NationStates

Kus Sikobietordia wrote: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 proletariat 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

>Proletariat
>Bourgeoisie capitalist
"Choose one, Mr. President. Also did you ever hear the tragedy of the Paragraph with no Punctuation?"

Anistria wrote: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.

“There is currently a replacement piece of legislation being drafted, which does look somewhat better compared to the target.”

Kenmoria wrote:

Anistria wrote: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.

“There is currently a replacement piece of legislation being drafted, which does look somewhat better compared to the target.”

From: Oscar Lancaster, Anistrian Representative to the World Assembly

The Government of Anistria might consider to change its stance if the third draft is sound.

Anistria wrote:From: Oscar Lancaster, Anistrian Representative to the World Assembly

The Government of Anistria might consider to change its stance if the third draft is sound.

Feargal gestures to the ambassador.

"If you direct yourself this way, ambassador, you will find the replacement draft up for inspection.

"Anyway, this repeal has our full support."

Maowi wrote:

Anistria wrote:From: Oscar Lancaster, Anistrian Representative to the World Assembly

The Government of Anistria might consider to change its stance if the third draft is sound.

Feargal gestures to the ambassador.

"If you direct yourself this way, ambassador, you will find the replacement draft up for inspection.

"Anyway, this repeal has our full support."

We are taking the general position for this, and foreseeable legislative attempts, that a repeal can not be ex post facto justified by a replacement that is not yet drafted, and that it is very unoften that hypothetical problems with a single clause in an otherwise well situated and internationally important resolution is sufficient justification alone for a repeal without replacement. Beyond this general position, we are thus far unimpressed by the early draft of the heretofore not fully resolved proposal that may or may not result in the replacement of the current resolution facing repeal. It is a general, and unfortunate, condition of this body to be reactionary, and not to think beyond the immediate concerns of a single proposal or draft, as has been demonstrated by numerous passed resolutions which actually block effective legislation on the very matter that they are purported to address. And the same goes for many repeals which have regressed this body on important issues with no or little thought toward preserving what is already in place and effective. Repeals without fully drafted replacements are perfunctory, but sadly not without pockets of strong support as the vote on this repeal demonstrates. We will, however, be submitting a vote of AGAINST in the matter of Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II".

Maowi wrote:

Anistria wrote:From: Oscar Lancaster, Anistrian Representative to the World Assembly

The Government of Anistria might consider to change its stance if the third draft is sound.

Feargal gestures to the ambassador.

"If you direct yourself this way, ambassador, you will find the replacement draft up for inspection.

"Anyway, this repeal has our full support."

From: Oscar Lancaster, Anistrian Representative to the World Assembly

Very well, I will look into it.

From: Oscar Lancaster, Anistrian Representative to the World Assembly

The Government of Anistria, considering the current options that was laid down on them, has decided to change their vote to support for the repeal.

Honeydewistania wrote:

Category: Repeal
Target: 456
Proposed by: [nation]Honeydewistania[/natio
General Assembly Resolution #456 "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II" (Category: Civil Rights; Strength; Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging General Assembly Resolution 456, “Freedom to Seek Medical Care II”, as a resolution that permits people to seek medical care in foreign nations;

Troubled by the poor wording of Clause 4, 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;

Believing that creating a class of individuals who are exempt from vast swathes of law means that people they harm are unable to secure justice;

Convinced that a resolution with such a blatant disregard for the national laws of member nations should not be enacted by this assembly;

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution 456, "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II".

Category: Repeal
Target: 456
Proposed by: Honeydewistania

General Assembly Resolution #456 “Freedom to Seek Medical Care II” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength; Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging GA#456 as a resolution to protect medical tourists and as the successor to the repealed GA#414;

Saddened, however, that despite the carefully laid out arguments in GA#415, the resolution that repealed GA#414, GA#456 still has numerous flaws that could cause problems to member nations;

Troubled by the poor wording of Clause 4, which prohibits member nations from taking legal action against medical tourists except for those violating World Assembly law;

Concerned that Clause 4 disregards national laws of the nations medical tourists travel to, which could grant immunity to medical tourists to cause havoc in member nations without penalty;

Dismayed that GA#456 fails to account for contagious disease spread as a result of medical tourism, which could result in unscreened residents to move to other nations and spread disease, causing epidemics which could easily be prevented;

Distressed that despite Clause 1 of GA#456 permitting member nations to prohibit residents from traveling to countries engaged in an armed conflict with the country they are travelling from, it fails to consider a plethora of factors, which as a result permits unregulated travel to unsafe countries such as:

1. countries involved in an active armed conflict within its own borders;
2. countries involved in an active armed conflict with other countries;
3. countries severely affected by ongoing man-made or natural disasters;

Worried that allowing unregulated travel to such countries could not only put an unnecessary strain on the existing healthcare systems in such nations, but it could also result in the death of serious injury of the medical tourists, defeating the goal of this resolution to protect said tourists;

Disappointed that despite the concern of Clause 5 being raised in GA#415, which removes the obligation of member nations to pay for medical services of medical tourists that are unable to afford it, the clause remains completely unchanged; and

Firmly convinced that GA#456 is a resolution that causes more problems than it solves, and does not meet the goal of protecting medical tourists;

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution 456, “Freedom to Seek Medical Care II”.

"Yet another repeal for you ambassadors, but this time we invite other nations to draft up a replacement for this." declares Mr Hepperle, grinning.

The President of The People's Republic of
Kus Sikobietordia a longtime political advocate for the working class poor gets up and speaks
My fellow members of the world assembly for those who are voting for this bill I once again urge you not to be so naive and quick to repeal this act which in my opinion is a very important act for the world Assembly to repeal I feel that we are not guaranteed that the new bill will be approved by this assembly leaving millions and millions of of people from poor and third world country in our region and in other our countries without Healthcare and without access two healthy safe options we would need some guarantees before we repeal at this time I'm not sure can be guaranteed also I feel that if we repeal this act there needs to be some clause making sure that we are able to guarantee poor working-class countries health care options prior to repeal or a layover of this bill to go into effect until the new bill is drafted and passed that is the only way I feel that will be fair and equal to all parties I feel that this is another attack by the bourgeoisie against the working-class people I condemn the country that put this bill up for repeal and I condemn all of the supporter of this we will stand and fight and repeal this repeal furthermore you are endangering country's who have for long time had policies in place to help third world refugees seek medical care and medical asylum in their country my country example has an open border policy when it comes to seeking Healthcare which this body has no jurisdiction on how a country runs their nation state with this repeal you are stopping us from exercising nation state rights our country unfortunately we will have to turn away hundreds of thousands of people at our border and deny another million more with Healthcare visits cancer patients of foreign countries and third world countries will not have access to Healthcare for more advanced countries this will put a strain on international Aid I can urge all countries not to repeal this you are declaring war on the poor and you are need to be ashamed of yourself

Kus Sikobietordia wrote:...

"Ambassador, you can only repeal this repeal by supporting the replacement."

Ardiveds wrote:

Kus Sikobietordia wrote:...

"Ambassador, you can only repeal this repeal by supporting the replacement."

Can we even guarantee that there will be a replacement there is no guarantee that they will renege on the replacement bill that's why there has to be some give-and-take and some Clause put into the bill

Kus Sikobietordia wrote:

Ardiveds wrote:"Ambassador, you can only repeal this repeal by supporting the replacement."

Can we even guarantee that there will be a replacement there is no guarantee that they will renege on the replacement bill that's why there has to be some give-and-take and some Clause put into the bill

OOC: the replacement's draft is already there and you can't legistate in repeals so there can be no give-and-take. That would make the repeal illegal.
Edit: replacement draft: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=488933

Honeydewistania wrote:

Maowi wrote:
Feargal gestures to the ambassador.

"If you direct yourself this way, ambassador, you will find the replacement draft up for inspection.

"Anyway, this repeal has our full support."

can there be some allowed time because once you repeal this act there will be no way that we will be able to provide services to these countries so we would need you protection and Provisions prior to this new repeal going into place

I don't think that the forth clause makes people seeking medical treatment a lawless class of people, all it does is ensure that people can get medical treatment without being criminalized on that basis. I don't think a complete repeal of the act is necessary, but maybe an amendment to specify which laws that people seeking medical treatment should follow and would be judged under given their position. the act essentially is a medical visa and should be treated as such. to repeal this clause over minuscule clerical error is a little harsh and would disadvantage those who truly need this clause to receive treatment. I suggest voting against this proposal and making an amendment proposal instead. that way, the grammar in the original act can be changed and it's effects won't be annihilated.

Rovylin wrote:...

OOC: Amendments aren't allowed in GA resolutions.

“Although we understand the concern regarding the vagueness in the wording of Clause 4 of Freedom to Seek Medical Care II, the jurisprudence of our Judicial Power has given from the first moment the interpretation proposed by Sierra Lyricalia

Sierra Lyricalia wrote: 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).

So, we understand that, as many opinionated colleagues have stated, by approving this Resolution and until its replacement is approved, we would be leaving a very large legal gap and unprotecting those who, with great effort, try to find adequate medical treatment in other countries.

We are aware of the existence of a draft to replace Freedom to Seek Medical Care II, and we are willing to collaborate so that the text offers the best possible protection. But we believe that before repealing the current Resolution, a broad agreement should be reached regarding the draft that will replace it.

That is why we advance our vote against the proposed Resolution”.

Heliodoro Fernández.
Ambassador of The Community of The Option for the Poor before the General Assembly and the Security Council.

The Option for the Poor wrote:“Although we understand the concern regarding the vagueness in the wording of Clause 4 of Freedom to Seek Medical Care II, the jurisprudence of our Judicial Power has given from the first moment the interpretation proposed by Sierra Lyricalia

Sierra Lyricalia wrote: 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).

So, we understand that, as many opinionated colleagues have stated, by approving this Resolution and until its replacement is approved, we would be leaving a very large legal gap and unprotecting those who, with great effort, try to find adequate medical treatment in other countries.

We are aware of the existence of a draft to replace Freedom to Seek Medical Care II, and we are willing to collaborate so that the text offers the best possible protection. But we believe that before repealing the current Resolution, a broad agreement should be reached regarding the draft that will replace it.

That is why we advance our vote against the proposed Resolution”.

Heliodoro Fernández.
Ambassador of The Community of The Option for the Poor before the General Assembly and the Security Council.

OOC: usually a new proposal gets passed pretty quickly, so I wouldn’t be too concerned.

How fast will it be this time?

Congrats Honeydewistania! That was a landslide vote

Another one bites the dust.

Tinhampton wrote:

Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II" was passed 14,055 votes to 2,353.

How fast will it be this time?

Also, what do you mean how fast?