NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Repeal "Quality in Health Services"

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Liagolas
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 357
Founded: Dec 18, 2015
Psychotic Dictatorship

[DRAFT] Repeal "Quality in Health Services"

Postby Liagolas » Sat Apr 30, 2016 2:59 pm

Repeal "Quality in Health Services"

Category: Repeal | Resolution: #97 | Proposed by: Liagolas



Recognizing that persons living in member states deserve quality in health services,

Noting that GA#97, "Quality in Health Services," legislates upon health services in member states,

Believing GA#97 to have been written and passed with the best of intentions, however,

Alarmed that clause 2 effectively prohibits the privatization of healthcare in all member states despite the fact that some members may prefer to have privatized health systems, as it requires that a member state's healthcare system be primarily funded through the government,

Concerned that clause 1, which establishes that "health services shall constitute separate systems in each & every nation," prevents member states from independently establishing multinational cooperative health systems which may be desirable for some allied member states,

Befuddled by how anyone is to organize a health system according to the guideline of "community participation" provided in clause 1B when no explanation for the meaning of the phrase is provided,

Worried that clause 1C, which establishes that health systems must be organized according to a guideline of "cooperation between nations that are not at a declared state of war amongst themselves," fails to account for the myriad differences that must exist in the thousands of different health systems across the World Assembly including but not limited to distinctions such as differences in species, technology level, and local disease populations,

Concerned that clause 4A, which mandates that member states "Provide health personnel & supplies to health services at least once every budget cycle, aiming at the gradual reduction of internal health disparities," does not actually provide an exception to the mandate for nations wherein there exist no internal health disparities,

Dismayed that the absence of a definition for the uncommon, coined term "internal health disparities," may lead to confusion over the term's meaning or even misinterpretation of the term at worst, severely mitigating the intended impacts of the clause,

Baffled by clause 4B, which mandates that member states shall "Establish the standards of review, evaluation & control of allocation of health personnel & supplies," when no guidance for what these standards ought to require or encourage is provided,

Troubled that clause 6A, which mandates that nations "[help] the training of health personnel," effectively prohibits medical schools or equivalent institutes of learning from being wholly independent of unwanted government involvement,

Perplexed by the resolution's title, "Quality in Health Services," when nothing within the actual resolution seems as though it would lead to greater quality in health services,

Bamboozled that it is not even clear what this resolution accomplishes,

Believing that such quality would be better ensured by new legislation and hopeful that new legislation will be written and passed to address this as appropriate,

The World Assembly hereby

Repeals GA#97, "Quality in Health Services".


A figure cloaked in white with a face-obscuring hood stands before the General Assembly body, and although its face isn't visible, something about its posture is far too nervous. Some might recognize its garb as being that of one of the Hands of the Dominion present at the WAHQ, and others might recognize it as specifically being the one called "Sam" by some (though not in public to avoid the ire of the collectivist Dominion).

At the moment, the Hand/Sam is holding a computer tablet with the screen facing outward, and as Sam/the Hand fidgets in front of the international community, the screen blinks to life, ultimately revealing a most unusual sight: the Mouth of the Dominion appears to be sitting in bed, blanketed by a simple comforter, with a blue ice pack adorning its head. Amusingly enough, it is still cloaked and its face is still obscured by its hood.

"Ambassadors -" the Mouth starts to speak but is cut off by its own hacking cough. Eventually, it manages to quell its noise and it continues, "It is the request of the Dominion that you forgive its Mouth's unexpected illness. Unfortunately, this was the only time the Dominion was able to reserve a chamber for debate, so the deliberation had to go on, with or without the Mouth."

The Hand suddenly fumbles with the tablet, but the Mouth continues blithely. "Of course, being a Mouth of the Dominion, it is the duty of this Mouth to speak on the behalf of Liagolas, and it is the refusal of the Dominion to permit a Hand to speak for the Dominion rather than a Mouth. One's palm does not make utterance, after all.

"Thus necessitating the present arrangement," the Mouth says. "Although this Mouth is ill, the Dominion is strong and it shall answer all questions to the best of its ability."

There is a moment of silence. And then the Mouth bursts out coughing again.

"This is going to be a long debate..."


OOC: Second time's the charm.

Repeal "Quality in Health Services"

Category: Repeal | Resolution: #97 | Proposed by: Liagolas



Acknowledging that the health of persons is a matter of international concern and therefore is worthy of careful and thoughtful legislation,

Noting that GA#97, "Quality in Health Services," legislates upon health services in member states,

Believing GA#97 to have been written and passed with the best of intentions, but

Concerned that clause 1, which establishes that "health services shall constitute separate systems in each & every nation," prevents member states from establishing a multinational cooperative health system which may be desirable for some allied member states,

Befuddled by how anyone is to organize a health system according to the guideline of "community participation" provided in clause 1B when no explanation for the meaning of the phrase is provided,

Worried that clause 1C, which establishes that health systems must be organized according to a guideline of "cooperation between nations that are not at a declared state of war amongst themselves," may require member states to cooperate with their enemies since it is possible for nations that are not at war with one another to still share tense and unfriendly relations,

Confounded that quality in health service is not established as a guiding principle for the organization of a health system in a resolution titled "Quality in Health Services",

Alarmed that clause 2 effectively prohibits the privatization of healthcare in all member states, as it requires that a member state's healthcare system be primarily funded through the government,

Concerned that clause 4A, which mandates that member states "Provide health personnel & supplies to health services at least once every budget cycle, aiming at the gradual reduction of internal health disparities," does not actually provide an exception to the mandate for nations wherein there exist no internal health disparities,

Uncertain of what the phrase "internal health disparities" even means and therefore alarmed that no definition for it is provided,

Baffled by clause 4B, which mandates that member states shall "Establish the standards of review, evaluation & control of allocation of health personnel & supplies," when no guidance for what these standards ought to require or encourage is provided,

Troubled that clause 6A, which mandates that nations "[help] the training of health personnel," effectively prohibits medical schools or equivalent institutes of learning from being wholly independent of unwanted government involvement,

Perplexed by the resolution's title, "Quality in Health Services," when nothing within the actual resolution seems as though it would lead to greater quality in health services,

Mystified that it is not even clear what this resolution accomplishes,

Bamboozled by the resolution's generally difficult to read style,

Recognizing that persons living in member states still deserve quality in health services,

Believing that quality in health services would be better ensured by new legislation, and

Hopeful that new legislation will be written and passed to address this as appropriate,

The World Assembly hereby

Repeals GA#97, "Quality in Health Services".

Recognizing that persons living in member states deserve quality in health services,

Noting that GA#97, "Quality in Health Services," legislates upon health services in member states,

Believing GA#97 to have been written and passed with the best of intentions, however,

Concerned that clause 1, which establishes that "health services shall constitute separate systems in each & every nation," prevents member states from independently establishing multinational cooperative health systems which may be desirable for some allied member states,

Befuddled by how anyone is to organize a health system according to the guideline of "community participation" provided in clause 1B when no explanation for the meaning of the phrase is provided,

Worried that clause 1C, which establishes that health systems must be organized according to a guideline of "cooperation between nations that are not at a declared state of war amongst themselves," fails to account for the myriad differences that must exist in the thousands of different health systems across the World Assembly including but not limited to distinctions such as differences in species, technology level, and local disease populations,

Alarmed that clause 2 effectively prohibits the privatization of healthcare in all member states despite the fact that some members may prefer to have privatized health systems, as it requires that a member state's healthcare system be primarily funded through the government,

Concerned that clause 4A, which mandates that member states "Provide health personnel & supplies to health services at least once every budget cycle, aiming at the gradual reduction of internal health disparities," does not actually provide an exception to the mandate for nations wherein there exist no internal health disparities,

Uncertain of what the phrase "internal health disparities" even means and therefore alarmed that no definition for it is provided to enable nations to know how they should provide health personnel and supplies in order to gradual reduce said disparities,

Baffled by clause 4B, which mandates that member states shall "Establish the standards of review, evaluation & control of allocation of health personnel & supplies," when no guidance for what these standards ought to require or encourage is provided,

Troubled that clause 6A, which mandates that nations "[help] the training of health personnel," effectively prohibits medical schools or equivalent institutes of learning from being wholly independent of unwanted government involvement,

Perplexed by the resolution's title, "Quality in Health Services," when nothing within the actual resolution seems as though it would lead to greater quality in health services,

Bamboozled that it is not even clear what this resolution accomplishes,

Believing that such quality would be better ensured by new legislation and hopeful that new legislation will be written and passed to address this as appropriate,

The World Assembly hereby

Repeals GA#97, "Quality in Health Services".
Last edited by Liagolas on Sun May 01, 2016 1:59 am, edited 8 times in total.
The Place Without a PeopleThe Dominion, brieflyThe Liagolas (leader) • MT. The dystopia pretending to be a hivemind. • When NS stats make your nation look freer than it's meant to be. • Security Council: *dips toe into roleplaying* General Assembly: *slaps SC*
In insisting it's a political simulation, NS ignores its reality as a political simulation game. Games have boundaries, and modern roleplaying games have safety tools. NS has neither, leaving it stuck as a badge-collecting pay-to-win where causticness is excused as "character," griefing/raiding is "just politics," and F7 is more courteous than General Assembly.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15899
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Apr 30, 2016 5:53 pm

Liagolas wrote:Acknowledging that the health of persons is a matter of international concern and therefore is worthy of careful and thoughtful legislation,

That is very clumsy wording. And in other words it reads as "personal health" which, I'd argue, is not an international issue. However, a healthy population is arguably good for all the member states. (OOC: Too late at night for me to be clever with wordings, but what you have there now, isn't professional.)

Believing GA#97 to have been written and passed with the best of intentions, but

Maybe "however" instead of "but"?

Concerned that clause 1, which establishes that "health services shall constitute separate systems in each & every nation," prevents member states from establishing a multinational cooperative health system which may be desirable for some allied member states,

Except 1-c) states that "Cooperation between nations that are not at a declared state of war amongst themselves" is one of the guidelines that the national health services are to be arranged.

Worried that clause 1C, which establishes that health systems must be organized according to a guideline of "cooperation between nations that are not at a declared state of war amongst themselves," may require member states to cooperate with their enemies since it is possible for nations that are not at war with one another to still share tense and unfriendly relations,

Wouldn't that actually be a good thing? Having to cooperate with your enemies tends to usually lead to situations where they're viewed less as enemies and more as neighbours you're not really happy with but whom you tolerate because they sometimes help you. Besides, if you want to think in a nasty bastard way (OOC note: I am not calling anyone but myself a nasty bastard by giving this example), when you do declare a war on them, you'll have a fairly good idea of what their healthcare system is able to handle. Of course, so will they, so, again, a good reason to not to go to war with them.

Alarmed that clause 2 effectively prohibits the privatization of healthcare in all member states, as it requires that a member state's healthcare system be primarily funded through the government,

I think you missed clause 5, which does just that. You may go to a private doctor, but the doctor was probably trained by a government-owned institution, for example. I don't claim to understand the self-contradiction too well, but unfortunately nonsense is not enough to make a resolution illegal.

Concerned that clause 4A, which mandates that member states "Provide health personnel & supplies to health services at least once every budget cycle, aiming at the gradual reduction of internal health disparities," does not actually provide an exception to the mandate for nations wherein there exist no internal health disparities,

Well, if none exist, then your doctors and bureaucrats can pat themselves on their backs and say "Well done!"

Troubled that clause 6A, which mandates that nations "[help] the training of health personnel," effectively prohibits medical schools or equivalent institutes of learning from being wholly independent of unwanted government involvement,

And how is that a bad thing?

Perplexed by the resolution's title, "Quality in Health Services," when nothing within the actual resolution seems as though it would lead to greater quality in health services,

You already said that.

Mystified that it is not even clear what this resolution accomplishes,

Bamboozled by the resolution's generally difficult to read style,

These seem to be just filler, you don't really need them.

Recognizing that persons living in member states still deserve quality in health services,

This would do well as your opening statement, actually. Move that there to replace what you have now.

Believing that such quality would be better ensured by new legislation, and

Hopeful that new legislation will be written and passed to address this as appropriate,

Combine these two into one clause.

OOC: Around the time when this was passed, I was away from NationStates, taking care of real life, so I can't say much about the resolution other than what I could glean from the resolution text itself.

EDIT: If you're ill in real life, you have my sympathies; trying to get rid of a cough myself.
Last edited by Araraukar on Sat Apr 30, 2016 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- ambassador miss Janis Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Liagolas
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 357
Founded: Dec 18, 2015
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Liagolas » Sat Apr 30, 2016 8:15 pm

Araraukar wrote:That is very clumsy wording. And in other words it reads as "personal health" which, I'd argue, is not an international issue. However, a healthy population is arguably good for all the member states.

Maybe "however" instead of "but"?

The Hand of the Dominion walks over to Leveret, still holding the tablet aloft, as the Mouth says, "Thank you for pointing this out, Ambassador; your recommended alterations have been made."

Except 1-c) states that "Cooperation between nations that are not at a declared state of war amongst themselves" is one of the guidelines that the national health services are to be arranged.

"Ah, but the health systems must remain separate," the Mouth says in response. "Even if the health systems are cooperating. Which, in the eyes of the Dominion, is even worse because now instead of having one system nations must try to coordinate their separate systems, which may be difficult because of the differences that could exist, even if they want to establish a single, multinational system because this resolution establishes that each nation must have a separate health service."

Wouldn't that actually be a good thing? Having to cooperate with your enemies tends to usually lead to situations where they're viewed less as enemies and more as neighbours you're not really happy with but whom you tolerate because they sometimes help you. Besides, if you want to think in a nasty bastard way (OOC note: I am not calling anyone but myself a nasty bastard by giving this example), when you do declare a war on them, you'll have a fairly good idea of what their healthcare system is able to handle. Of course, so will they, so, again, a good reason to not to go to war with them.

"Well - that is -" The Mouth sighs. "The Dominion concedes that cooperation with enemies may not be as disastrous as it thought. Regardless, the Dominion maintains that this clause is a matter of concern. Perhaps it merely worded this improperly..." It breaks off into coughing as it reaches for a laptop and begins typing at it in bed; apparently the video feed is being provided by a camera separate from the Mouth's digital device. "Would this be more appropriate?"

New Draft wrote:Worried that clause 1C, which establishes that health systems must be organized according to a guideline of "cooperation between nations that are not at a declared state of war amongst themselves," fails to account for the myriad differences that must exist in the thousands of different health systems across the World Assembly including but not limited to distinctions such as differences in species, technology level, and local disease populations,


I think you missed clause 5, which does just that. You may go to a private doctor, but the doctor was probably trained by a government-owned institution, for example. I don't claim to understand the self-contradiction too well, but unfortunately nonsense is not enough to make a resolution illegal.

"Clause five allows nations to have private enterprise 'participate' in health systems," the Mouth says as the Hand, apparently growing weary of just holding the tablet, sets it face up on the table in front of Leveret. The Mouth pauses momentarily before carrying on, though there is a hint of irritation in its voice at the Hand's unexpected laziness. "But clause 2 still requires said health systems to be funded primarily by the government, as the system is to be 'financed by national budgets.' There is mention of voluntary private donations, but it is the interpretation of the Dominion that the primary funding source is meant to be the government. If the state is funding the health system, the Dominion thinks it reasonable to consider that private healthcare is effectively precluded from existing, since instead of a person paying for a doctor, the government will be paying for that doctor."

The Mouth pauses to cough and now there's some sneezing thrown into the mix. Once it's blown its nose it adds, "Let there be no mistake: it is the preference of the Dominion for Liagolas to be served with a public healthcare system funded by state moneys. However, it is the acknowledgment of the Dominion that such may not be acceptable to all member states, especially those with more libertarian or lasseiz-faire policies."

"And while it is the agreement of the Dominion that nonsense does not make a resolution illegal, it is the assertion of the Dominion that nonsense does make a resolution worthy of repeal."

Well, if none exist, then your doctors and bureaucrats can pat themselves on their backs and say "Well done!"

"If only," the Mouth says with a shake of its head. "The clause states that health personnel and supplies shall be provided 'once every budget cycle' rather than simply stating that they shall be provided 'to reduce and resolve internal health disparities.' In other words, it is the interpretation of the Dominion that member states are tragically expected to perpetually provide more health personnel and supplies every budget cycle, even if there are no 'internal health disparities.'"

The Mouth then downs and entire glass of water before adding, "Of course, with the meaning of 'internal health disparities' being so unclear, it's hard to say what exactly member states are supposed to even do through providing more health personnel and supplies. How much should be provided? To what places? There is so much this resolution does not explain."

Troubled that clause 6A, which mandates that nations "[help] the training of health personnel," effectively prohibits medical schools or equivalent institutes of learning from being wholly independent of unwanted government involvement,

And how is that a bad thing?

"The Dominion agrees that government involvement may not be a 'bad thing,'" the Mouth says. "But it is the acknowledgment of the Dominion that not all member states think the same. While it is the will of the Dominion to educate its people, including its doctors and medical professionals, the Capitalist Capitalists of Capitalistopia may prefer private institutes of higher learning to be capable of running themselves."

Perplexed by the resolution's title, "Quality in Health Services," when nothing within the actual resolution seems as though it would lead to greater quality in health services,

You already said that.

"Quite right," the Mouth says, sounding a bit embarrassed, and it coughs deliberately - only to set itself off coughing for several seconds before it can control its breathing again. "The earlier mention of this element of the resolution has been removed."

Mystified that it is not even clear what this resolution accomplishes,

Bamboozled by the resolution's generally difficult to read style,

These seem to be just filler, you don't really need them.

"But -" The Mouth starts to get up in its bed, but it slumps back down, too tired to fight the critique. "It is the supposition of the Dominion that how the resolution reads is rather unnecessary to the repeal... However, it is the assertion of the Dominion that the absence of clarity regarding what the resolution even does is another reason it is worthy of repeal, which is why it was the wish of the Dominion to include it. It is the request of the Dominion that it be able to hear your response to this. If you still believe it to be unnecessary, the Dominion may remove it."

Recognizing that persons living in member states still deserve quality in health services,

This would do well as your opening statement, actually. Move that there to replace what you have now.

"Clause now moved."

*COUGH*
Believing that such quality would be better ensured by new legislation, and

Hopeful that new legislation will be written and passed to address this as appropriate,

Combine these two into one clause.

"Done. ATCHOO!"

OOC: Around the time when this was passed, I was away from NationStates, taking care of real life, so I can't say much about the resolution other than what I could glean from the resolution text itself.

OOC: Admittedly, there doesn't seem to be much to glean from the resolution text... hence the repeal.

EDIT: If you're ill in real life, you have my sympathies; trying to get rid of a cough myself.

OOC: Thankfully, I am well, though I am channeling myself from the past when I have been sick enough to nearly collapse.


IC:

"The Dominion has made a few other tweaks to the draft," the Mouth says as the Hand picks up the tablet again and holds it to face outward. "It is its hope that these -" It stops to cough. The Hand sighs. "- changes have improved the proposal."
Last edited by Liagolas on Sat Apr 30, 2016 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Place Without a PeopleThe Dominion, brieflyThe Liagolas (leader) • MT. The dystopia pretending to be a hivemind. • When NS stats make your nation look freer than it's meant to be. • Security Council: *dips toe into roleplaying* General Assembly: *slaps SC*
In insisting it's a political simulation, NS ignores its reality as a political simulation game. Games have boundaries, and modern roleplaying games have safety tools. NS has neither, leaving it stuck as a badge-collecting pay-to-win where causticness is excused as "character," griefing/raiding is "just politics," and F7 is more courteous than General Assembly.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12664
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:57 pm

If you're going to change 'but' to 'however', you need to end 'however' with a comma.

Alarmed that clause 2 effectively prohibits the privatization of healthcare in all member states, as it requires that a member state's healthcare system be primarily funded through the government,

OOC: This is more important and should not be buried in the middle of your text. Probably reword it to make it clear that some nations want privatised health services and that they should allowed to have them. Steer clear of any kind of implication that private health services are better.

Uncertain of what the phrase "internal health disparities" even means and therefore alarmed that no definition for it is provided to enable nations to know how they should provide health personnel and supplies in order to gradual reduce said disparities,

We do know what 'internal health disparities' mean. Remove this.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Sun May 01, 2016 12:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 56+ GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Liagolas
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 357
Founded: Dec 18, 2015
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Liagolas » Sun May 01, 2016 12:14 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:If you're going to change 'but' to 'however', you need to end 'however' with a comma.

"D - *COUGH* - one!" the Mouth says as the Hand approaches Parsons with the tablet.

OOC: This is more important and should not be buried in the middle of your text. Probably reword it to make it clear that some nations want privatised health services and that they should allowed to have them. Steer clear of any kind of implication that private health services are better.

OOC: The clause has been reworded to the following:

Alarmed that clause 2 effectively prohibits the privatization of healthcare in all member states despite the fact that some members may prefer to have privatized health systems, as it requires that a member state's healthcare system be primarily funded through the government,

Des that better express the idea? Also, you imply that the clause should be moved. While I like how the repeal effectively does a line-by-line of the target resolution, I can understand why it might be better to move it for greater impact. Where to? The beginning? The end?

We do know what 'internal health disparities' mean. Remove this.

"Then it is the earnest request of the Dominion that you enlighten it and inform it of where you procured your dictionary, as the Dominion was able to find no such term in dictionaries or thesauri," the Mouth says sounding progressively dryer and more cracked.

OOC: To be clear, I know what an 'internal health disparity' is supposed to be, but it's not exactly common parlance. A Google search of "internal health disparities" turns up eight unique results - one of which is this very topic - with an additional nine similar to the ones displayed immediately. I agree that definitions of common and actual words found in dictionaries are unnecessary, but a term coined from an amalgam of words to describe a social issue strikes me as different. Definition would be appropriate so that the meaning can be clear on the first read rather than require a hunt for the meaning of the term.

And without an actual definition provided in the resolution, the term is rather ripe for abuse through creative interpretation. All in all, a nation cannot be blamed for being uncertain of what the term means.
Last edited by Liagolas on Sun May 01, 2016 12:21 am, edited 3 times in total.
The Place Without a PeopleThe Dominion, brieflyThe Liagolas (leader) • MT. The dystopia pretending to be a hivemind. • When NS stats make your nation look freer than it's meant to be. • Security Council: *dips toe into roleplaying* General Assembly: *slaps SC*
In insisting it's a political simulation, NS ignores its reality as a political simulation game. Games have boundaries, and modern roleplaying games have safety tools. NS has neither, leaving it stuck as a badge-collecting pay-to-win where causticness is excused as "character," griefing/raiding is "just politics," and F7 is more courteous than General Assembly.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12664
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun May 01, 2016 12:22 am

Liagolas wrote:Des that better express the idea? Also, you imply that the clause should be moved. While I like how the repeal effectively does a line-by-line of the target resolution, I can understand why it might be better to move it for greater impact. Where to? The beginning? The end?

Better, yes. Beginning.

Liagolas wrote:
We do know what 'internal health disparities' mean. Remove this.

"Then it is the earnest request of the Dominion that you enlighten it and inform it of where you procured your dictionary, as the Dominion was able to find no such term in dictionaries or thesauri," the Mouth says sounding progressively dryer and more cracked.

OOC: To be clear, I know what an 'internal health disparity' is, but it's not exactly common parlance. A Google search of "internal health disparities" turns up eight unique results - one of which is this very topic - with an additional nine similar to the ones displayed immediately. I agree that definitions of common and actual words found in dictionaries are unnecessary, but a term coined from an amalgam of words to describe a social issue strikes me as different. Definition would be appropriate so that the meaning can be clear on the first read rather than require a hunt for the meaning of the term.

And without an actual definition provided in the resolution, the term is rather ripe for abuse through creative interpretation. All in all, a nation cannot be blamed for being uncertain of what the term means.

It is a disparity in health that is internal. I now see why romance language speakers (or is it speakers of a language which is romantic?) say the adjectives ought be after the noun.

Author: 1 SC and 56+ GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Liagolas
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 357
Founded: Dec 18, 2015
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Liagolas » Sun May 01, 2016 12:44 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Better, yes. Beginning.

OOC: Clause now moved; thanks!

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Liagolas wrote:
"Then it is the earnest request of the Dominion that you enlighten it and inform it of where you procured your dictionary, as the Dominion was able to find no such term in dictionaries or thesauri," the Mouth says sounding progressively dryer and more cracked.

OOC: To be clear, I know what an 'internal health disparity' is, but it's not exactly common parlance. A Google search of "internal health disparities" turns up eight unique results - one of which is this very topic - with an additional nine similar to the ones displayed immediately. I agree that definitions of common and actual words found in dictionaries are unnecessary, but a term coined from an amalgam of words to describe a social issue strikes me as different. Definition would be appropriate so that the meaning can be clear on the first read rather than require a hunt for the meaning of the term.

And without an actual definition provided in the resolution, the term is rather ripe for abuse through creative interpretation. All in all, a nation cannot be blamed for being uncertain of what the term means.

It is a disparity in health that is internal. I now see why romance language speakers (or is it speakers of a language which is romantic?) say the adjectives ought be after the noun.

OOC: That it is a disparity in health that is internal is clear, but what is this disparity inside? A person's health? A family's health? Even realizing that it's disparities in the health of a nation doesn't quite communicate that it's disparities between the overall health of demographics within a population.

The clause has been reworded to the following in the interests of better communicating my intent.

Dismayed that the absence of a definition for the uncommon coined term "internal health disparities," may lead to confusion over the term's meaning or even misinterpretation of the term at worst, severely mitigating the intended impacts of the clause,


And I hope you are not calling me obnoxious; if you are, please stop. I do not appreciate it, and I think the description is unjustified and unnecessary. I'm not unwilling to hear what you have to say about this, and I've made all the other changes you recommended. This isn't like defining "debris"; it's about defining a term that has a very specific meaning that you're not going to find in a dictionary.

I will further demonstrate why I think a definition is necessary by example. I can look up the term "romance language" and find a definition: "group of related languages all derived from Vulgar Latin within historical times and forming a subgroup of the Italic branch of the Indo-European language family" (Encyclopeadia Brittanica). I can't do the same for "internal health disparities," and the words on their own don't provide context for their intended meaning. That is why I believe it would be best for the term to be defined or at least further explained or given greater context.
Last edited by Liagolas on Sun May 01, 2016 12:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Place Without a PeopleThe Dominion, brieflyThe Liagolas (leader) • MT. The dystopia pretending to be a hivemind. • When NS stats make your nation look freer than it's meant to be. • Security Council: *dips toe into roleplaying* General Assembly: *slaps SC*
In insisting it's a political simulation, NS ignores its reality as a political simulation game. Games have boundaries, and modern roleplaying games have safety tools. NS has neither, leaving it stuck as a badge-collecting pay-to-win where causticness is excused as "character," griefing/raiding is "just politics," and F7 is more courteous than General Assembly.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12664
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun May 01, 2016 1:02 am

Yes, and four trillion electron-volts isn't in the dictionary either. But we still know that four describes trillion, which describes electron-volt.

Author: 1 SC and 56+ GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Liagolas
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 357
Founded: Dec 18, 2015
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Liagolas » Sun May 01, 2016 1:13 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Yes, and four trillion electron-volts isn't in the dictionary either. But we still know that four describes trillion, which describes electron-volt.

OOC: Because that is not a coined term; "four-trillion electron-volts" is a phrase with sufficient context. Four-trillion electron-volts literally means that there are electron-volts and there are four-trillion of them, and we know that because the adjective "four-trillion" describes the noun "electron-volts."

Let's apply the same logic to "internal health disparity." So we have a disparity. It's a disparity in health. It's a disparity in health that is internal.

This does not get us to the point of "disparities between the overall health of demographics within a population." That is the problem with the absence of a definition for "internal health disparities" in the target resolution. That is why not defining a coined term like "internal health disparities" is a flaw in the target resolution.
Last edited by Liagolas on Sun May 01, 2016 1:16 am, edited 6 times in total.
The Place Without a PeopleThe Dominion, brieflyThe Liagolas (leader) • MT. The dystopia pretending to be a hivemind. • When NS stats make your nation look freer than it's meant to be. • Security Council: *dips toe into roleplaying* General Assembly: *slaps SC*
In insisting it's a political simulation, NS ignores its reality as a political simulation game. Games have boundaries, and modern roleplaying games have safety tools. NS has neither, leaving it stuck as a badge-collecting pay-to-win where causticness is excused as "character," griefing/raiding is "just politics," and F7 is more courteous than General Assembly.

User avatar
Bears Armed
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21479
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sun May 01, 2016 6:01 am

Liagolas wrote:specifically being the one called "Sam" by some

OOC: This seems as good a place as any to mention that (as I actually decided several months before your character received this nickname) the word "sam" from the Ursine language translates into English as "adult male sapient", or simply as "man".

Liagolas wrote:Four-trillion electron-volts literally means that there are electron-volts and there are four-trillion of them, and we know that because the adjective "four-trillion" describes the noun "electron-volts"

OOC; but do we know whether "trillion" is being used in the RL American sense, as "10 to the 12th power", or in the old British sense as "10 to the 18th power (i.e. "1'000'000 to the third power", with the latter number being the reason for the "tri-" prefix) instead?
;)
Last edited by Bears Armed on Sun May 01, 2016 6:07 am, edited 2 times in total.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474, 1521.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15899
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun May 01, 2016 6:18 am

Liagolas wrote:OOC: Because that is not a coined term; "four-trillion electron-volts" is a phrase with sufficient context. Four-trillion electron-volts literally means that there are electron-volts and there are four-trillion of them, and we know that because the adjective "four-trillion" describes the noun "electron-volts."

OOC: To nitpick, "four-trillion" is not an adjective, it's a numeral. :P

But I'd also like to point out that while I consider myself fairly fluent with English, it's not my first language, and I had to look up what "health disparity" means, despite understanding both "health" and "disparity" on their own. The "internal" added to the front really confused me, until I realized that in the context given, it must mean something to do with a nation or its healthcare.

It's not at all clear that it means lack of health equity between demographies in a nation - if it even means that. Like I said, I wasn't around when that resolution happened, so I've no idea what was meant originally.

Bears Armed wrote:OOC; but do we know whether "trillion" is being used in the RL American sense, as "10 to the 12th power", or in the old British sense as "10 to the 18th power (i.e. "1'000'000 to the third power", with the latter number being the reason for the "tri-" prefix) instead? ;)

I keep forgetting Americans are silly about numbers... though when using English, I usually mean the American version when using "billion". I'm not even sure how to write in English the more common word for that number. Milliard?
Last edited by Araraukar on Sun May 01, 2016 6:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
- ambassador miss Janis Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Bears Armed
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21479
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sun May 01, 2016 6:39 am

Araraukar wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:OOC; but do we know whether "trillion" is being used in the RL American sense, as "10 to the 12th power", or in the old British sense as "10 to the 18th power (i.e. "1'000'000 to the third power", with the latter number being the reason for the "tri-" prefix) instead? ;)

I keep forgetting Americans are silly about numbers... though when using English, I usually mean the American version when using "billion". I'm not even sure how to write in English the more common word for that number. Milliard?

Milliard, yes... although nowadays most Britons use billion [and trillion, quadrillion, etc] in the American sense, instead.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474, 1521.

User avatar
Liagolas
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 357
Founded: Dec 18, 2015
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Liagolas » Sun May 01, 2016 1:52 pm

OOC@Imperium Anglorum: I just realized that I'm unclear on something - is the debate about definitions supposed to be in or out of character? You did respond to something I said OOC, but you didn't use OOC tags, and I just remembered that you don't usually use quotation marks when Parsons speaks - not that I recall, at least. Should I be answering your statements on this particular train of thought in or out of character?

Bears Armed wrote:OOC: This seems as good a place as any to mention that (as I actually decided several months before your character received this nickname) the word "sam" from the Ursine language translates into English as "adult male sapient", or simply as "man".

OOC: Though I suppose that makes it somewhat ironic that some weeks ago I decided that Sam was born female... ^~^

Bears Armed wrote:OOC; but do we know whether "trillion" is being used in the RL American sense, as "10 to the 12th power", or in the old British sense as "10 to the 18th power (i.e. "1'000'000 to the third power", with the latter number being the reason for the "tri-" prefix) instead?
;)

The World Assembly hereby

Defines "trillion" as "10 to the 12th power" because 'MERICA!

Sorry, just being silly XP


Araraukar wrote:OOC: To nitpick, "four-trillion" is not an adjective, it's a numeral. :P

OOC: Gah, grammar lessons in school, you have failed me!

Araraukar wrote:But I'd also like to point out that while I consider myself fairly fluent with English, it's not my first language, and I had to look up what "health disparity" means, despite understanding both "health" and "disparity" on their own. The "internal" added to the front really confused me, until I realized that in the context given, it must mean something to do with a nation or its healthcare.

It's not at all clear that it means lack of health equity between demographies in a nation - if it even means that. Like I said, I wasn't around when that resolution happened, so I've no idea what was meant originally.

OOC: English is my first language and it took me awhile to figure out what the intended meaning (probably) is. There is just insufficient context for the meaning to be completely clear.
Last edited by Liagolas on Sun May 01, 2016 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Place Without a PeopleThe Dominion, brieflyThe Liagolas (leader) • MT. The dystopia pretending to be a hivemind. • When NS stats make your nation look freer than it's meant to be. • Security Council: *dips toe into roleplaying* General Assembly: *slaps SC*
In insisting it's a political simulation, NS ignores its reality as a political simulation game. Games have boundaries, and modern roleplaying games have safety tools. NS has neither, leaving it stuck as a badge-collecting pay-to-win where causticness is excused as "character," griefing/raiding is "just politics," and F7 is more courteous than General Assembly.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10093
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sun May 01, 2016 4:09 pm

I would support the repeal of Quality in Health Services, but I believe the focus should be on the resolution's ban on privatized healthcare systems. Guaranteeing all people access to healthcare is one thing. Forcing nations to do it a certain way is another.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)^
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)^

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Liagolas
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 357
Founded: Dec 18, 2015
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Liagolas » Sun May 01, 2016 5:18 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:I would support the repeal of Quality in Health Services, but I believe the focus should be on the resolution's ban on privatized healthcare systems. Guaranteeing all people access to healthcare is one thing. Forcing nations to do it a certain way is another.

"There has been some tweaking to emphasize that further," the Mouth says, the tablet still lying face-up on one of the many desks in the chamber. The Mouth coughs loudly, and the Hand suddenly seems to snap out of a stupor, and it carries the tablet over to the Christian Democratic ambassador. "And the Dominion is in the process of considering how best to address the resolution's effective ideological prohibition in the repeal. While the Dominion is not inclined towards private healthcare, it is its acknowledgment that many of its fellow member states would prefer such and find this effective ban on it to be quite onerous."
The Place Without a PeopleThe Dominion, brieflyThe Liagolas (leader) • MT. The dystopia pretending to be a hivemind. • When NS stats make your nation look freer than it's meant to be. • Security Council: *dips toe into roleplaying* General Assembly: *slaps SC*
In insisting it's a political simulation, NS ignores its reality as a political simulation game. Games have boundaries, and modern roleplaying games have safety tools. NS has neither, leaving it stuck as a badge-collecting pay-to-win where causticness is excused as "character," griefing/raiding is "just politics," and F7 is more courteous than General Assembly.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12664
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon May 02, 2016 4:10 am

Liagolas wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Yes, and four trillion electron-volts isn't in the dictionary either. But we still know that four describes trillion, which describes electron-volt.

OOC: Because that is not a coined term; "four-trillion electron-volts" is a phrase with sufficient context. Four-trillion electron-volts literally means that there are electron-volts and there are four-trillion of them, and we know that because the adjective "four-trillion" describes the noun "electron-volts."

Let's apply the same logic to "internal health disparity." So we have a disparity. It's a disparity in health. It's a disparity in health that is internal.

This does not get us to the point of "disparities between the overall health of demographics within a population." That is the problem with the absence of a definition for "internal health disparities" in the target resolution. That is why not defining a coined term like "internal health disparities" is a flaw in the target resolution.

Even if you're correct on this one, which I don't believe you are — then this is a problem with argument selection. You should put your best arguments in a repeal, not the fluff. The argument which CD and I have told you to capitalise on is the meat of the proposal, not trivialities like this that serve to do nothing but add to length.

Author: 1 SC and 56+ GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Liagolas
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 357
Founded: Dec 18, 2015
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Liagolas » Mon May 02, 2016 2:29 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Even if you're correct on this one, which I don't believe you are — then this is a problem with argument selection. You should put your best arguments in a repeal, not the fluff. The argument which CD and I have told you to capitalise on is the meat of the proposal, not trivialities like this that serve to do nothing but add to length.

OOC: Hm... while I do like going down the resolution line-by-line, on reflection you're right that I should probably be more selective; the line-by-line makes the repeal a bit too much of an eclectic hodgepodge. While I disagree with your statement that the argument that the failure to provide a definition for the coined term in question (or at least greater context for it) is just fluff - since I think it's a pretty serious blow to the resolution since I think that that's the part that's supposed to help ensure people have quality in healthcare - I do acknowledge that I should place more emphasis on what will likely become the most important argument from the World Assembly's perspective.

As I said to CD before, I'll do some reworking to place greater emphasis on the effective ban, and I'll start trimming the less important arguments that probably do just amount to fluff (the "Concerned" and "Baffled" clauses will probably be gone in the next draft since they're relatively meh) from the repeal so it's less bloated. I'll get on that as soon as I can, and thank you for pointing it out to me.

And while I do personally think that healthcare ought not to be privatized because I think equitable access to healthcare ought to be a right (for lots of reasons it wouldn't do to get into right now (and I think privatization doesn't achieve equitable access effectively enough for lots of reasons it wouldn't do to get into right now)), I also realize that for the World Assembly, a blanket effective ban on private healthcare is a really bad idea on an international scale with such a diverse spread of nations.
The Place Without a PeopleThe Dominion, brieflyThe Liagolas (leader) • MT. The dystopia pretending to be a hivemind. • When NS stats make your nation look freer than it's meant to be. • Security Council: *dips toe into roleplaying* General Assembly: *slaps SC*
In insisting it's a political simulation, NS ignores its reality as a political simulation game. Games have boundaries, and modern roleplaying games have safety tools. NS has neither, leaving it stuck as a badge-collecting pay-to-win where causticness is excused as "character," griefing/raiding is "just politics," and F7 is more courteous than General Assembly.

User avatar
Neo-Puerto Rico
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 6
Founded: Apr 19, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Neo-Puerto Rico » Mon May 02, 2016 4:02 pm

Representative Ergo calls out from across the room timidly, obviously intimidated by the cloaked men. "But Mr...Mouth... you failed to mention the phrase, "well as other existing private voluntary sources" , present in the second clause. Does that not permit privatized insurance and similar systems? While the wording of the resolution is unclear, it can certainly be interpreted as to support a private medical insurance system. Moreover, you seem to contradict yourself in how you claim that the resolution may ban inter-nation health conglomerates, and then state that the resolution may force enemy states to join their health-based initiatives together with each other. Which contrasting argument are you trying to make sir?"
Last edited by Neo-Puerto Rico on Mon May 02, 2016 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Liagolas
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 357
Founded: Dec 18, 2015
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Liagolas » Mon May 02, 2016 6:21 pm

Neo-Puerto Rico wrote:Representative Ergo calls out from across the room timidly, obviously intimidated by the cloaked men. "But Mr...Mouth... you failed to mention the phrase, "well as other existing private voluntary sources" , present in the second clause. Does that not permit privatized insurance and similar systems? While the wording of the resolution is unclear, it can certainly be interpreted as to support a private medical insurance system. Moreover, you seem to contradict yourself in how you claim that the resolution may ban inter-nation health conglomerates, and then state that the resolution may force enemy states to join their health-based initiatives together with each other. Which contrasting argument are you trying to make sir?"

"While private voluntary sources are permitted, the government must still be the primary source of funding," the Mouth says. "Although private insurance is theoretically possible, private healthcare is still not.

"As for your second query, there is no contradiction -" The Mouth pauses to cough... and cough... and cough... and cough... and cough... and the Hand mutes the tablet for a few more moments to cut off the noise. It glances at the screen again and then turns it back on, just in time for the Mouth's explanation. "You seem to be confused, Ambassador. The concern over forcing enemy states to cooperate was from an older draft. The current draft argues that the two clauses prevent multiple nations from sharing the same health system while also requiring different nations' health systems to cooperate, despite any possible differences that may exist. These arguments do not contradict one another. One expresses concern over a limitation of a states' powers while the other expresses concern over the sheer impossibility of a mandate."

The Mouth coughs again, and it pauses to drink some more water. "However, these clauses may be removed from the next draft at the suggestion of Ambassador Parsons for the sake of streamlining the proposal," it says, its voice sounding raw and hoarse.
The Place Without a PeopleThe Dominion, brieflyThe Liagolas (leader) • MT. The dystopia pretending to be a hivemind. • When NS stats make your nation look freer than it's meant to be. • Security Council: *dips toe into roleplaying* General Assembly: *slaps SC*
In insisting it's a political simulation, NS ignores its reality as a political simulation game. Games have boundaries, and modern roleplaying games have safety tools. NS has neither, leaving it stuck as a badge-collecting pay-to-win where causticness is excused as "character," griefing/raiding is "just politics," and F7 is more courteous than General Assembly.

User avatar
Sandaoguo
Diplomat
 
Posts: 541
Founded: Apr 07, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Sandaoguo » Tue May 03, 2016 8:12 am

Christian Democrats wrote:I would support the repeal of Quality in Health Services, but I believe the focus should be on the resolution's ban on privatized healthcare systems. Guaranteeing all people access to healthcare is one thing. Forcing nations to do it a certain way is another.


"2) The health system shall be financed by national budgets or the budgets of assigned political divisions, as well as other existing private voluntary sources."

This is actually how health systems around the world normally work. A combination of public and private funding/insurance.

User avatar
Excidium Planetis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8067
Founded: May 01, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Excidium Planetis » Tue May 03, 2016 8:25 am

"Hmmm... while Excidium Planetis funds its own healthcare system, I am inclined to support this repeal because some nations may want private healthcare."
Current Ambassador: Adelia Meritt
Ex-Ambassador: Cornelia Schultz, author of GA#355 and GA#368.
#MakeLegislationFunnyAgain
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
Tier 9 nation, according to my index.Made of nomadic fleets.


News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15899
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue May 03, 2016 8:55 am

Excidium Planetis wrote:"Hmmm... while Excidium Planetis funds its own healthcare system, I am inclined to support this repeal because some nations may want private healthcare."

OOC: I made this case in the rules summary thread, so thought I'd post it here too (with slight word edits):
Araraukar wrote:Personally I think the resolution contradicts itself; if requires majority of funding to come from the government (which usually would mean making the healthcare public), but then turns around and says that it can be private after all. The only sane way to interprete that as non-contradiction that I can see is to say that nations can have private healthcare, but that the government pays the private practices to treat the patients.
- ambassador miss Janis Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10093
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Tue May 03, 2016 2:01 pm

Sandaoguo wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:I would support the repeal of Quality in Health Services, but I believe the focus should be on the resolution's ban on privatized healthcare systems. Guaranteeing all people access to healthcare is one thing. Forcing nations to do it a certain way is another.

"2) The health system shall be financed by national budgets or the budgets of assigned political divisions, as well as other existing private voluntary sources."

This is actually how health systems around the world normally work. A combination of public and private funding/insurance.

Quality in Health Services also says that governments are required to provide direct health coverage to all residents, unless "compelling practical purposes [against] such a policy can be proven beyond any doubt," an effective ban on a primarily private healthcare system.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)^
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)^

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 16989
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Separatist Peoples » Tue May 03, 2016 2:42 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:Quality in Health Services also says that governments are required to provide direct health coverage to all residents, unless "compelling practical purposes [against] such a policy can be proven beyond any doubt," an effective ban on a primarily private healthcare system.

"I'd say fiscal responsibility in the face of blowing the budget on a system the private sector can handle just fine is pretty compelling. But that's just me."

His Worshipfulness, the Most Unscrupulous, Plainly Deceitful, Dissembling, Strategicly Calculating Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10093
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Tue May 03, 2016 2:49 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Quality in Health Services also says that governments are required to provide direct health coverage to all residents, unless "compelling practical purposes [against] such a policy can be proven beyond any doubt," an effective ban on a primarily private healthcare system.

"I'd say fiscal responsibility in the face of blowing the budget on a system the private sector can handle just fine is pretty compelling. But that's just me."

I agree, but what in the world does "proven beyond any doubt" mean? This isn't a resolution on criminal trials. I'm sure some nincompoop would file a complaint with the WHA if our nation said that millionaires can afford to pay for their own health insurance. Heck, we rank top 2% for average income, top 3% for average income of the poor, and top 6% for average income of the rich. In the Most Holy and Grand Empire, the vast majority of people could buy their own health insurance on an open market if Quality in Health Services' government provision mandate were repealed. This is what I mean when I say that the target resolution outlaws private healthcare systems.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)^
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)^

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: The Galactic Supremacy, The Ice States

Advertisement

Remove ads