The Clinton Administration OPPOSED SCHIP. People here are trying to re-spin the history of SCHIP.

[Baobab]

43. Here is some really good, informative proof, everybody please read this

Trading Lives: Democracy, Health Care and Trade in Services (2007 - 59 pages)


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 [phone] FAX [phone]


TRADING LIVES: DEMOCRACY, HEALTH CARE,
AND TRADE IN SERVICES


Holly Jarman
John Kenneth Galbraith Public Policy Fellow

August 2007