[PASSED] Freedom to Seek Medical Care

[Scherzinger]

does this mean i have to waste medical materials on elderly and undesirables?

[Kaiser Adolf]

For.

[Wallenburg]

‎

For fuck's sake.

[Sil Dorsett]

I'm disappointed in myself for not realizing this earlier and bringing this up, but...

If I am interpreting this and past resolutions correctly, but given Clause 1 of this proposal...

"Prohibits member nations from denying or restricting their citizens or permanent residents from leaving to obtain medically necessary healthcare in other nations at their own expense, subject to any restrictions previously imposed by the General Assembly," (emphasis added)

versus Clause 4 of GA 389...

4) Requires that all member nations, to the best of their capability:

• create at least one quarantine per epidemic in the nation;
• move all infected persons into the appropriate quarantine that is nearest to their current location;
• provide every treatment to all infected persons that are in a quarantine while taking any available precaution to ensure that the people administering these treatments are not infected;
• move anyone that ceases to be an infected person out of the quarantine;
• disband all quarantines of a certain epidemic when the epidemic ends;

If GA 389 were repealed, would that then mean that nations could not establish quarantines to prevent infected citizens from leaving the nation to seek care, potentially infecting others along the way?

If this does not pass or is repealed later on, I would suggest changing "restrictions previously imposed by the General Assembly" to "extant General Assembly resolutions" so that a future resolution could still legislate on matters regarding quarantines. If a resubmission is necessary and includes this alteration, I would support it.

[Republic of British Russia]

voted for, but will still follow this bill (is that what it is called? can't remember) regardless and we have an NHS anyways.

[Discoveria]

‎

For fuck's sake.

Agreed. It's an annoying thing but this should either be edited (by mods, if that is actually possible) or pulled and resubmitted.

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

Ser Aegon Snow: "Against"

Ser Dawrin Stone: "Against"

Jamie Hill, Esq.: "Abstain"

Maester Tarquin: "For"

Ser Aegon Snow: "Two to one. Dragonslund votes in opposition. Gotta keep the WA away from our highly advanced potions and leech application charts."

[Imperial Polk County]

‎

‎

"Not once, but twice? Sloppy. Very sloppy. There was ample opportunity immediately after submitting to proofread it and if necessary withdraw it. Voting against."

[The Hooved]

Whilst foreign citizens are of course welcome to seek healthcare within the Confederacy, we cannot possibly support a measure which would allow citizens to seek experimental or unethical treatments elsewhere to avoid our regulations on provisions.

This resolution aims to punish pro-life nations and nations with high standards of health provision, whilst using the language of the free market.

Our vote shall surely be cast against.

[Araraukar]

Unfolding the official opinion from the Central Office of Araraukar, Johan sighed, wishing again that Janis would get back soon.

"The Grand Nation of Araraukar is against any measures meant to be enacted by the World Assembly to outsource national healthcare. Quality healthcare should be the responsibility of each member nation, as is already mandated by an existing resolution. It is not acceptable for nations to worm their way out of that, as clause 7 of this proposal practically encourages them to do. As such, our vote is cast against."

[New Waldensia]

,&#8206

Might want to get rid of that

OOC: Consider it code for "military-trained felines", or whatever nonsense was in a recently passed measure.

In all seriousness, that was not in the version I submitted, and I didn't catch it after submission. Perhaps the NS mods/admin can fix the submission form to where it doesn't include random HTML language in the future.

[Queer AnComville]

The Collective's representative pauses. "We see no reason to oppose as we are already in alignment with this resolution. We will vote for, though are willing to listen to arguments from other nations as to why we should change our vote."

[Araraukar]

In all seriousness, that was not in the version I submitted, and I didn't catch it after submission.

OOC: When you're submitting a proposal, there's a "preview" option, just like there is for forum posts. I suggest making it a habit to check everything's in order that way before actually submitting.

[Sanctaria]

OOC:

The Republic of Europeia, of whom I have the honour of representing as Minister for World Assembly Affairs, is opposed to this resolution.

As said in our Information For Voters:

This Ministry notes that the language used in the resolution regarding the further legislating of restrictions on quarantine and emigrations, i.e. "previous resolutions", means that should the previous resolutions that regulate such be repealed, then this is the only resolution on the book that regulates quarantine and emigration - and it's use of "previous" rather than "extant" means no further legislation can be passed.

This is concerning because this resolutions tells us nations cannot prevent people from leaving for medical purposes. Quarantine is often, and almost exclusively, used for medical and public health purposes. As such, if previous resolutions on quarantine were repealed, then this would essentially prohibit it. This is not something this Ministry can support.

We trust that any future submissions will endeavour to rectify the problems laid out therein.

Regards,


Minister for World Assembly Affairs

[Downwinds]

Seems as if this could be taken by some nations as being ok to provide substandard healthcare as it will be taken care of abroad if the patients want it badly. It's hardly as if the world is on a roughly even level with respect to healthcare provisions - it varies wildly between states. It creates a disparity in healthcare between the rich and poor - the rich can afford to travel and get the latest treatments and drugs, which may not be widely available yet everywhere. Also, we believe all people should be treated fairly. Thus, it would be against our morals to deny healthcare to foreigners in the country. And as our country has a social healthcare service which covers all people equally, a bill like this would promote health tourism to countries with extensive health services.. I can't put into words exactly what I mean but something seems a bit off about this. Mostly that it could be used as a reason to underfund ones own healthcare nationally and expect patients to go elsewhere.

[Aclion]

Seems as if this could be taken by some nations as being ok to provide substandard healthcare as it will be taken care of abroad if the patients want it badly. It's hardly as if the world is on a roughly even level with respect to healthcare provisions - it varies wildly between states. Mostly that it could be used as a reason to underfund ones own healthcare nationally and expect patients to go elsewhere.

Nations already can and do provide substandard healthcare to some, or all, of their populations. What this proposal changes is that nations that do this may not prevent their citizens getting healthcare that is better then their own systems provide.

It creates a disparity in healthcare between the rich and poor - the rich can afford to travel and get the latest treatments and drugs, which may not be widely available yet everywhere. Also, we believe all people should be treated fairly. Thus, it would be against our morals to deny healthcare to foreigners in the country. And as our country has a social healthcare service which covers all people equally, a bill like this would promote health tourism to countries with extensive health services.. I can't put into words exactly what I mean but something seems a bit off about this.

This disparity already exists even within nations, it is not a consequence of the proposal. The question we are facing is "Should we allow nations to prevent the underserved from seeking better healthcare outside of their nations?"

[Lolz and Civfive]

The ambassador steps up to the podium: “This proposal will encroach on my, and many other nations, soverign rights”.

[Fauxia]

The ambassador steps up to the podium: “This proposal will encroach on my, and many other nations, soverign rights”.

“You mean it’s a General Assembly resolution?”

[FreethinkingAnarchists ResidingWherever]

An unusually thoughtful resolution! With the exception of the second half of the "believing" clause, we are in favor.

Voted yes!

[Gnomeregon]

I would like to note concern that this legislation does not seem to prevent people from getting illegal medcine from another country and bringing it in to their home country. This could result in increase of black market trading.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I would like to note concern that this legislation does not seem to prevent people from getting illegal medcine from another country and bringing it in to their home country. This could result in increase of black market trading.

"No other legislation does either, Ambassador. It's a separate issue for a separate resolution. Tourists and business travelers are already able to attempt smuggling; I don't see how adding medical tourists to the mix increases that risk to any serious degree."

[Flying Eagles]

“You know, this World Assembly takes formalities way too seriously. I mean, we can clearly understand the intent of this resolution so we may as well vote for”

OOC: The &#8206 is probably because something got screwed up with the coding.

[Flying Eagles]

“And Also, the rules with the WA are clear in our mind, when two resolutions conflict, the one passed into existence EARLIER takes precedence”

“As an example, if GA#1001 stated that you have the right to ban any refugee you wished from entering your country, and GA#1256 stated that you must accept all refugees, we would believe that international law would be that you can ban any refugee you wished”

OOC: Knowing this WA, we all recognize that GA#1256 would have never been passed

[Flying Eagles]

I'm disappointed in myself for not realizing this earlier and bringing this up, but...

If I am interpreting this and past resolutions correctly, but given Clause 1 of this proposal...

"Prohibits member nations from denying or restricting their citizens or permanent residents from leaving to obtain medically necessary healthcare in other nations at their own expense, subject to any restrictions previously imposed by the General Assembly," (emphasis added)

versus Clause 4 of GA 389...

4) Requires that all member nations, to the best of their capability:

• create at least one quarantine per epidemic in the nation;
• move all infected persons into the appropriate quarantine that is nearest to their current location;
• provide every treatment to all infected persons that are in a quarantine while taking any available precaution to ensure that the people administering these treatments are not infected;
• move anyone that ceases to be an infected person out of the quarantine;
• disband all quarantines of a certain epidemic when the epidemic ends;

If GA 389 were repealed, would that then mean that nations could not establish quarantines to prevent infected citizens from leaving the nation to seek care, potentially infecting others along the way?

If this does not pass or is repealed later on, I would suggest changing "restrictions previously imposed by the General Assembly" to "extant General Assembly resolutions" so that a future resolution could still legislate on matters regarding quarantines. If a resubmission is necessary and includes this alteration, I would support it.

“Persons have the right to seek healthcare wherever they want, GA#389 currently deals with quarantines and if it ever gets repealed, then we can repeal this one and deal with other legislation as appropriate. In the current state of things, this resolution is fine.

[FreethinkingAnarchists ResidingWherever]

Unfolding the official opinion from the Central Office of Araraukar, Johan sighed, wishing again that Janis would get back soon.

"The Grand Nation of Araraukar is against any measures meant to be enacted by the World Assembly to outsource national healthcare. Quality healthcare should be the responsibility of each member nation, as is already mandated by an existing resolution. It is not acceptable for nations to worm their way out of that, as clause 7 of this proposal practically encourages them to do. As such, our vote is cast against."

On those lines of reasoning, your vote is a mistake.

Even if quality healthcare should be the responsibility of each member nation (which is a horrible imperative since it's impossible without taxation and other forms of coercion), then this resolution would STILL be fine.

The resolution, neither in section 7 nor in any other line, prevents a member from prioritizing quality healthcare as a "responsibility".

To be quite honest, you and the others opposing this resolution sound like you're just terrified of allowing others to seek YOUR quality healthcare because you are xenophobic, racist hypocrites with no more concern for human life than you can squeeze out of your fake concern for healthcare.

FARW welcomes and appreciates this effort to help ALL people get the healthcare they want or need, and we will welcome anyone from Araraukar who may feel unwelcome by their two-faced government.