From the White House Website in the ISDS chapter of the TPP:
Before we had investment rules and ISDS international agreements, unlawful behavior by countries that targeted foreign investors tended either to go unaddressed or escalate into conflict between countries. In fact, early in our history, the U.S. had to deploy “gunboat diplomacy,” or military intervention, to protect private American commercial interests. ISDS is a more peaceful, better way to resolve trade conflicts between countries.
I think that an insurance-based system in which our insurance is expected to cover costs presents a moral hazard in which the person agreeing to treatment (and invested in treatment working) is not the same as the entity that pays for it.
If the patient has control, then prices inflate, since the question of treatment is not affected by pricing.
If the insurance company has control then they will actively choose to let expensive patients die off (or suffer without treatment) which is what we had before the ACA with the whole pre-existing condition controversy.
And there becomes a conflict between doctors who are compelled to treat, patients who (of course) want to continue to live, and third-party providers who want to capitalize on these compulsions.
And this is why Big Pharma has gotten really big, and now only wants to treat rich people that they can overcharge.
The problem is that it leaves a whole lot of non-rich people who really do not want to die, and who have families who are quite irate that someone could have saved their loved ones, and chose to withhold treatment.
Someone wrote something something indifferent bourgeoisie blah-blah outraged proletariat yada valid grievance. My mind escapes me but it seemed relevant.
It wasn't the people who set up the choice to be yes or no, and to use a mechanism that bypasses legislature to install what is the largest installment of new rules by trade agreement ever (possibly by orders of magnitude).
This is nothing short of a coup, and it will destroy the last remnants of the American Republic in favor of corporate oligarchy.
They hacked democracy. And the whole affair with Malaysia shows that they've happily dispensed with human rights to do it.
When the NSA was pushing the Eliptic Curve Random Number Generator (allegedly at the time to improve crypto strength), plenty of people saw that it could be a flawed algo that might have an exploitable weakness. Jokes were even made about the NSA baking in a backdoor.
So the Open Source sector has detected these things before, and were distracted by social politics within the project. Now they have cause to be paranoid about it. I suspect they'll jump on any discovered exploit like Americans on a disruptive airline passenger.
Well, for me, murder simulators are a safe sink for anxiety and distraction to depression.
They also help me process my outrage regarding real world issues about which I'm pretty much completely helpless. (TPP, the US mass surveillance program, the CIA extrajudicial detention and interrogation program, our crazy imprecise civilion-massacring drone strike program, our law enforcement services who beat the snot out of people or gun people down and then walk away with impunity and smiles. The list goes on and on.)
We human apes do like to moral panic about anything that someone likes that someone else doesn't. And that's what's going on here.
(And this is, incidentally, why we can't take seriously when someone says guns are bad: too often we've seen other things pointed at as bad because stupid reasons. If people want their panics to be taken more seriously they should point and call things bad less often.)
Someone is going to say yes, and bake in their secret backdoor and probably get paid big bucks.
Someone within that company is going to leak that there is a secret back door, and probably a couple of clues as to how to crack it.
Someone will crack it. If they're smart, since whitehats get prosecuted these days, they'll go totally blackhat and use it for their own exploits.
Someone will realize they got hacked
The company will dismiss it as a aberration, probably human error.
More people will get hacked. The backdoor will seep into the cracking community.
At that point, with no way to trace it back to the leaks or the original cracking research, the backdoor will go public. Whitehats will quickly determine the back-door is not an exploit, but was willfully baked in.
The company will lose all its user trust, as will the United States. As will any software exports from the US.
I think the argument from foreign opinions is that our right to keep and bear arms is a mistake, and that we should remove that right from the US Bill of Rights.
In that regard it's not enough that our right is codified within the constitution, but why. And this is not a thing well understood within nations that were not elevated by revolution. Our framers predicted that our system would return to a feudal one with segregated castes, and they were right. Our right to bear arms was to keep our representatives nervous, and it didn't keep them nervous enough.
Our own history has shown a deterioration of that right (which started with militias bearing the same weapons as armies) and a corresponding deterioration of the respect of the people. I can't say it correlates. But I do know that we're seeing that same kind of administrative disrespect the world over, including from those nations with gun control, with no mention of what to do about it.
In the meantime, I would challenge whether the constitutionality means very much anymore. Even though constitutional rights were supposed to be a line that no law had crossed, now it is only a mechanism by which our courts use (and use inconsistently) to overturn laws.
In the last two administrations we've seen open refusal of our right to be secure in [our] persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Even probable cause is something a law officer tries to invoke before getting a warrant rather than in order to get a warrant.
Also the whole thing of civil forfeiture seems to bypass constitutional protections with prejudice.
So does mass surveillance and this push against encryption
So does extrajudicial detention and interrogation
So does the whole trade agreement secret laws hack.
So I think the Constitution of the United States is now in the but some animals are more equal than others phase of its lifespan. It's a device for the continuation of politics, not a rule of the land that we hold sacred.
And locking people away from mountains would reduce mountaineering accidents.
At least some of these are worth the risk. And as I've noted before, human beings are crap for deciding what is too dangerous to be worth the risk and what isn't, hence why violent video games have to be sold behind counters in Germany.
One might make an argument that eliminating guns reduces violence in general, if we actually had stats from an objective source that could measure risk of violence when there are guns, and risk of violence when there are no guns, but plenty of tire irons, meat cleavers and farming implements around.
We don't have those stats. And a lot of folks that produce stats are about as impartial as the oil industry is about climate change.
National Security is already in danger of becoming a synonym for overclassification to cover for corruption and wrongdoing.
The only reason there has been cause to doubt is that so far all instances (most instances? The instances reported on by media?) have been related, at least as a satellite, to the War on Terror.
It's one of the reasons that resentment has been rising about this stupid War on Terrror.
Personally, I can't imagine how TPP relates to the War on Terror, but let us say that they have a good reason I've yet to fathom. Then that would probably be covered in a section, two at most. Certainly the big pharma sections, the corporate sovereignty sections, and the big media sections have nothing to do with the War on Terror. So National Security would justify opacity for those chapters that actually have to do with securing our borders. Maybe weapons development for DARPA or something. Why hasn't the rest of the charter been made public, those parts that do not pertain to the actual security of our nation?
What the heck does a trade agreement, even a massive one, have to do with national security?