If an elite hands away the country's sovreignty to the WTO so that the country's citizens can't get health care (and then they, er, die) then what good is the elite? From a nice roundup by Stoller today:
The WTO and free trade is going to be a major fight next cycle*. Obama's health care and climate change proposals are going to be subject to WTO rules, which means that corporations can sue the US government and dismantle his carbon reduction laws or health care reforms as 'trade barriers'. Lieberman-Warner had a carbon tariff in it, but the bill never went anyway, so nothing came of it. But there's no question the Chamber of Commerce is going to use this legal avenue through American subsidiaries of foreign companies to gut any attempt by Obama to engage in social safety or environmental protection.
Chamber of Commerce guys? Just a wee bit more noblesse oblige, please!
And since Obama's already starting out from a weak position on health care, a compromise with the Chamber on health care -- the whole mad negotiating skillz thing -- is going to be even weaker. And gosh, I know it's "mean" to mention this, but that means that people are going to, er, die.
NOTE * The cycle mentality does need to end. People think they can retain credibility when they go instrumental during the cycle, and then go all "bold" when the cycle is over, even when we all know they'll go instrumental all over again in the next cycle. Clue stick: If you're not a Village
wannabe, the "cycle" is the last thing on your mind. The constants -- party invariants, in fact -- are what's on your mind.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
WTO restraints are actually good news
for those pursuing UHC through an all-or-nothing approach. Not sure the CofC strategy would ultimately prevail, but it surely could gum up the works for a good long while.
I've argued here that incrementalism isn't all bad when it comes to moving towards UHC, and gotten some pretty stiff resistance. "Willfully Stupid" was one review, not that it was hurtful or that I'd keep carrying the wound around licking it obsessively or anything, just saying that a certain cohort of UHC supporters have some pretty strong views that incrementalism is a vice not a virtue.
From that POV, then, the use of WTO rules to block incremental approaches towards UHC (both Obama and Clinton plans are incrementalist) is a good thing. Let the CofC spend their money on lawyers to block employer-mediated approaches, leaving a government run single payer Medicare-For-All UHC as the only possible next step.
Not incidentally, Medicare-For-All does not violate WTO restrictions plus it reduces employer bottom-line expenses and lowers overall health care cost thus freeing up consumer cash and stimulating the economy, so everyone including the CofC and Hank Paulson and Barney Frank can get behind it. Silver lining all around.
[Followed your link, Lambert, of course - we are getting to know each other well, aren't we? Such a curious process; sort of a warp-speed version of intergalactic pen pals. I'll re-engage over there on those issues, a bit later.]
[Oh, and: Disagree completely with you on the benefit/risk of cyclical/temporal flexibility with regard to political tactics. The election cycle is real, with real effects and limitations; I consider accepting and directly dealing with that reality to be a prime Progressive virtue. It is, I feel, a pattern to be embraced not avoided. YOMV, but doesn't IMNSHO include the authority to tell me that I "must" put a stop to mine. Perhaps a discussion better suited for a stand-alone post rather than here.]