[DEFEATED] Regulation of Tobacco

[Araraukar]

The lack of affordable healthcare

...you realize there already is a resolution that mandates full health coverage for all WA citizens? GA #97. Actually, two, since GA #344 can easily be read to include the same.

[United Free Peoples]

The lack of affordable healthcare

...you realize there already is a resolution that mandates full health coverage for all WA citizens? GA #97. Actually, two, since GA #344 can easily be read to include the same.

Then what is up with this?


Jarish Inyo wrote:
No, it requires for the government to pay for such treatments through some form of government assistance. Without said assistance, there is no affordable healthcare. The Empire offers no affordable healthcare nor will we ever. The Empire do not run a welfare state.

[Araraukar]

Then what is up with this?

OOC: It's Jarish Inyo, what did you expect?

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually, nothing in GAR 97 requires full medical coverage to all WA citizens. Nor anything in GAR 344 either. GAR 97 only requires that a nation has a health care system. While there are guidelines, the Empire only uses one system and it isn't full health services coverage or cooperation between nations. Our health care system is completely privatized.

I could have missed free health care in GAR 97. And if I did, please point out in the requirements where it specifically mandates free health care.

[Araraukar]

Actually, nothing in GAR 97 requires full medical coverage to all WA citizens.

Actually, it does, the guidelines are not optional:

From GA #97, Quality in Health Services:

IT IS THEREFORE ESTABLISHED:

1) The health services shall constitute separate systems in each & every nation, organized according to the following guidelines:

a) Full health services coverage;
b) Community participation;
c) Cooperation between nations that are not at a declared state of war amongst themselves.

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually, it doesn't. It does not state free full medical coverage. It gives a guideline for full medical coverage. That guideline could be for those who can afford policies that cover full medical coverage. Again, where in the requirements does it mandate free full medical coverage?

And the definition of guideline does make it optional.

[United Free Peoples]

Actually, it doesn't. It does not state free full medical coverage. It gives a guideline for full medical coverage. That guideline could be for those who can afford full medical policies. Again, where in the requirements does it mandate free full medical coverage?

And the definition of guideline does make it optional.

True

[Araraukar]

And the definition of guideline does make it optional.

OOC: Just like mandatory donations (General Fund) are voluntary because of the definition of "donation"?

GA #97:

"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."

and later on:

"[nations may choose to] b) Provide assistance only to those who cannot afford to pay for their own care, if compelling practical purposes for such a policy can be proven beyond any doubt."

The WHA may help the nation financially, if the nation is unable, not unwilling.

Additionally, GA #29 requires you to provide emergency medical care when it comes to lifesaving situations. GA #161 requires you to provide healthcare for prisoners. GA #176 requires you to provide affordable healthcare for the disabled through the welfare benefits (third clause after definition).

Epidemics are a different matter entirely and have other resolutions concerning them.

[Jarish Inyo]

And the definition of guideline does make it optional.

OOC: Just like mandatory donations (General Fund) are voluntary because of the definition of "donation"?

GA #97:

"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."

and later on:

"[nations may choose to] b) Provide assistance only to those who cannot afford to pay for their own care, if compelling practical purposes for such a policy can be proven beyond any doubt."

The WHA may help the nation financially, if the nation is unable, not unwilling.

Additionally, GA #29 requires you to provide emergency medical care when it comes to lifesaving situations. GA #161 requires you to provide healthcare for prisoners. GA #176 requires you to provide affordable healthcare for the disabled through the welfare benefits (third clause after definition).

Epidemics are a different matter entirely and have other resolutions concerning them.

Donations can not be mandatory. So, yes, the General Fund is voluntary because of the definition of "donation". You and others have stated that it is the common interpretation that the donations are mandatory. I do not agree with that interpretation. Both are in good faith interpretation.

Again, financed by national budgets or the budgets of assigned political divisions, as well as other existing private voluntary sources does not state that there is free full coverage. Financing could be paying for hospitals. And choose to provide assistance only to those who cannot afford to pay for their own care, if compelling practical purposes for such a policy can be proven beyond any doubt doesn't mean that a nation has to do so. As it states a nation can choose not to provide such assistance.

GAR 29 does not require emergency medical care to be free. One can still be billed for such care.
GAR 161 doesn't actually require a nation to provide medical care for prisoners. It requires an adequate medical ward. But does not actually state a prisoners must receive healthcare.
GAR 176 does not require a nation to provide affordable healthcare for the disabled through the welfare benefits. It requires a nation to take into account the average cost of day-to-day expenses including, but not limited to, food, shelter, healthcare for the disabled, and education. No where does it state that the healthcare must be provided or affordable.

[Araraukar]

GAR 161 doesn't actually require a nation to provide medical care for prisoners. It requires an adequate medical ward. But does not actually state a prisoners must receive healthcare.
GAR 176 does not require a nation to provide affordable healthcare for the disabled through the welfare benefits. It requires a nation to take into account the average cost of day-to-day expenses including, but not limited to, food, shelter, healthcare for the disabled, and education. No where does it state that the healthcare must be provided or affordable.

OOC: Well, if you're taking that stance, then it's useless trying to argue with you. Some day I'm going to want you to explain how your nation's IC reality works, though, because it sounds like a very weird place.

[Jarish Inyo]

LOL. Send me a telegram with your questions. I'd be happy to answer them.

[Whovian Tardisia]

The Empire offers no affordable healthcare nor will we ever. The Empire do not run a welfare state.

If an individual feels that they need to go to the hospital, they can. A medical professional will see them free of charge.

Ambassador Pink coughs loudly.

[Yodle]

"We would support this proposal, however, it would be cogent to inform as to why this is an international issue for those of us who don't proscribe to internationalist points of view. As well, it should be qualified to only affect 'tobacco products shown to cause damaging health effects' as I can conceive of some science-y nation making healthy tobacco somehow."

If I may offer a thought?

Considering almost anything can be said to be harmful for you, perhaps the word "serious" should be attached to "damaging health effects".

It is arbitrary and capricious to sanction tobacco products for the simple sake of it having harmful effects, considering the air you breath does now also, as well as many voluntary subjects you ingest.

I think the people of your great nation would feel less over burdened with the rule of international law if the bill was softened to the sanction of tobacco products shown to cause "serious negative health effects", perhaps even amend to "Tobacco products that have been shown to have a reasonable risk of causing serious damaging health effects"

Hmm, well in the beginning sections I outline the health risks of Tobacco, and the thing with the health risks is that anything with the chemicals from tobacco in it cause that, so I don't think using different language would make any significant difference..

[Jarish Inyo]

The Empire offers no affordable healthcare nor will we ever. The Empire do not run a welfare state.

If an individual feels that they need to go to the hospital, they can. A medical professional will see them free of charge.

Ambassador Pink coughs loudly.

Sees them free of charge. Didn't say treats them free of charge. Or that medical test or medication is free.

[Bears Armed]

Category: Health
Area of Effect: Healthcare

OOC: No, it would be 'Recreational Drugs'/'Outlaw'.

[Yodle]

Category: Health
Area of Effect: Healthcare

OOC: No, it would be 'Recreational Drugs'/'Outlaw'.

Wouldn't that outlaw tobacco altogether?

[Araraukar]

OOC: No, it would be 'Recreational Drugs'/'Outlaw'.

Wouldn't that outlaw tobacco altogether?

OOC: The "outlaw" doesn't mean literally that, it's just the side of the argument that the proposal falls on. If you want to restrict, regulate or even ban, then it's the outlaw area-of-effect.

[Yodle]

Wouldn't that outlaw tobacco altogether?

OOC: The "outlaw" doesn't mean literally that, it's just the side of the argument that the proposal falls on. If you want to restrict, regulate or even ban, then it's the outlaw area-of-effect.

Oh, in that case it most definitely fits in that category!

[Yodle]

So, I think I pretty much covered everyone's thoughts and concerns so far Given that I've gotten no legality challenges and no one seems outright opposed to the central idea, how is the grammar/wording/structure? Anything I can improve? Anything that doesn't make sense? Let me know :3

[Yodle]

Update: Proposal has reached quorum

[Imperium Anglorum]

Should've just bolded the entire bloody proposal. That'll show the public the really important words.

[Yodle]

Should've just bolded the entire bloody proposal. That'll show the public the really important words.

Personally, I like bolding purely for aesthetic reasons, I think it'd have the same readability regardless.

[Vandario]

"Eh with all do respect we find this to be a waste of time, effort, and money. Now granted that's how we feel about most GA proposals as it is, this isn't really going to do anything though. Sure I can agree maybe to regulating some of those chemicals they put in cigarettes or cigars what have you, but the warning label is pure silly. As a comedian I like personally states, you could have the pack pitch black, with a skull and crossbones on it, and name it Tumors, people will still line up to buy it. If people smoke that is their right, they should be aware of what comes with that, if they get the adverse effects from it, then they have no one to blame but themselves. They willingly sought out these products and used them, and we all must learn to be responsible for our own actions."

[Ravnabbor]

I'm going to have to vote against this one. While I do think the government should regulate (as in be the sole distributor of) drugs, both medicinal and recreational, I don't think warning labels and healthcare should be mandatory for any WA nation. The way I see it the government should teach their citizens about the dangers via educational programs instead of a useless warning label that people won't even read, and the government should already provide free healthcare to all it's citizens. The proposal is well written however, so good job on that!

[Nasser El Sonbaty]

What about the government funds if nicotine should be banned. The question is does this GA resolution at vote include a ban of electronic cigarettes with nicotine?

With HPLC and for example flash chromatography a purity of 99,9% is possible. That's safe and this resolution is easy to circumvent by the total organic synthesis of pure enantiomeric nicotine.

Suppose that nicotine is banned then chemists replace a -H atom by another atomic bond and this new substance is maybe even more addictive and/or more dangerous.