The New Health Category

[Ardchoille]

What does it all mean?

There is a new category available to resolution authors named "Health," and the "Environmental" category has gained new options.

(See here for the Environmental discussion.)

What does it do? Mostly, it's a way to make governments spend money on health and wellness (eg, "health" might be "research into a cancer cure", while "wellness" might be "fund a public service advertising campaign about sugary drinks"). Switching the burden to business is part of the Research subcategory.

INTERNATIONAL HEALTH CARE NOW! According to the techies, not really. Some proposals in the Healthcare subcategory might introduce some level of national health cover; most wouldn't. It's like Furtherment of Democracy, which doesn't get used to change whether your nation votes or holds elections, but might deal with how you vote, or how often you vote, in nations that vote at all.

<snip> I struggle to see how "Bioethics" is not simply a more specific version of "Moral Decency" ...

Bioethics is very similar to MD, in that it restricts civil freedoms. The main difference I can see is that the restrictions can be for practical reasons as well as moral. For example, forbidding experimentation with @@virus that is incredibly easy to transmit@@ because of the risk of a pandemic; insisting that it be restricted to space-based laboratories ...

... and I'm curious about what this means for Social Justice resolutions with a healthcare component.

So am I. When I asked, "What happens with existing resolutions that could have been in 'Health'?", the techies said they'd like a neat list, please, identifying those resolutions.

The GA's help would be appreciated. Please post your suggestions, preferably with arguments on why and how it fits the new category, and I'll keep a running list of links in this post.

I'm not sure exactly what will happen. There was talk of switching categories. Whether, or how, they can do it still seems to be under discussion.

I'm aware that some GA authors take scrupulous care to fit their work to the category requirements. I don't know if refusal is an option, either, but if you don't want your work retro-fitted (not re-written, just category reassigned) this would be a good place to let us know. I can't guarantee anything, though.

Much of the work on this still has to be done by all of us, together. None of the GA mods had any real part in the development of the earlier new categories. We're feeling our way and some things can change if necessary.

F'rinstance, I'm already thinking of replacing the current Moby Dick reference with a simple "NO, you may not use this to establish a Universal Health Scheme". Possible reason: ideological ban. Thoughts?

Because of coding, the statistical changes that Resolutions in this category will create are set in stone. The name and basic description of the category -- Health: a resolution to modify universal standards of healthcare -- and the names of the subcategories are set in stone.

The mod-written descriptions of the sub-categories. like other such descriptions, waltz around the freedoms and other stats affected. I can't change the stats and I've been fairly straightforward about the way I've "Englished" them, but I'm open to suggestions there.

A lot of your queries may get the response, "I don't know, I'll ask." Some of them may get the reply, "This is a game, and games need unknowns, so I can't tell you that."

Whatever, have at it, gentlebeings.

[Gruenberg]

Huh, I hadn't noticed the Environmental changes. Still no "Mild" option. Ridiculous.

Anyway, I have a few comments on Health.

Bioethics is very similar to MD, in that it restricts civil freedoms. The main difference I can see is that the restrictions can be for practical reasons as well as moral. For example, forbidding experimentation with @@virus that is incredibly easy to transmit@@ because of the risk of a pandemic; insisting that it be restricted to space-based laboratories ..

In practice, that was always how Moral Decency was interpreted, though. The restrictions of "Epidemic Prevention Protocol" - which was the subject of extensive category debate - were for practical reasons. And if the concerns are practical, why use the term "bioethics" at all? I still don't see how this subcategory adds anything we couldn't already do.

Here's my comments on existing resolutions. They're just my personal opinions.

Quality in Health Services, Universal Clinical Trials Act, Access to Life-Saving Drugs and World Health Authority are all Social Justice resolutions that would probably now belong in the Health category.

Disability Welfare Act, Clean Water Act and Food and Drug Standards are appropriate to remain in Social Justice. They have some healthcare effects but they're not the main element.

Patient's Rights Act, and relating to it Permit Male Circumcision and the quorate "Reproductive Freedoms" proposal are about medical issues, but they don't directly require a funding increase. Whether or not they belong in Health or Human Rights is probably something for the mods to decide based on how the category affects "medical procedures".

The following are Human Rights resolutions that now have a case for belonging in the Health category: Biomedical Donor and Recipient Rights, Medical Research Ethics Act, and Medical Standards in Prisons.

Institutional Psychiatry Act has some Health elements but probably belongs to remain in Human Rights.

Essential Medication Act is an important resolution, because the ruling established that legalising medical drugs still belonged in the Recreational Drug category. That may now change.

Finally, Biomedical Innovation Org. and International Drug Education are Educational resolutions with research type components that make them suitable for Health now.

My personal opinion is that existing resolutions should not be reclassified, even if they clearly now belong in another category. Instead, there should simply be a statement that past category is not a guarantee of precedent, and some of them used as examples of what would now belong in the new categories. Changing the past category of a resolution is something only the voters should do, with a repeal and replace.

None of the GA mods had any real part in the development of the earlier new categories.

How surprising.

F'rinstance, I'm already thinking of replacing the current Moby Dick reference with a simple "NO, you may not use this to establish a Universal Health Scheme". Possible reason: ideological ban. Thoughts?

I find this incredibly alarming. The ideological ban rule has never previously been interpreted to ban universal healthcare (nor expansive social systems). We even voted in Quality in Health Services, which is so close to a Universal Health Scheme that I'd honestly be interested to see what you think the difference is. If you do intend to drastically expand the scope of the ideological ban rule in this way, I think it deserves discussion, because it would be a huge change in the political limitations of the WA.

[Bears Armed]

F'rinstance, I'm already thinking of replacing the current Moby Dick reference with a simple "NO, you may not use this to establish a Universal Health Scheme". Possible reason: ideological ban. Thoughts?

I find this incredibly alarming. The ideological ban rule has never previously been interpreted to ban universal healthcare (nor expansive social systems). We even voted in Quality in Health Services, which is so close to a Universal Health Scheme that I'd honestly be interested to see what you think the difference is. If you do intend to drastically expand the scope of the ideological ban rule in this way, I think it deserves discussion, because it would be a huge change in the political limitations of the WA.

I reluctantly agree, on the grounds of precedent. Not that I want a 'Universal Healthcare' resolution, but as Safety in Difficult Times which mandated that every WA member nation must have an extensive welfare system was considered legal despite being challenged on ‘Ideological Ban’ grounds I don’t see how a ‘Universal Healthcare’ proposal could be ruled-out on that basis without a major change in the rules…

[Sciongrad]

Finally! I remember lobbying for this years ago. I'm very happy to see this finally incorporated. I'm still a little bit disappointed in the Environmental Category, but it's certainly better than it was before, and I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth.

[Applebania]

I wanted a Intellectual Property category more, but whatever.

[Separatist Peoples]

...aaand cue the en-mass rush of poorly considered proposals!

In all seriousness, that's great. I do wonder, however, if a nation were to draft a Health and Wellness proposal banning harmful drugs due to their damaging effects, would that be placed in this new category, or in Recreational Drug Use? I see a lot of cross-overs in that area, so I'd like to know just where the line gets drawn.

[Sanctaria]

It's great to see this addition after a number of years campaigning in Technical for it. Hopefully other category suggestions made will eventually be implemented too.

[Ardchoille]

<snip>I find this incredibly alarming. <snip> I think it deserves discussion, because it would be a huge change in the political limitations of the WA.

<snip> I don’t see how a ‘Universal Healthcare’ proposal could be ruled-out on that basis without a major change in the rules…

Then I will cease alarming you both. You're right. Even on the briefest reflection, I don't actually see how a Universal Health Care proposal could be completely ruled out of the new category. It was a momentary wavering of will when I thought of a string of godforsaken proposals on the subject ... ah, well, there's always Scotch.

Thanks for the list + observations, Gruen. That's the sort of thing they need. I'll edit it into the OP later, when it's not getting close to 4am here. Keep 'em coming, folks.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I'd like to ask some questions about this category's actual effects on the game, if I may.

1) What would be the point to recategorizing some past resolutions that "should have been Health resolutions"? Since the category is mainly the thing which determines the statistical effect of the resolution, and the statistical effects of past resolutions have already long since occurred, why reclassify them?

2) What would the statistical effects of a Health resolution be, precisely (aside from an obvious increase in health care spending)?

[Doctor Doom]

What does it all mean?

Having been called out in this news update, I know what this REALLY means! The WA has been spying on my biological experiments yet again and wants to restrict my freedom to TAKE OVER THE WORLD.

I must release my nano genetic mind control into the public water now before it's too late!!

*Starts handing out bottle water to various WA representatives*

[Ardchoille]

<snip>I do wonder, however, if a nation were to draft a Health and Wellness proposal banning harmful drugs due to their damaging effects, would that be placed in this new category, or in Recreational Drug Use? I see a lot of cross-overs in that area, so I'd like to know just where the line gets drawn.

I can only give one of those annoying "that depends" answers. IF it's a flat-out ban, you'd probably be best with Recreational; but if you're looking at government spending it's more likely Health.

1) What would be the point to recategorizing some past resolutions that "should have been Health resolutions"? Since the category is mainly the thing which determines the statistical effect of the resolution, and the statistical effects of past resolutions have already long since occurred, why reclassify them?

I'll have to get you an answer from the tech guys. This was not something mods suggested, it came from the people who balance the (statistical) books.

2) What would the statistical effects of a Health resolution be, precisely (aside from an obvious increase in health care spending)?

Have we ever told anyone the precise statistical effects of any resolution? If you mean the general "Bioethics decreases civil freedoms" sort of thing, I've put what I think I'm able to in the category and sub-category descriptions. Bioethics is the outlier; the others all increase spending (by government or industry) on health and increase the population's health.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Oh, sorry! I hadn't noticed that the category primer had been edited! It wasn't last night, and I didn't bother to check again. Precision wasn't what I was after so much as a general idea of what category/subcategory to choose when writing proposals. Those basic descriptions are good for a start.

[Mousebumples]

I'd appreciate a better clarification/distinction between Health: Research and E&C: Education. Would any healthcare-oriented educational resolutions probably end up in Health: Reasearch, now, instead?

And I'm sure I'll have more comments (and more confetti to toss) once I have more free time to analyze this ...

[Christian Democrats]

why reclassify them?

If a resolution is ever repealed, the statistical effects of the repeal will be proper.

[Goddess Relief Office]

@Ardchoille:
I'd like to seek your Modly advice whether #53 Epidemic Response Act should stay in its current category "International Security" or go into the new Health category. If that's the case, should the area of effect be "Health -- International Aid"? From the description I see here I'm unsure whether the resolution has a better fit with the new category. Then again, in its existing category it looks a bit out of place too.

Regards,
~GRO~

[Kryozerkia]

I've finished compiling a list of resolutions that need to be assigned into the new category. I will disclose this list after my fellow GA mods have reviewed it as well in case I missed a resolution, or one of my proposed category changes appears wrong.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I still don't see why resolutions are going to be reassigned. This has never been done in the entire history of the game, even when mods have subsequently stated that resolutions were in the wrong category. Voters vote on the entire resolution, including the category, and reassigning a resolution denies them the choice of making that decision. As I said before, the procedure for changing any resolution is a repeal and replace, not having the game staff doctor them after the effect.

Could we get a confirmation of whether resolutions really are going to be reassigned?

[Pacifist Chipmunks]

I still don't see why resolutions are going to be reassigned. This has never been done in the entire history of the game, even when mods have subsequently stated that resolutions were in the wrong category. Voters vote on the entire resolution, including the category, and reassigning a resolution denies them the choice of making that decision. As I said before, the procedure for changing any resolution is a repeal and replace, not having the game staff doctor them after the effect.

I agree with this. This is unprecedented and strikes at the core of the integrity of the WA proposal-resolution game. Besides, it isn't accurate. In the thread in this very forum that advises proposal writers we are told to write to the category of our proposal, meaning that the original category of the passed resolutions has significantly affected their content. It is not fair to say after the fact that it is also a health resolution. Had this category been available when the drafting was taking place, the resolution would certainly look quite different. I'm not sure even the very authors themselves, should they be around, will want this.

Also: are the mods going to insert an asterisk after each reassigned resolution, signifying it was possibly passed in a performance enhancing category?


EDIT: this post has been significantly edited (adding a bunch of words). Sorry.

[Kryozerkia]

I still don't see why resolutions are going to be reassigned. This has never been done in the entire history of the game, even when mods have subsequently stated that resolutions were in the wrong category. Voters vote on the entire resolution, including the category, and reassigning a resolution denies them the choice of making that decision. As I said before, the procedure for changing any resolution is a repeal and replace, not having the game staff doctor them after the effect.

Could we get a confirmation of whether resolutions really are going to be reassigned?

It's currently being discussed for feasibility.

The issue is precedent. Once a proposal becomes a resolution, it is legal, even if it violates the rules. Now, the current resolutions don't, however, a number of resolutions related to health and medicine could be reassigned if only to establish precedent.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I still don't see why resolutions are going to be reassigned. This has never been done in the entire history of the game, even when mods have subsequently stated that resolutions were in the wrong category. Voters vote on the entire resolution, including the category, and reassigning a resolution denies them the choice of making that decision. As I said before, the procedure for changing any resolution is a repeal and replace, not having the game staff doctor them after the effect.

Could we get a confirmation of whether resolutions really are going to be reassigned?

It's currently being discussed for feasibility.

The issue is precedent. Once a proposal becomes a resolution, it is legal, even if it violates the rules. Now, the current resolutions don't, however, a number of resolutions related to health and medicine could be reassigned if only to establish precedent.

"Free Education", "Reformed Literacy Initiative", "Universal Library Coalition" - these were not reassigned to the Educational category when that was introduced. Nor was "Freedom of Press" to Free Press, "Artistic Freedom" to Artistic, "Protect Historical Sites" to Cultural Heritage. You could even argue "'RBH' Replacement" should have been recategorised as a repeal. But it wasn't. I don't understand what has changed from the last time new categories were introduced: because when they were, the mods made a clear unambiguous ruling that Educational proposals now belonged in the Educational category, and so on.

[Unibot III]

I think its cool they're doing it. *shrugs* I kind of hope one of mine is affected now. I'm not sure if IPA would count though.

[Mousebumples]

I kinda hope mind don't count because - as others have said - I wrote my proposals to the categories as currently described when my resolutions were passed. (Plus, it's a point of pride for me to have passed a Recreational Drug Use resolution. )

As these resolutions were not written to serve as a "healthcare" resolution, they will not "exemplify" this new category and having new proposals drafted based off of those will likely only muddle the issue. I focused specifically on RIGHTS in my 2 biomedical rights resolutions, for example. Had the healthcare category been available at that time, the drafts likely would have looked significantly different. The same rights and protections would have been established, but I may have pushed more into other more general "healthcare" topics either in subject matter or in terms of wording. To say that this should magically become a "healthcare resolution" - merely because of the subject matter - even though the resolutions in question (in this example) clearly target establishing human rights for these particular patient groups seems messy and more confusing than helpful.

[Sanctaria]

I'd have a problem with changing categories around too. I mean the first thing we all learn when we start out here is that it's important to write a resolution to fit a category, not to write a resolution and then shoe-horn it into a category that broadly resembles what you're trying to get at. It seems to me that retro-actively reapply resolutions would fall foul of that and go against everything we tell n00bs about proposal writing.

[Unibot III]

Frankly, I think we should stop teaching newbies to not shoehorn. The best resolutions, in my opinion, deal with civil rights, or absolutely were shoehorned by any stretch of the imagination. Watch most veteran authors - the category is not the first thing they think of and it shouldn't be. Your first thought should be: what issue do I want to tackle? How do I want to tackle it? What do I need to do to make that possible?

The category system is there to box you in as an author - run circles around it, run circles around the rules, run circles around your opponents. That's what the World Assembly is about.

[Mousebumples]

Frankly, I think we should stop teaching newbies to not shoehorn. The best resolutions, in my opinion, deal with civil rights, or absolutely were shoehorned by any stretch of the imagination. Watch most veteran authors - the category is not the first thing they think of and it shouldn't be. Your first thought should be: what issue do I want to tackle? How do I want to tackle it? What do I need to do to make that possible?

The category system is there to box you in as an author - run circles around it, run circles around the rules, run circles around your opponents. That's what the World Assembly is about.

Yes and no. I fully admit that categories are not the first thing I think of as an author, but there are a number of healthcare related topics that I've wanted to legislate on, but I felt constrained by the categories currently in place, so I avoided writing such legislation to this point, for that reason.

But, as an experienced author, it's easier (and less likely to run into rule violations) to decide what category you're going to write a proposal for, after you pick a topic. I mean, my biomedical trio was supposed to be a trio of 3 different categories (HR, E&C, and FT), but the FT one never got enough traction for me to feel comfortable with the state of the text to submit, and the HR res got too long and ended up needing to be split into 2 resolutions. But if the healthcare category had existed back then, as I said before, I would have likely written the proposals in a different way with a different focus. But I wrote the resolutions to focus on making them HUMAN RIGHTS or EDUCATION & CREATIVITY - not to make them HEALTHCARE.

Writing to the category is important. Picking the category first and then selecting a topic is silly.