[PASSED] Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"

[Graintfjall]

“We support this pared-down version of the argument. Gangi þér vel!”

-- Júlía Maria Jónsdóttir

[Honeydewistania]

“We support this pared-down version of the argument. Gangi þér vel!”

-- Júlía Maria Jónsdóttir

"We appreciate the support, and hope other delegations feel the same way."

[Honeydewistania]

"If there are no objections, this will be submitted at the end of the week."

[Kenmoria]

"If there are no objections, this will be submitted at the end of the week."

“I see no reason not to support this repeal. Good luck, ambassador.”

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Hmmmmmmmmm, that Clause 4 argument.

4: Prohibits member nations from taking legal action against citizens or permanent residents who seek medical treatments or operations abroad, as long as General Assembly resolutions have not been violated,

I think what this says is that member states may not seek legal action against their own citizens or permanent residents who have sought medical treatment in other countries. It's the use of the word "abroad" that makes me think this. So in other words, your home nation can't prosecute or sue you for your medical tourism unless you took your trip out of the country in order to subject yourself or someone else to WA-banned treatment of one sort or another; but there is nothing that says the nation you're travelling to can't charge you with those murders and armed robberies you committed while there, because from that nation's perspective you are not a citizen or permanent resident of that country travelling "abroad" (to a country outside of that one).

Maybe I'm reaching. But maybe not. I welcome arguments for and against the above position.

[Morover]

"Contingent on a replacement, we support this endeavor. We eagerly await Freedom to Seek Medical Care III."

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

"We approve of this repeal, as medical tourism is a serious issue that needs to be remedied."

[Honeydewistania]

"Contingent on a replacement, we support this endeavor. We eagerly await Freedom to Seek Medical Care III."

"As stated, we are waiting for someone to take on writing a replacement. If needed, I could come up with a quick draft."

[Honeydewistania]

OOC: Hmmmmmmmmm, that Clause 4 argument.

4: Prohibits member nations from taking legal action against citizens or permanent residents who seek medical treatments or operations abroad, as long as General Assembly resolutions have not been violated,

I think what this says is that member states may not seek legal action against their own citizens or permanent residents who have sought medical treatment in other countries. It's the use of the word "abroad" that makes me think this. So in other words, your home nation can't prosecute or sue you for your medical tourism unless you took your trip out of the country in order to subject yourself or someone else to WA-banned treatment of one sort or another; but there is nothing that says the nation you're travelling to can't charge you with those murders and armed robberies you committed while there, because from that nation's perspective you are not a citizen or permanent resident of that country travelling "abroad" (to a country outside of that one).

Maybe I'm reaching. But maybe not. I welcome arguments for and against the above position.

In my opinion, I disagree. It doesn’t say which citizen or permanent resident, so any citizen or permanent resident of any country that travels abroad to seek medical care is free from legal repercussions. I might be wrong though, so I too ask for other opinions on this.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Hmmmmmmmmm, that Clause 4 argument.

4: Prohibits member nations from taking legal action against citizens or permanent residents who seek medical treatments or operations abroad, as long as General Assembly resolutions have not been violated,

I think what this says is that member states may not seek legal action against their own citizens or permanent residents who have sought medical treatment in other countries. It's the use of the word "abroad" that makes me think this. So in other words, your home nation can't prosecute or sue you for your medical tourism unless you took your trip out of the country in order to subject yourself or someone else to WA-banned treatment of one sort or another; but there is nothing that says the nation you're travelling to can't charge you with those murders and armed robberies you committed while there, because from that nation's perspective you are not a citizen or permanent resident of that country travelling "abroad" (to a country outside of that one).

Maybe I'm reaching. But maybe not. I welcome arguments for and against the above position.

If this is true, then it would still be the case that nation X cannot take action against its own residents for actions committed outside of nation X. And this would then yield an amendment such as

which prohibits a member nation from taking legal action against its medical tourists except for those violating World Assembly law, which could allow such tourists to evade domestic justice;

In significantly more complicated terms: such a prohibition would remove the ability of a nation to impose universal jurisdiction for certain crimes; it would also place nations which refuse extradition to countries with poor legal system into a bind between injustice and facilitating possible violations of their citizens' human rights. It would also make it more difficult for recipient nations to accept medical travellers without strong extradition mechanisms, as an investigatory delay implies that travellers might depart before they can be apprehended.

[Honeydewistania]

OOC: Hmmmmmmmmm, that Clause 4 argument.



I think what this says is that member states may not seek legal action against their own citizens or permanent residents who have sought medical treatment in other countries. It's the use of the word "abroad" that makes me think this. So in other words, your home nation can't prosecute or sue you for your medical tourism unless you took your trip out of the country in order to subject yourself or someone else to WA-banned treatment of one sort or another; but there is nothing that says the nation you're travelling to can't charge you with those murders and armed robberies you committed while there, because from that nation's perspective you are not a citizen or permanent resident of that country travelling "abroad" (to a country outside of that one).

Maybe I'm reaching. But maybe not. I welcome arguments for and against the above position.

If this is true, then it would still be the case that nation X cannot take action against its own residents for actions committed outside of nation X. And this would then yield an amendment such as

which prohibits a member nation from taking legal action against its medical tourists except for those violating World Assembly law, which could allow such tourists to evade domestic justice;

In significantly more complicated terms: such a prohibition would remove the ability of a nation to impose universal jurisdiction for certain crimes; it would also place nations which refuse extradition to countries with poor legal system into a bind between injustice and facilitating possible violations of their citizens' human rights. It would also make it more difficult for recipient nations to accept medical travellers without strong extradition mechanisms, as an investigatory delay implies that travellers might depart before they can be apprehended.

I’ve amended it

[Cretox State]

OOC: Really early draft of a replacement: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=488933

[Honeydewistania]

With the arrival of the replacement, a submission will be at least Friday (pending further concerns that are unable to be fixed in the next few days)

[Honeydewistania]

Submitted

[Araraukar]

With the arrival of the replacement, a submission will be at least Friday (pending further concerns that are unable to be fixed in the next few days)

OOC: You mean the replacement that's WORSE than the target? The point was that the replacement should be honed up to perfection first.

No support.

[Honeydewistania]

With the arrival of the replacement, a submission will be at least Friday (pending further concerns that are unable to be fixed in the next few days)

OOC: You mean the replacement that's WORSE than the target? The point was that the replacement should be honed up to perfection first.

No support.

There is ample time for the replacement to be refined by the time this goes to vote.

[Araraukar]

OOC: You mean the replacement that's WORSE than the target? The point was that the replacement should be honed up to perfection first.

No support.

There is ample time for the replacement to be refined by the time this goes to vote.

OOC: Not the point. Point was support for this depended on the replacement being ready to go AND BETTER THAN THE TARGET.

[Honeydewistania]

There is ample time for the replacement to be refined by the time this goes to vote.

OOC: Not the point. Point was support for this depended on the replacement being ready to go AND BETTER THAN THE TARGET.

You make a good point. I'll consider withdrawing it (especially if a legality issue pops up)

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm fine supporting repeal without immediate replacement.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I still think you'd have had a better choice in adding in the bit about sentence-serving criminals needing to be let out of prison and to go haring off to get treated without requirement to come back. It would have helped your flimsy point of illegalities.

[Honeydewistania]

OOC: I still think you'd have had a better choice in adding in the bit about sentence-serving criminals needing to be let out of prison and to go haring off to get treated without requirement to come back. It would have helped your flimsy point of illegalities.

Maybe, but I agree with Graintfjall and IA that it should be short as possible.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I still think you'd have had a better choice in adding in the bit about sentence-serving criminals needing to be let out of prison and to go haring off to get treated without requirement to come back. It would have helped your flimsy point of illegalities.

Maybe, but I agree with Graintfjall and IA that it should be short as possible.

OOC: Then you definitely should've gone for the sentenced prisoners angle. It's even shorter.

[Picairn]

This proposal is officially at vote.

[Kus Sikobietordia]

I'm fine supporting repeal without immediate replacement.

President stand
Hello Comrades and member. I feel that untill a better bill can be past we must not repeal this bill millons of people from less fortunate countries participate in our Universal Health Care programs if we repeal we will be denying as a country hundreds of millions of people that rely on this program this is just another way for the bourgeoisie capitalist to undercut the working class People I plead to my countries who are socialist countries to not vote for this bill and keep the freedom to seek Medical Care Act 2 Bill alive with no immediate replacement bill millions of people will be out without Healthcare and I hope that the countries that are voting to accept this know that they are accepting the fact that there are people in their countries and their regions that will be without Healthcare

[Anistria]

From: Oscar Lancaster, Anistrian Representative to the World Assembly.

The Government of Anistria shall not vote for this bill. As stated by the Government of Kus Sikobietordia, if we repeal the bill, we will deny less fortunate countries with Universal Healthcare programs of some countries, like Anistria. If we were to repeal Medical Care Act II, we must propose another resolution that will replace it.