program HAS been gutted by trade deals- and showing old links to prove something that did not happen. It is bizarre.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Basically, it frames subsidies of any kind as "trade distorting" and its ideology would basically if it could force us to do something other than provide a subsidy. For example, if people could only afford a little money, they would try to create a service that was only worth a little money so it could preserve neoliberal ideology. For example, children could be seen remotely by doctors in developing countries using webcams and they could provide care here as if they were here.
For all of its strangeness that would in fact solve a great many problems if done correctly.
Likewise, if they needed hospitalization, better that they got it in some other country than not at all.
It might be a matter of life or death.
Same thing with other subsidies, they also see minimum wages as a subsidy. They would transition us to something else that didn't "devalue" the commercial products. For example, instead of free college, inexpensive internet courses with proctored tests here. People could test into degrees.
People need to understand that jobs are going away so wealth is concentrating - automation is making business very profitable- the billions of displaced people are likely - not even so gradually to be living on very little or almost nothing.
people will still need education, in fact far more of it or they will never get work.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Not buying it. People would actually really revolt.
Response to bettyellen (Reply #47)
Post removed
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)more credible just because you add video- and now images- of dead people. Pretty fucked up thing to post, and has nothing to do with this discussion. No one is eliminating the minimum wage. Stop lying.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Lets get to the heart of the issue here. Let me stop beating around the bush. The Clintons were and are still pushing back room deals that are nothing less than a global attack on any country's public health care and education programs that makes it extremely difficult to maintain existing ones and bars new ones. Countless hundreds of papers have been written about this, conferences have been going on for two decades about this, its the #1 global threat for public health and education.
There, I said it.
its the #1 global threat for public health and education.
Strong words, huh? Do people want proof?
Ive been linking to papers, I have thousands of links on this, as Ive been following this issue for almost a decade, saving everything that I could on it.
Because its literally the most important issue in the world right now, for our future health and happiness.
Your candidate is on the wrong side. Not just casually. She is at the heart of the problem.
This is the core difference between Hillary and Bernie, and its a huge world changing difference.
Bernie has not brought this up I am sure because he's trying to save Hillary's butt if he loses. No because he doesnt know this. I know because I have repeatedly sent information on this to his Senate office and his campaign and they know about it.
Hillary is taking advantage of a lot of people's misplaced kindness to her and lying.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)What he disputed in 2008 was claims by her team that gradually grew to claiming that she led the effort, designed it, created it or wrote it. All of those words should be given to Kennedy, with secondary credit to Hatch and Kerry. Kerry and Kennedy wrote a precursor bill in 1996 based on a MA program. Hatch made very significant changes to that before cosponsoring it with Kennedy.
Hillary helped lobby for it in both houses and when it became law persuaded Bill Clinton to include the needed funding in the budget bill that year. Not funding it the first yeAR would have effectively killed it. Kennedy in 1996 thanked her for her help.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)It just includes the quote that vaguely makes it seem like she was not a help at all. 
.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)on Kennedy's work in that time period. It is a great book just to see how Kennedy led in a Republican controlled Senate, with a Democratic President, to get that passed. https://www.amazon.com/Lion-Senate-Kennedy-Democrats-Congress-ebook/dp/B00V3L92D6 (link to Amazon review)
This is a relatively recent book. In 2008, this issue arose slowly. Several of us - including many of us from the JK group, were among the first to dispute the Clinton claim that this was an HRC accomplishment. (Partly it was galling that Begala and Carville were among those doing this and emphasizing how amazing this was. The annoyance was that Kennedy spoke of Kerry's work on that in 2004, but Begala and Carville did nothing but call him "not Bush". Kerry to his credit, included this work on his 2004 website only as having sponsored with Kennedy the precursor bill. Yet, Kerry arguably had a bigger role on that than HRC -- and, of course, the one who really put his heart and soul into getting it done was Ted Kennedy. It was not just that he supported Obama that led him to speak out when her team finally went too far - after Senator Hatch contradicted their story. It was the fact that this was something that was a very big part of his legacy and he had to be annoyed that she was claiming the lead role.
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)Hillary Clinton worked for SCHIP.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Report to the Health Care Subcommittee of the Maine CTPC
http://www.maine.gov/legis/opla/ctpchlthcaresub.pdf
Please, also read this:
http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Nick%20Skala%20GAT%20and%20Health%20Reform.pdf
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)Thanks.
dchill
(38,443 posts)Flip or flop as she will, that's one statement that you (and she) can take to the bank. She and the DLC want to govern on the basis of privatizing the WORLD.
Nothing less will satisfy their need. So our real choice is to vote for our own servitude, or to vote for Bernie Sanders.
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)"People who have health emergencies can't wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass."
But it doesn't change a thing.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Oct. 6, 2007: The children’s health program wouldn’t be in existence today if we didn’t have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/giving-hillary-credit-for-schip/
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)dchill
(38,443 posts)Just like you're supposed to.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Seriously, peddle this crap elsewhere.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)or that deprives other countries of the benefits of the agreement. (market access)
Is SCHIP "'a service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority" which is "supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers" ???
I think it fails the test because there are other competing insurances for more wealthy families.
So that would imply that it was covered by GATS's imperative to incrementally privatize it.
See the discussion here.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)in this publication. Please read the whole thing, it explains the whole problem FAR better than me!
Its authoritative.
Trading Lives: Democracy, Health Care and Trade in Services (2007 - 59 pages)
Expands Medicare, Medicaid or SCHIP
Foreign investors could challenge the new system on the grounds
that their profits have been “expropriated”. US agreements based on
the NAFTA model contain investment provisions allowing foreign
investors to claim compensation from the US government for lost
profits and potential lost profits as a result of a change in government
policy.
Please read the whole thing and dont tae this out ofcontext. The point I am trying to make is, how could Hillary Clinton claim to be a friend of public health care for children when her husbands administration created this MONSTROSITY which is nothing less than an attack on public services globally.
Literally hundreds perhaps even thousands of NGOs say this- all around the world.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)
Demsrule86
(68,469 posts)"The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) – now known more simply as the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)[1] – is a program administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services that provides matching funds to states for health insurance to families with children.[2] The program was designed to cover uninsured children in families with incomes that are modest but too high to qualify for Medicaid.
The program came in response to the failure of comprehensive health care reform proposed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton. The legislation to create it was sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy in a partnership with Senator Orrin Hatch[3] with support coming from First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Clinton administration.[4][5][6] At its creation in 1997, SCHIP was the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded health insurance coverage for children in the U.S. since[citation needed] Lyndon Johnson established Medicaid in 1965.[7] The statutory authority for CHIP is under title XXI of the Social Security Act."
bananas
(27,509 posts)Demsrule86
(68,469 posts)"the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) – now known more simply as the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)[1] – is a program administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services that provides matching funds to states for health insurance to families with children.[2] The program was designed to cover uninsured children in families with incomes that are modest but too high to qualify for Medicaid.
The program came in response to the failure of comprehensive health care reform proposed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton. The legislation to create it was sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy in a partnership with Senator Orrin Hatch[3] with support coming from First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Clinton administration.[4][5][6] At its creation in 1997, SCHIP was the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded health insurance coverage for children in the U.S. since[citation needed] Lyndon Johnson established Medicaid in 1965.[7] The statutory authority for CHIP is under title XXI of the Social Security Act.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Since you read it on the internet, it has to be true, huh?
Well, read this too..
http://www.adaction.org/media/TradingLives.pdf
Say if they had already promises millions of jobs away behind our backs, over 20 years, waving them around like bait, in exchange to other countries for building factories there as if we were from there, then ...
Wouldn't you want to know about something like this before our country literally walks into a trap?
There might be some middle ground to be found, somewhere...
By endorsing the wife of the guy who set that deal up? As if we knew, when we didn't?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Seriously, you're arguing that trade deals had the potential to force something other than what actually happened to happen.
Demsrule86
(68,469 posts)The Clintons did not oppose CHIP...and now your guys shift to a treaty...as a matter a fact there are several news accounts of Ted Kennedy thanking the Clintons...I don't get why you guys lie. Chip was an American plan for American kids sponsored by Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch I believe...the Clintons supported it. I don't give a damn about the treaty...the poster told a lie. As for the internet, try looking for contemporaneousness accounts of what you are interested in. Avoid Fox news .
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)You don't rack up almost 4k posts in a couple months time with truths.
