[DEFEATED] Emergency Healthcare for International Travelers

[Lexium]

After long debates with the Lexiumian Advisor Council, we have decided to go against this resolution. We believe that the following declaration summarizes the reason for this quite well.

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."

[Osirisa]

From the Palace of Whitehall,
As the United Kingdom of Osirisa already has a form of socialized medicine we support this resolution in spirit. But in practically it does not serve the interests of our society, or the societies of smaller less prosperous nations as not only would they have to support the healthcare of their own citizens, who do contribute to the healthcare system through their taxes but also the medical costs of any visitor who is unlucky enough to have an illness or injury befall them. This is not to say that forgein travelers should not be provided emergency services in the event of injury or illness, however if they do not contribute to the national healthcare system of a nation why should the taxpayers provide for them? If this resolution were to create a general health fund for the citizens of WA nations funded through contributions from WA nations based on a percentage of a their GPD the Kingdom of Osirisa would wholeheartedly support this resolution as it would mutually benefit all WA citizens rather than place the burden solely on one nations coffers, if the cost were spread over the many member nations of the WA it would cost less for each nation and still provide the services set forth in this bill. Until such time my government cannot vote for this resolution and I will instruct the Osirisan Ambassador to the WA, Mr. James Tudor to vote against this resolution.
Respectfully,
Andrew, King of the United Kingdom of Osirisa and her overseas territories, Emperor of the Hazel Islands, War Chief of the Wah Keh NahZeh Tribe.

[Timsvill]

"The people of Timsvill, the congress and the president have voted all no! So I shall vote no! The nation has spoken!" Says newly elected Ambassador James Conk.

[Fawkenia]

Hello everyone. As a voting nation in the General Assembly, we would like to highlight a few reasons to vote in favor of this resolution. Everything here pointed out does not seek in any way to question the reasonings made previously, many of which have sufficient ground to be defended.

Here is an analysis, after a complete review of the resolution at vote, and current legislation (GAR#29, #31, #35 and #97):

This resolution might be covering a controversial point. Although patients have the right to receive emergency medical treatment, under existing legislation (which also establishes the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation in which they live or in which they are in a given moment), it could be the case that medical assistance to travelers generates expenses that are never recovered by the nation that executes them. We can think of citizens who decide to travel to other nations to receive public healthcare, which would be called "medical tourism".

This may be detrimental to some economies. However, existing legislation encourages coordination among existing health agencies in member nations, in order to promote decent health standards in the international community. In addition, it authorizes the World Health Authority (WHA) to coordinate efforts among those nations. This is consistent with the resolution at vote, as it authorizes member nations to demand payment for the involved medical care costs (in the event the traveler can not afford them). Moreover, it prohibits surcharges and clarifies that member nations are not obliged to care for ailments which the international traveler was aware of when they entered the nation (so that it does not promote "medical tourism").

Even if the nation providing medical care does not receive adequate reimbursement, current legislation states that the WHA can finance any nation that requires it, following an audit to ensure transparency and honesty. In this way, coverage of costs and compliance with the right to health is guaranteed (with a view to adopting a human rights-based approach to health and to further promoting health in international law).

So: It's the "medical tourism" thing a problem? -> Medical tourism may even be beneficial to some nations. While we cannot avoid it altogether, we can regulate it. If viewed as a business, its growth may have limitations due to lack of administrative and operational control systems that exceed the capabilities of medical professionals. In any case, the way forward would be training or accreditation, in accordance with international law.

Although the resolution does not explicitly enforce the payment of the debt related to medical services for travelers, we must consider (as already mentioned in this thread) that all invoices are official documents, and as such must be understood and treated. It is not necessary to mention that countries that ignore these types of OFFICIAL obligations leave much to be desired in terms of seriousness, to say less. With respect to certain (understandable) attitudes about the debt, and the harm it could cause to economies, in the long term, it is necessary to remember that WHA would be able to help, as long as transparency in support audits is demonstrated. If even with this, some nations would like to stop providing medical services to travelers, considering that their citizens go first, visa restrictions and other legal instruments of their own can be helpful.

The important thing is that this resolution promotes the right to health in international law (and in international development processes) with a human rights-based approach.

[Chus Kruthe]

Hello everyone. As a voting nation in the General Assembly, we would like to highlight a few reasons to vote in favor of this resolution. Everything here pointed out does not seek in any way to question the reasonings made previously, many of which have sufficient ground to be defended.

Here is an analysis, after a complete review of the resolution at vote, and current legislation (GAR#29, #31, #35 and #97):

This resolution might be covering a controversial point. Although patients have the right to receive emergency medical treatment, under existing legislation (which also establishes the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation in which they live or in which they are in a given moment), it could be the case that medical assistance to travelers generates expenses that are never recovered by the nation that executes them. We can think of citizens who decide to travel to other nations to receive public healthcare, which would be called "medical tourism".

This may be detrimental to some economies. However, existing legislation encourages coordination among existing health agencies in member nations, in order to promote decent health standards in the international community. In addition, it authorizes the World Health Authority (WHA) to coordinate efforts among those nations. This is consistent with the resolution at vote, as it authorizes member nations to demand payment for the involved medical care costs (in the event the traveler can not afford them). Moreover, it prohibits surcharges and clarifies that member nations are not obliged to care for ailments which the international traveler was aware of when they entered the nation (so that it does not promote "medical tourism").

Even if the nation providing medical care does not receive adequate reimbursement, current legislation states that the WHA can finance any nation that requires it, following an audit to ensure transparency and honesty. In this way, coverage of costs and compliance with the right to health is guaranteed (with a view to adopting a human rights-based approach to health and to further promoting health in international law).

So: It's the "medical tourism" thing a problem? -> Medical tourism may even be beneficial to some nations. While we cannot avoid it altogether, we can regulate it. If viewed as a business, its growth may have limitations due to lack of administrative and operational control systems that exceed the capabilities of medical professionals. In any case, the way forward would be training or accreditation, in accordance with international law.

Although the resolution does not explicitly enforce the payment of the debt related to medical services for travelers, we must consider (as already mentioned in this thread) that all invoices are official documents, and as such must be understood and treated. It is not necessary to mention that countries that ignore these types of OFFICIAL obligations leave much to be desired in terms of seriousness, to say less. With respect to certain (understandable) attitudes about the debt, and the harm it could cause to economies, in the long term, it is necessary to remember that WHA would be able to help, as long as transparency in support audits is demonstrated. If even with this, some nations would like to stop providing medical services to travelers, considering that their citizens go first, visa restrictions and other legal instruments of their own can be helpful.

The important thing is that this resolution promotes the right to health in international law (and in international development processes) with a human rights-based approach.

I thank you for that eloquent show of support.

I'd like to reiterate that nations are not made liable for the costs of care their citizens traveling abroad receive as they may pass that cost back to the traveler upon their return. They merely are required to cover the cost upfront so the traveler can then deal with the expense when they return home where they have full access to their financial assets, credit, potential for income, family, etc which make dealing with a large, unexpected expense easier. This wouldn't require you to cover the costs of your own citizens if you wish not to and wouldn't make you pay for care for citizens of other nations. The obligation to provide care existed already, but this proposal allows you a more reliable method to collect payment for that care (most travelers can't pay out of pocket for a triple bypass), that saves you money. It doesn't cost you money, it makes an expense you were unlikely to be reimbursed for more collectible.

[Templar Republic]

Your Excellencies,

We are not pleased with statements 6, 7, 8 and 9.

6. Allows member nations to send an invoice to the nation of origin to demand payment for the healthcare costs that have accrued from treating the medical emergency, if the international traveler is unable to pay for them,

7. Prohibits member nations from inflating the cost of or overcharging for care they have provided under this resolution,

8. Further clarifies that nations are only obliged to provide medical care to international travelers in cases of emergency and are not obliged to care for ailments which the international traveler was aware of or knew they required treatment for when they entered the nation,

9. Further clarifies that this resolution only applies to international travelers who are traveling for purposes of business or leisure; the treatment of people who are in the nation against their will, such as prisoners of war, should be handled by other legislation.

Sending invoices to other countries is too complicated and needs an international jurisdiction for litigations. There are insurances for travellers : business or leisure travellers have the money to take such an insurance. And for us, even a sick person has the right to travel and to receive medical assistance if there must be a problem during the holiday.

So our nation will vote against this resolution.

Sincerely yours.

[Jarish Inyo]

I'd like to reiterate that nations are not made liable for the costs of care their citizens traveling abroad receive as they may pass that cost back to the traveler upon their return. They merely are required to cover the cost upfront so the traveler can then deal with the expense when they return home where they have full access to their financial assets, credit, potential for income, family, etc which make dealing with a large, unexpected expense easier.

Actually, that's not true. Nothing in this proposal requires the traveler's home nation to pay the traveler's medical bills at all. The traveler's home nation can refuse to pay the invoices.

Also, the WHA is not authorized to reimburse individual medical costs. It's only authorized to help fund a nation's healthcare system.

[Aplan]

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."

May I ask what you mean when you say it "seems perverse" to afford care to those who may not receive it in their own home countries?

[The Bible Baptist Republic]

I'd like to reiterate that nations are not made liable for the costs of care their citizens traveling abroad receive as they may pass that cost back to the traveler upon their return. They merely are required to cover the cost upfront so the traveler can then deal with the expense when they return home where they have full access to their financial assets, credit, potential for income, family, etc which make dealing with a large, unexpected expense easier. This wouldn't require you to cover the costs of your own citizens if you wish not to and wouldn't make you pay for care for citizens of other nations. The obligation to provide care existed already, but this proposal allows you a more reliable method to collect payment for that care (most travelers can't pay out of pocket for a triple bypass), that saves you money. It doesn't cost you money, it makes an expense you were unlikely to be reimbursed for more collectible.

Not completely true. While it is true that under this proposal a WA nation would be required to cover the cost of reimbursement, a non-WA country is under no legal obligation to do so. A small, less affluent nation's healthcare system could quickly be bankrupted by an influx of non-WA nation's tourists who claim to have no prior knowledge that they had clogged arteries showing up a medical facilities with chest pains and in need of emergency angioplasties and/or by-passes. How do you prove they had no prior knowledge of their heart disease? Many people's first clue they have a heart problem is that first (and potentially the last) heart attack. Does one demand medical records? How does one know that the medical records giving the tourist a clean bill of health are real? While the small, less affluent nation could ban further tourists from that non-WA country that is exporting its healthcare costs, that nation would still be stuck with the unpaid bills of the 1st wave that got across the border.

If economics ran on compassion instead of cash, this proposal would be an A+. Sadly no one has figured out a way to turn lead into gold nor compassion into cash. Hence this proposal contains the seeds of economic disaster for small less affluent nations. -- Robert Make-Me-An-Instrument-Of-Your-Worship Conklin, Bible Baptist Republic's Ambassador to the WA

[Nord Gutse]

After careful reading I have changed my opinion, and decided to vote for.

The one question I have is at no point in the resolution does it state what shall happen to a country or government who refuse to repay the debt.

This concerns me because it says that a country is allowed to demand it back, however it doesn't mention anything about the debting country having to repay.

I understand that they will, in most cases,(which is why I voted for) but for smaller countries and regions if this Mahoney which they have spent on healthcare isn't repaid, in the long run they could be financially unstable, please put my query at ease, otherwise I will be forced to vote against.

Nord Gutse,
WA delegate for World View

[The Arctic Ocean]

The Arctic Ocean votes against this measure. There doesn't seem to be a way for shamanic healers to receive payment in exchange for medical care. The average cost of a visit to the shaman is 7 seal pelts. Would an international traveler's home nation have access to seal pelts?

If a Seal Pelt clause is added to the resolution, we would gladly vote FOR it. As it stands right now, we cannot support this measure.

[Republic of British Russia]

British Russia already has an NHS, so Healthcare is free, for international visitors, emergency visits will be free and any medication that will follow will also be free, though we do support those of the international community to seek medical care in our hospitals in absolute dire circumstances

[DACOROMANIA]

Please don't be fooled by "Emergency Healthcare for International Travelers"

The folowing has been pointed out by Uan aa Boa: "
(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.""
- Source: Uan aa Boa doesn't much like this for three reasons. (not approved by Uan aa Boa)

This proposal would bankrupt many small nations and create a loop hole for nations to exploit weaker member-nations.

I'm asking you to consider voting AGAINST "Emergency Healthcare for International Travelers"

After a careful analysis I find that some "minor mistakes" in this WA proposal may sustain an intrusion which may affect international affairs and the healthcare programs for it. Very serious. Even if the proposal had an intention to help, very sad that some provisions in wrong phrases may harm too badly.

It may also create ways for inhospitable "invasions" against the safety of many nations.

You have to correct this draft once again and to change some phrases.

Save the world ... or... silence!

[DACOROMANIA]

British Russia already has an NHS, so Healthcare is free, for international visitors, emergency visits will be free and any medication that will follow will also be free, though we do support those of the international community to seek medical care in our hospitals in absolute dire circumstances

Yeah, a fictional nation-state.

[Chus Kruthe]

Please don't be fooled by "Emergency Healthcare for International Travelers"

The folowing has been pointed out by Uan aa Boa: "
(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.""
- Source: Uan aa Boa doesn't much like this for three reasons. (not approved by Uan aa Boa)

This proposal would bankrupt many small nations and create a loop hole for nations to exploit weaker member-nations.

I'm asking you to consider voting AGAINST "Emergency Healthcare for International Travelers"

After a careful analysis I find that some "minor mistakes" in this WA proposal may sustain an intrusion which may affect international affairs and the healthcare programs for it. Very serious. Even if the proposal had an intention to help, very sad that some provisions in wrong phrases may harm too badly.

It may also create ways for inhospitable "invasions" against the safety of many nations.

You have to correct this draft once again and to change some phrases.

Save the world ... or... silence!

I'm really not sure what your talking about, this looks like a nonsensical post full of random buzzwords but no real content. You've pointed to nothing specific or really said anything of substance.

[Bitely]

After a careful analysis I find that some "minor mistakes" in this WA proposal may sustain an intrusion which may affect international affairs and the healthcare programs for it. Very serious. Even if the proposal had an intention to help, very sad that some provisions in wrong phrases may harm too badly.

It may also create ways for inhospitable "invasions" against the safety of many nations.

You have to correct this draft once again and to change some phrases.

Save the world ... or... silence!

I'm really not sure what your talking about, this looks like a nonsensical post full of random buzzwords but no real content. You've pointed to nothing specific or really said anything of substance.

He's probably referring to the fact that clause 6 says nation's can send an invoice to the travelers country of origin. Without a way to make nations pay this is a completely useless clause.

[Chus Kruthe]

I'm really not sure what your talking about, this looks like a nonsensical post full of random buzzwords but no real content. You've pointed to nothing specific or really said anything of substance.

He's probably referring to the fact that clause 6 says nation's can send an invoice to the travelers country of origin. Without a way to make nations pay this is a completely useless clause.

That is one of the more valid points people have made and I respect it, I only wish this particular nation made it more clearly. Additionally should this fail I will adapt it to address that concern, I've thought up a mechanism to ensure payment that would be included in a second attempt.

[The Arctic Ocean]

He's probably referring to the fact that clause 6 says nation's can send an invoice to the travelers country of origin. Without a way to make nations pay this is a completely useless clause.

That is one of the more valid points people have made and I respect it, I only wish this particular nation made it more clearly. Additionally should this fail I will adapt it to address that concern, I've thought up a mechanism to ensure payment that would be included in a second attempt.

Don't forget about the Seal Pelt clause, my dude. The shamanic healing lobby is strong in the arctic.

[Araraukar]

Don't forget about the Seal Pelt clause, my dude. The shamanic healing lobby is strong in the arctic.

OOC: Depending on what species of seal, you might be in violation of at least two existing resolutions...

[Conales Europa]

Although Colanes still has some work to do on their healthcare program, we have decided to go against this proposed bill from the World Assembly. We especially disagree with clauses 3, 5 and 6. How can we be 100% sure that the nation of origin of the patient will pay for all costs that occurred during the medical treatment process? And the fact that this will come out of our pockets even if it is not a life-threatening situation is just absurd in our eyes. The recent founding of our nation also contributes to the fact that we do not want to be flogged with bills for international patients who got into an accident in our nation, we would prefer to have some breathing space while we figure out the ropes over here.
So as stated, we vote against. I hope that other fellow nations can understand why we are doing this and possibly agree with our vote.

-The Government of The Holy Empire of Conales Europa

[Folik]

The lack of compassion from many WA nations is troubling. We voted for the resolution.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: This has been getting closer all day. Only 36 votes in it now. Despite Bananaistan having voted against, I'd be rather pleased if it passed considering the campaign against it. Are the proposers running a campaign of their own?

[Chus Kruthe]

OOC: This has been getting closer all day. Only 36 votes in it now. Despite Bananaistan having voted against, I'd be rather pleased if it passed considering the campaign against it. Are the proposers running a campaign of their own?

No I've been advised that may backfire, I'm hoping we pull ahead that Bitley bs is ridiculous and frankly part of why I will try this proposal again should it fail.

[Araraukar]

OOC: This has been getting closer all day. Only 36 votes in it now. Despite Bananaistan having voted against, I'd be rather pleased if it passed considering the campaign against it. Are the proposers running a campaign of their own?

No I've been advised that may backfire, I'm hoping we pull ahead that Bitley bs is ridiculous and frankly part of why I will try this proposal again should it fail.

OOC: I've specifically told CK to not campaign, either via TG or RMB or any such venue. I allowed him to talk to a couple of friends of his who happened to be delegates. I haven't done even that, since I believe in the "once it's at vote, it'll pass or fail on its own".

The vote difference is currently within like 10 votes.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: The margin has increased to four hundred votes against. Unless a World Space Administration situation occurs, R.I.P. proposal.