[DEFEATED] Emergency Healthcare for International Travelers

[Araraukar]

*snip*

IC: If your nation doesn't help its own citizens in non-life-threatening emergencies, just because they can't cough up enough money on the spot, I'd really hate to live or visit there!

[Bitely]

#FakeNews

OoC: A tg campaign with the tag:-delegates is sent from you and you try and call that #FakeNews? What?

Yup it's #Fakenews I did TG the Delegates.

[Araraukar]

Yup it's #Fakenews I did TG the Delegates.

OOC: The mods didn't take it as fake news. They ruled it legal, though. They hardly would've ruled legal something that didn't exist.

[Lauchenoiria]

Lauchenoiria is voting for this proposal as we believe everyone should be entitled to emergency healthcare regardless of their nationality when travelling and in general.

[Bitely]

Yup it's #Fakenews I did TG the Delegates.

OOC: The mods didn't take it as fake news. They ruled it legal, though. They hardly would've ruled legal something that didn't exist.

I'm Saying that the statement that I didn't send a Campaign TG to the delegates is #FakeNews. So, I think you're agreeing with me?

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: Please take your ego somewhere else. This thread is for the at vote proposal, not your telegrams.

[Bitely]

*snip*

OOC: Please take your ego somewhere else. This thread is for the at vote proposal, not your telegrams.

I didn't bring up discussion about the TG's; I was only Correcting a statement about them. That being Said, The TG's in question are about this proposal, and I Stand behind them and I'm still against this proposal.

[Uan aa Boa]

*snip*

IC: If your nation doesn't help its own citizens in non-life-threatening emergencies, just because they can't cough up enough money on the spot, I'd really hate to live or visit there!

Uan aa Boa has free universal healthcare, but you're perfectly well aware that many WA nations do not. Their citizens will probably not be impressed if your resolution forces them to watch foreigners get what they can't.

I take it the ad hominem nature of your response indicates that you have no substantial answer to this crucial flaw in the proposal.

[Araraukar]

I take it the ad hominem nature of your response indicates that you have no substantial answer to this crucial flaw in the proposal.

OOC: Your nation isn't a person in IC, so an IC comment can't really be an ad hominem...

[States of Glory WA Office]

I take it the ad hominem nature of your response indicates that you have no substantial answer to this crucial flaw in the proposal.

OOC: Your nation isn't a person in IC, so an IC comment can't really be an ad hominem...

OOC: Have a look at literally anything that Fairburn says and tell me that an IC comment can't be an ad hominem.

[Uan aa Boa]

OOC: Your nation isn't a person in IC, so an IC comment can't really be an ad hominem...

OOC: If the ambassador from Uan aa Boa feels he is being slighted on the grounds of his nationality while his argument goes unaddressed he could reasonably describe that as ad hominem.

[Mundiferrum]

(ii) I also think you missed clause 4:

4. Clarifies that member nations must treat international travelers using the same priorities as they use on their own residents, but do not have to give them a higher priority,

No, I didn't miss that. I realise that a foreigner doesn't get to jump the queue. She will, however, receive treatment that she can't afford. In some nations, the same can't be said for citizens. Despite Bitely's telegram, this is not a conservative point. Uan aa Boa is strongly in favour of free healthcare for all. But we object to offering it to those who can afford foreign travel before securing it for the poor and vulnerable.

(iii) And the WA could do exactly what about that situation in any case? There's no OOC enforcement method and you know it. There's no IC enforcement method that would be legal, either, apart from the Compliance Commission in that resolution by IA. If you can think of another one, please write it up in a separate proposal?

The WA can't force the traveller's nation to pay up, I agree. That's the flaw in the resolution, and the reason it amounts to offering free care to foreigners when citizens can't get it.

But the proposal talks about treatment for "medical emergencies". Since a nation can screen out people with preexisting conditions who are coming over for the purposes of medical tourism (not to mention that there are methods, not covered by WA resolutions but assumed to exist because that's how politics work[s?]), surely the amount of money lost wouldn't be anything worth fretting over?

[Bitely]

No, I didn't miss that. I realise that a foreigner doesn't get to jump the queue. She will, however, receive treatment that she can't afford. In some nations, the same can't be said for citizens. Despite Bitely's telegram, this is not a conservative point. Uan aa Boa is strongly in favour of free healthcare for all. But we object to offering it to those who can afford foreign travel before securing it for the poor and vulnerable.


The WA can't force the traveller's nation to pay up, I agree. That's the flaw in the resolution, and the reason it amounts to offering free care to foreigners when citizens can't get it.

But the proposal talks about treatment for "medical emergencies". Since a nation can screen out people with preexisting conditions who are coming over for the purposes of medical tourism (not to mention that there are methods, not covered by WA resolutions but assumed to exist because that's how politics work[s?]), surely the amount of money lost wouldn't be anything worth fretting over?

The fact that nations would have to add such screenings would in itself be an extra burden.

[Goolsbee]

Voted against this resolution on the basis that international travelers typically do not lack the wherewithal to secure travel insurance which would cover contingencies such as medical emergencies.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

But the proposal talks about treatment for "medical emergencies". Since a nation can screen out people with preexisting conditions who are coming over for the purposes of medical tourism (not to mention that there are methods, not covered by WA resolutions but assumed to exist because that's how politics work[s?]), surely the amount of money lost wouldn't be anything worth fretting over?

The fact that nations would have to add such screenings would in itself be an extra burden.

Teran Saber: "Would it? Surely simply having to submit health records would suffice."

[Bitely]

The fact that nations would have to add such screenings would in itself be an extra burden.

Teran Saber: "Would it? Surely simply having to submit health records would suffice."

And how many more bureaucrats would you need to hire to handle this extra paperwork? Sure sounds like an additional burden to me.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Teran Saber: "Would it? Surely simply having to submit health records would suffice."

And how many more bureaucrats would you need to hire to handle this extra paperwork? Sure sounds like an additional burden to me.

Teran Saber: "If you need to hire more bureaucrats to handle a summary of one's medical records, then you have other issues to work out."

[Nova Blarazia]

How about not waste millions on globalistic investments, and notallow international travvelers?

[West by West Lothian]

Despite the rather odd, and frankly annoying telegram our nations leaders did receive, we shall vote with the proposal.

Truly, if you will turn away someone due to their placement of birth, you shouldn't be a leader of men, if you turn away your own citizens whom I assume elected you; then we have little reason to even consider you having of humanity.

But oh, we cannot afford to give our citizens help, or medical assistance. Then, my dear member, you clearly have areas of your budget that need cutting, and others inflating. Inaction doesn't grant innocence, it installs complicity in the suffering of yours, and any people.

[Nord Gutse]

My worried with this resolution is that the money situation is being hoisted onto the backs of the travellers home country. As a result, this could put country that already have a tight budget to breaking point.

In addition, with the amount of people who travel is constantly on the rise, and for many countries, like myself, tourism is the backbone of the economy. With this new legislation, should it pass, tourism could be hit a lot, which is something I do not want to risk.

I do believe, however, that emergency healthcare should be provided but this isn't the solution. I believe that anybody going on a holiday should pay for health insurance as a vital. If nothing happens then you get a refund. If, unluckily, you do suffer an illness needing medical attention, you have that insurance.

Basically, I believe that this issue needs to be addressed but not like this, there are other options.

[Wrapper]

I do believe, however, that emergency healthcare should be provided but this isn't the solution. I believe that anybody going on a holiday should pay for health insurance as a vital. If nothing happens then you get a refund. If, unluckily, you do suffer an illness needing medical attention, you have that insurance.

OOC: That's not how insurance works. Unless, of course, you're trying to bankrupt such companies.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

How about not waste millions on globalistic investments, and notallow international travvelers?

Teran Saber: "How about letting nations decide that for themselves? There are so many different nations in the World Assembly that I would not be surprised if some of them run entirely on tourism."

EDIT:

OOC: The mods didn't take it as fake news. They ruled it legal, though. They hardly would've ruled legal something that didn't exist.

I'm Saying that the statement that I didn't send a Campaign TG to the delegates is #FakeNews. So, I think you're agreeing with me?

OOC: You did after I brought it up.

[Lacaniciano]

If the WA-members thinks that healthcare for international travelers should be paid they can pay those costs themselves because who bothers to pay for people from other countries, unless you are socialist of course. While I would have no obligation contributing to a central WA department that would be funded by all members that would handle such emergencies I suggest that the WA stops compromising the sovereignty of its members through such proposals. As said by other people in this discussion, this is an issue that we should take care of but in a different way.

[Lauchenoiria]

In addition, with the amount of people who travel is constantly on the rise, and for many countries, like myself, tourism is the backbone of the economy. With this new legislation, should it pass, tourism could be hit a lot, which is something I do not want to risk.

"Tourism to a nation would likely also be impacted if tourists visiting the nation died because of a lack of treatment in an emergency situation. If death was preventable, but the person was refused treatment, then it could cause a scandal in the media and/or possibly an international incident." - Ambassador Erika Redwood

[The Egyptian Pharocracial Suzerainty]

Uan aa Boa doesn't much like this for three reasons.
(i) Its definition of emergency includes physical injury and the onset of an illness, clarified to not be necessarily life threatening i.e. stubbed toe and a bit of a sniffle.
(ii) Care is given irrespective of ability to pay. I'm all for that, but to make it available to foreigners in a nation that doesn't afford that right to its own citizens seemed perverse.
(iii) The government can invoice the traveller's nation for the cost of care. No mention is made of the situation where that nation's response is "Ha, ha, ha."

Against, for the same reasons that Uan aa Boa stated.

Additionally, the Suzerainty will not ask its taxpaying citizens to foot the bill for extensive health care services for the citizens of other nations, regardless of the WA's thoughts on how "humanitarian" that might be.

Travelers and tourists in our nation are already eligible for emergency services: We won't allow someone to bleed out in a waiting room or ambulance while injured, just because they don't have the money to pay. However, any medical services beyond that, they're required to pay for or have their insurance cover.

Further, We will not be placed in the position of having to fund medical care, welfare, nor any other government services for illegal aliens and refugees in our nation. What governmentally funded services that we have are provided for our own citizens, and solely for our citizens.

We vote against this measure.