What he meant to say is that the president can't do it alone and he or she needs grass-roots movement to push things forward.
He failed to mention one word. I guess I'm familiar with his stump speeches...so, I think that's what he meant. Don't worry about it

control. In other words, international law, such as investment law. ISDS, "indirect expropriation", and the rest.

For example, changing the health care system to exclude foreign firms provision of services, regardless of if the solution was telemedicine, or new metal levels, such as aluminum or tin, or shipping patients to where care was affordable, those are not trade distorting- Anything else would violate our trade commitments.

For the same reasons why public health care thats too attractive is seen as creating crowd out of for profit services, which cannot be allowed to happen. because its framed as a theft from corporate "rightful owners" of those markets. the US stands firmly against anything that reduces the profitability of service markets or fails to maximize the values in the supply chains.

How would you like it if a government changed some policy or provided some service - causing measures tantamount to expropriation of your investment in that country?

The president needs the people. We are the people. Together we are stronger than the corporate funders.
What's not to understand?

for the services?

get things done in DC.
He is telling us that unless we stay involved and help him by making calls to our elected officials, showing up at their local townhalls, nothing will get done.

That's what this whole political movement is about. As President he can only propose legislation but he will not be the one to write the laws.

Think about the ACA debate - who showed up and fought it? The teabaggers. They changed the narrative. The ACA was not as strong as it should have been because the wrong people were in the streets, showing up at meetings, calling & emailing their elected officials.

Obama's biggest mistake, imho, was building this enormous grassroots network during the campaign season in 2008 & letting it die. (I know a part of it splintered into something else but it was a small fraction of what it was). If he had kept it going, there would have been enough of us to counter those teabaggers, to fight for the ACA but there wasn't.

Bernie is saying he needs us to be there for him if he is going to get anything done.

This is about health care, for example. These rules are carved in stone, as it were, by international law.

What the GATS Rules Require

Broadly speaking, there are three “tiers” of GATS rules affecting health care.
The first tier of rules, General Obligations and Disciplines, apply equally to all
service sectors of all WTO member countries, regardless of whether those sectors
are committed in a country’s schedule or not. The second tier, Specific Com-
mitments, apply only to those sectors that a country commits to its schedule. These
rules are more far-reaching, and members were given the opportunity to write
any exceptions or limitations to them into their schedules. Finally, under GATS
Part III, Article XVII, WTO member countries are allowed to negotiate a third
“tier” of rules to govern their commitments above and beyond the underlying
Specific Commitments rules that normally apply. Citing this provision, the United
States has inscribed its Financial Commitments schedule with the “supplemental”
rules of the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services. These rules
apply in addition to the underlying GATS Specific Commitments rules on
Market Access and National Treatment (described below).
Table 1
Selected rules included in the General Agreement on Trade in Services
Rule tier Binding upon Rule content
General
Obligations
(Tier 1) All member states of the
World Trade Organization 1. Most-favored nation treatment.
2. Prohibition on “new monopolies”
3. Disciplines on domestic
regulation
Specific
Commitments
(Tier 2) Only those service sectors
that members choose to
bind in their schedules of
commitments 1. Open market access obligations
2. National treatment of all
foreign service provider
Supplementary
Voluntary
Commitments
(Tier 3) Service sectors already
scheduled that members
choose to make additional
liberalization commitments
in (financial services in the
U.S.) 1. Subjection of public entities
to GATS rules
2. “Standstill” of existing
exceptions to liberalization
3. Requirement to allow any
new financial service
4. Requirement to “endeavor
to remove or limit any
significant adverse effects” of
domestic regulationInternational Trade Law and U.S. Health Reform
/ 367
General Obligations and Disciplines. These rules apply to all service sectors of
all WTO member countries, regardless of whether or not the sectors have been
committed to a nation’s schedule. While these are generally the least controversial
provisions, several may have serious implications for reform or regulation of
the health sector (4).
Most-Favored-Nation Treatment: This provision requires a member to give
service suppliers of any other WTO member no less favorable treatment than it
gives service suppliers of “any other country” (4, Art. II).
Prohibition on New “Monopolies”: This provision requires that if a country
grants new “monopoly rights” regarding the supply of a service covered in its
schedule, the country granting the “monopoly” must enter into negotiations to
provide compensation to any other member adversely affected by it. If an agree-
ment is not reached, the affected member may refer the matter to arbitration, and
the “monopoly” may not go into force until the compensation required by the
arbitration has been made. The term “monopoly rights” is not defined anywhere
in the agreement (4, Art. VIII).
“Disciplines” on Domestic Regulation: In sectors where no commitments
have been undertaken, the GATS states that a special Council for Trade in Services
shall develop “disciplines” that assure that qualification requirements and proce-
dures, technical standards, and licensing requirements for the provision of services
are “not more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service.”
Regarding sectors in which commitments have been undertaken, however, it
is unclear whether such a “necessity test” is already in force (4, Art. VI).
Specific Commitments. These rules apply only to service sectors that members
have volunteered to submit to the rules by inscribing them in their schedules.
Members were also given an opportunity to reserve specific exceptions to the
rules during the negotiations of their schedules. Rules in this section fall into two
broad categories, Market Access and National Treatment.
Market Access: The rules in this section are aimed at preventing governments
from limiting the number, type, form, or size of foreign service suppliers in their
markets or intervening to affect or regulate the way the firms provide the service.
Examples of prohibited measures include (4, Art. XVI):
•
•
•
•
Limitations on the number of service suppliers
Limitations on the total quantity of service output
Requiring a specific type of legal entity (e.g., nonprofit)
Limitations on the “total value of service transactions or assets”
National Treatment: This set of rules requires that foreign service suppliers
receive, “in respect of all measures affecting the supply of services,” the same
treatment that a nation gives to its own service suppliers. It is easy to think of
situations in which a country may want to shape policy to favor domestic industry368
/ Skala
over foreign operations, but the GATS rules go even farther than these require-
ments. Under the National Treatment rules, any measure that modifies the condi-
tions of competition in favor of a domestic supplier is a GATS violation. In other
words, even if a policy has no intent to discriminate against foreign service
suppliers—indeed, it can be totally unrelated to service provision at all—if it
has the effect of disadvantaging them, it is potentially a violation of the GATS
(4, Art. XVII).
Special Rules for Health Insurance. The United States committed health insurance
to its schedule under the Financial Services section. Two special sets of rules
apply to commitments made under this section. The first is the Annex on Financial
Services, a unique set of constraints that apply to all commitments in financial
services, no matter what nation makes them. The second is an even more expan-
sive Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services, a set of extreme
liberalization rules that are an optional “attachment” to commitments in finan-
cial services that the United States has chosen to take. These rules go so far in
constraining governments that only developed countries have signed on to them.
The Annex on Financial Services: Most financial services are related to banking
and investment, hence the Annex provisions pertain mostly to them. One provision
in particular is significant in assessing the impact of the GATS on health care:
• Subjection of “Public Entities” to GATS Rules: Normal GATS rules make an
exception for government services and procurement (with significant limita-
tions). The Annex specifically states that if a nation allows domestic service
suppliers to compete with “public entities,” those entities are subject to
GATS rules. This will have significant implications for Medicare, as we will
see (4, Annex on Financial Services, §1(b)(iii)).
The Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services: The most far-
reaching document in the GATS, the Understanding binds signatory nations to
an extreme level of financial services liberalization. The commitments undertaken
by signatories to the Understanding include (interpretation of the Understanding
[5] aided by Kevin C. Kennedy, Professor of Law, Michigan State University
College of Law):
• The “Standstill” Provision: The signatories pledge that any exceptions to
the commitments they have made are limited to existing measures. The
implications of this vaguely worded provision are not entirely clear. Some
commentators believe that the signatories bind themselves to never enact a
limitation on their commitments in the future that was not in effect when
the Understanding was inscribed in their schedule. In effect, the level of
privatization at the time of the implementation of the Understanding is
“locked in” (5).International Trade Law and U.S. Health Reform
/ 369
• New Financial Service: Signatories pledge to allow foreign firms to offer
any new financial product in their territory, as long as another WTO member
offers it (5, Art. B(7)).
• Domestic Regulation: Signatories pledge to “endeavor to remove or limit
any significant adverse effects” on foreign investors of any laws that “affect
adversely” the ability of foreign firms “to operate, compete, or enter” the
domestic market (5, Art. B(10)).

Once he got into office, he turned a blind eye on the electorate that got him in there.

It was sad. There was so much positive energy behind his campaign and he just let it rot on the vine.

Then, to totally kill it, he turned third way.

I do not think Bernie will do the same thing.

Don't they go on autopilot once turned on, forever?

Since their whole point is to make business predictable. Take it out of the realm of POLITICS.

Maybe Bernie meant we would be barking up the wrong tree.

The corporate stranglehold on this country alone.

We're committed to vastly open up services and government procurement at all levels - even down to the local level- to foreign competition and that competition has to win contracts if its the low bidder, and it will be in many cases because of very low wages. this is likely to radically change the US workplace and push wages down a lot, people dont know this. they also dont know that its going to involve a lot of privatization of currently public or quasi-public entities, such as schools and hospitals. that it mandates that. At least that is my reading of these deals and the overseas reactions to them (for example, getting ready for services liberalisation)

All sorts of firms are gearing up for services liberalisation, and the cheap high skill labor it will enable from afar, but it will be a disaster for them, because they are worth much more, and it will especially be a disaster to American families. And all legal immigrants as well. (the visas used in temping are non-immigrant visas- such as L-1)

Everybody loses except the temp firms that profit from them and the corrupt systems in both the sending and host countries.

A good book to read about this trade in people is Jane Kelsey's "Serving Whose Interests: the Political Economy of Trade in Services Agreements"

Its the huge profits to be made thats corrupting everything. Were it not for this huge gulf, there would be no reason to declare fake 'crises' in healthcare, education, IT, etc, that "must be solved" by such extreme and unethical measures.

kind of things Bernie is running on because no US President can turn the country around all by his lonesome.

This is self-evident. Nothing is being "held back."

If you want a list of the names of the kinds of candidates currently running who fit the description, it's posted at Jackpine Radicals and I've reposted it here. Search either or both sites.

Should we go to Geneva and protest anyway?

WTO = World Trade Organization.

A good overview history of services related issues is in this book, which is on Google Scholar look it up -

Serving Whose Interests?: The political economy of trade in services agreements by Jane Kelsey

While the Kelsey seems very important to you, since you've now mentioned it in more than one reply, I don't think for a second that Bernie was referring to it or anything like it in the language to which your OP refers. If you wanted a thread to be about the book or any other specific issue(s), your OP probably should have read differently.

sorry,

Bernie is too, but keep in mind that as a US Senator he's highly constrained in what he can discuss in the blunt terms he would need to- I mean how can you tell a country something like this? its a major blunder on the Clintons part never to have and the omission just becomes more and more problematic.

BRB, need to do something for 5 minutes

While i am gone, read this.

and most important area I think he was referring to is the fact that the trade deals are locking away more and more out of the realm of what politicins can change and they are doing it while the government is not teling us this. Which will lead to our only having a symbolic government but not knowing that. (also, and this is important- If you read up on totalitarianism, that "onion skilled" nature of it, is one of the distinguishing features of it. According to Hannah Arendt's "the Origins of Totalitarianism" widely regarded to be one of the most perceptive political works of all time, and generally agreed to be such by scholars on all sides of the political fence- which is unusual.)

The point I am trying to make is about so called trade and investment agreements generally, and its important, and your trying to confine it to being about something else, a book, is not really constructive. Did you read Nick Skala's paper, or at least skim it? Health care is a prime example of the problems this disconnect causes. How can we fix health care if we don't know these all important facts? We can't, and that's the whole idea.

There's a march going on in DC - an "occupation" if you will. Democracy Spring, I think they've termed it. This is the kind of thing Bernie's alluding to.

If enough citizens would rise up with their pitchforks (or whatever) and TELL our corrupt leaders how it's gonna be - CHANGE will happen. The revolution that happened here in the 16th century was NOT about being sure we didn't hurt anyone's delicate feelings. It was about discarding the yoke(s) that gave us nothing more than sore necks. We're a sovereign nation. We have the ability to dissolve dumb treaties, dispatch ludicrous trade agreements and stop throwing away money to buy our enemy's love.
None of these elected ass hats in DC EVER come to us to ask how we feel about this issue or that. Isn't that what they're supposed to do??? And if they DON'T come to us, don't we have an obligation to send them back to private life?
You keep asking: What about this, and what about that..... I wanna ask: What part of "revolution" don't you comprehend? It's not an old ladies social event. It's a revolution. And Bernie's saying that he needs MORE than our $27 dollars to make it happen.

- to give a particularly informative example, they were elected in 2006 to fix health care and they tried to, but they ran into the deal they had signed only a few years earlier.

The tribunal stated that since the stete- Slovakia, had not actually tried to implement single payer yet, only limit the profits as a step towards it, that was the earlier case, which they lost- that they could not change Slovak laws or the outcome of the election, only (in the first case, Achmea v. Slovak Rep I) seize the profits which had been witheled from the insurance company. And in the sceond case, Slovakia "won" but only under the caveat that they not DO anything further, so in reality, Achmea, the insurance company basically got what they wanted which was a continuation of the status quo and an unholding of this undemocratic 'agreement' against the wishes of the country and its people and leaders.

And that is problematic.

the {b]most problematic for the country are things that take away the ability of the people and the elected representatives of same to change things.

Because without that ability, we don't have a democracy!

here is a document- short- which all still applies about how this ties our states hands on health care policy.

You can see here that we need some new approaches on health care, but they can only make tiny changes because of these deals.

The effort should intensify to get more progressives on the down tickets every election until extremists and triangulators are gone.

To claim that change only comes in small increments is a lie.

Real change never happens through gradual erosion. It happens when big waves come crashing in.

Worker's rights, women's rights, minotiry rights, glbtq rights, these things only happen when there's a big populist movement behind them. And then the changes happen almost overnight.

Change isn't a little hill you walk over. It's a dam that will hold fast forever, unless a sudden and powerful shock is applied.

So for any politician to claim they can go in and make big positive changes, because they know how the system works, while we the people stay home and relax, simply isn't possible. Change needs a wave of people all crashing down on the system in unison.

Again, talking only domestic policy, exclusive of internments and other things related to wars.

and the rules become very different. Everything changes a lot.

Also, people no longer have standing, the deals are basically between countries and corporate investors.

let me give you an example, the general Agreement on Trade in Services- contains a two part test describing its scope, essentially the scope of privatization, and that scope is so broad it threatens the very existence of public education, unless public education in a country is completely free, meaning that not a single penny is ever exchanged for education- it must be a service provided as an exercise of governmental authority, only

Here is the actual text:

"For the purposes of this Agreement…

(b) 'services' includes any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority;

(c) 'a service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority' means any service which is supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers.

preferential employment of your own countries people with your government spending.

Which is "local sourcing" and apparently, that is now being forbidden, its claimed to be against the core principles of WTO, "progressive liberalisation".

Is the following "proof"? Well, the application of the rules is similar but not identical, but if you ignore that, as the USTR's announcement of our "victory" implies you should (he basically says that - if you read between the lines) it does. This is also the way Obama likes to send messages- for example, on health care I could give you a great many examples- he is a master of sending two contradictory messages at the same time to different groups. thats very easy because most Americans are math-challenged and its a problem. The American people don't understand how health insurance works

http://www.iatp.org/blog/201602/obama-undermines-climate-efforts-in-solar-trade-dispute

Thanks.

Changed profoundly, but this country was never told.

However, recently there was a big discussion about it in India, which you can find if you search Google.

Under WTO and education

They give corporations a right to ownership of markets.

For example, something like that happened in Slovak Republic they signed a trade agreement with Holland.. and that made it impossible for them to vote for single payer, because it was in the contract that they would not change the deal without paying compensation in advance, which in the case of something like health care is always a LOT of money.