NationStates

DRAFT 4: Readability edits.

TITLE:
Private Parts

VALIDITY:
NHS, Capitalism. No single-child policy, Contraception not illegal. No digital money.

DESCRIPTION:
Your Health Minister's recent vasectomy was put under the magnifying glass after it was discovered that the operation was carried out in a private hospital, sidestepping the long waiting lists and crowded clinics of the state-funded NHS.

OPTION 1
"How can we have any faith in a Health Minister that doesn't want to use the services that he's in charge of?" asks rabble-rouser Willy Price. "He should resign from his post, and we should be aiming to invest more into improving NHS services. Here's an idea... why don't you tax private healthcare providers, and funnel that money back into the NHS? Let the fat cats pay!"

OUTCOME:
cowboy plastic surgeons offer a discount if you're happy to pay in cash

OPTION 2
"By using private healthcare, I was reducing the strain on NHS waiting lists, and freeing up healthcare resources for others," spins your Health Minister, sitting down very gently on a soft chair. "If anything we should be encouraging this altruistic behaviour. You could have high earners pay an NHS-contributions surcharge that is waived if they have private healthcare. Also the state could subsidise paying patients, perhaps to the tune of 50% of the cost they saved the NHS. That way we encourage reduced healthcare spending, and recognise the contribution made by those selfless individuals."

OUTCOME:
the poorest in society rely on "trickle-down healthcare"

OPTION 3
"The only problem with that line of thinking is that a doctor who is doing private work isn't available for NHS work," counters father-of-eight Mr. O Dearknott-Aggen, who has been waiting for an NHS vasectomy for far too long. "If we're going to have socialised healthcare let's do it properly. Force doctors to work at least ten days in the NHS for every one day they spend doing private work. That'll keep private practice prices nice and high, and keep NHS waiting lists nice and short."

OUTCOME:
private surgeons have been told to cut it out

DRAFT 3: Opening redone




DRAFT 2: Added to option to incorporate MLS ideas.

TITLE:
Private Parts

VALIDITY:
NHS, Capitalism. No single-child policy, Contraception not illegal. No digital money.

DESCRIPTION:
Uproar occurred when it was revealed that your Health Minister's recent vasectomy was carried out in a private hospital, sidestepping the long waiting lists and crowded clinics of the state-funded NHS.

OPTION 1
"How can we have any faith in a Health Minister that doesn't want to use the services that he's in charge of?" asks rabble-rouser Willy Price. "He should resign from his post, and we should be aiming to invest more into improving NHS services. Here's an idea... why don't you tax private healthcare providers, and funnel that money back into the NHS? Let the fat cats pay!"

OUTCOME:
cowboy plastic surgeons offer a discount if you're happy to pay in cash

OPTION 2
"By using private healthcare, I was reducing the strain on NHS waiting lists, and freeing up healthcare resources for others," spins your Health Minister, sitting down very gently on a soft chair. "If anything we should be encouraging this altruistic behaviour. You could have high earners pay an NHS-contributions surcharge that is waived if they have private healthcare, and also have the state subsidise paying patients, perhaps to the tune of 50% of the cost they saved the NHS. That way we encourage reduced healthcare spending, and recognise the contribution made by those selfless individuals."

OUTCOME:
the poor are expected to be grateful to the rich for making the hard sacrifice of being richer

OPTION 3
"The only problem with that line of thinking is that a doctor who is doing private work isn't available for NHS work," counters father-of-eight Mr. O Dearknott-Aggen, who has been waiting for an NHS vasectomy for far too long. "If we're going to have socialised healthcare let's do it properly. Force doctors to work at least ten days in the NHS for every one day they spend doing private work. That'll keep private prices nice and high, and keep NHS waiting lists nice and short."

OUTCOME:
private surgeons have been told to cut it out

DRAFT 1:

Is the health service in @@NAME@@ called NHS as well?

Honeydewistania wrote:Is the health service in @@NAME@@ called NHS as well?

I don't see why it can't be called the National Health Service. You could even argue that NHS is a broad descriptor in this case, like saying "the army".

Edit: Why no digital currency?

Honeydewistania wrote:Is the health service in @@NAME@@ called NHS as well?

Apparently so, precedent was set by Issue 217, and we've gone with that since then.

No digital currency is just for the sake of option 1's effect line.

In Australia, if you earn more than a certain amount and don't have private health insurance, you're charged an extra annual tax to make up for what you would have paid. Can you incorporate that in?

I think the term 'NHS' is fine (I mean, the precedent is there already), but needs an explanation so everyone's on the same page reading this. I'm from a country that has no NHS, but has something similar, yet ever so slightly different. As I'm not familiar with the term NHS from a user point of view, I don't really know if I've got the same idea in my head while reading this as other readers.

Other than that, great options, great effect lines, short and to the point without lacking humour!

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:No digital currency is just for the sake of option 1's effect line.

Which is too good for you to cut out.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Uproar occurred when it was revealed that your Health Minister's recent vasectomy was carried out in a private hospital rather than on the NHS, sidestepping the long waiting lists and crowded clinics in the state-funded service.

This desc is far too heavy with the passive voice for my taste, especially "Uproar occurred".

Interesting -- for me, opening descriptions should always read a bit like news reports (especially given the narrative framing of a newspaper headline on the issues page), and so I've always tended to edit towards the passive voice.

How would you have written this, for contrast?

Australian rePublic wrote:In Australia, if you earn more than a certain amount and don't have private health insurance, you're charged an extra annual tax to make up for what you would have paid. Can you incorporate that in?

From what I read, you have universal healthcare, but its paid for at the point of delivery then reclaimed afterwards, with means-testing on the medicare levy that funds it and a Medicare Levy Surcharge on high earners that is waived if you have a private healthcare plan.

It's quite interesting, and does relate here I guess, in that its an active encouragement for people NOT to use socialised healthcare if they can afford not to. I guess in that way it's basically the same as option 2 here, but in the opposite direction.

I'll tweak option 2 to include aspects of that in it, rather than make it a brand new option, as its essentially approaching from the same political direction -- that not using the NHS is a good thing.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:In Australia, if you earn more than a certain amount and don't have private health insurance, you're charged an extra annual tax to make up for what you would have paid. Can you incorporate that in?

From what I read, you have universal healthcare, but its paid for at the point of delivery then reclaimed afterwards, with means-testing on the medicare levy that funds it and a Medicare Levy Surcharge on high earners that is waived if you have a private healthcare plan.

It's quite interesting, and does relate here I guess, in that its an active encouragement for people NOT to use socialised healthcare if they can afford not to. I guess in that way it's basically the same as option 2 here, but in the opposite direction.

I'll tweak option 2 to include aspects of that in it, rather than make it a brand new option, as its essentially approaching from the same political direction -- that not using the NHS is a good thing.

Nope, if I'm not mistaking, all tax payers pay a Medicare levy. And noone's excluded from Medicare. People woth private health insurance also get Medicare, as they serve two different purposes. High-earners with private health insurance are exempt from paying more than the flat 1.5% Medicare levy for Medicare in their annual taxes. The idea is that if you force people who can afford it to pay about the annual private health insurance fees extra for Medicare (if not, more), those same people will instead pay for private health insurance, and take the strain away from the public health system. Medicare applies unconditionally to all citizens, irrespective of wealth levels. You go to the doctor, swipe your Medicare card. The doctor then submits records of Medicare cards and is paid for the number of visitors.

I'm almost certain that the system is the same for everyone, whether you're homeless or a billionaire. However, I don't know too many billionaires, so I cam't say for sure. My mum's an accountant. I wonder if she knows. Alternatively, I can ask my GP next time I see him...

Also, being paid by Medicare is called "bulk billing". Doctors have the right to choose whether or not to bulk bill, meaning that in urban areas, you'd be hard pressed to find a doctor who doesn't bulk bill, whilst in some rural areas, you'd be hard pressed to find a doctor who does. One could argue about the ethics of refusing Medicare for those who live in rural areas as they still pay the same Medicare taxes as those who live in the city, especiallg for those can't otherwise afford a doctor's visit. But I don't see why the government would care. After all, forcing doctors to bulk bill will just require more funding. This is GPs we're talking about, not hospitals. All public hospitals bulk bill. That's the definition of public hospital in this country. But that's not what my point was about.

Ahat my point was about was yes, you should have an option which disincentives people from using the NHS if they don't have to

Australian rePublic wrote:Nope, if I'm not mistaking, all tax payers pay a Medicare levy. And noone's excluded from Medicare. People woth private health insurance also get Medicare, as they serve two different purposes. High-earners with private health insurance are exempt from paying more than the flat 1.5% Medicare levy for Medicare in their annual taxes. The idea is that if you force people who can afford it to pay about the annual private health insurance fees extra for Medicare (if not, more), those same people will instead pay for private health insurance, and take the strain away from the public health system. Medicare applies unconditionally to all citizens, irrespective of wealth levels. You go to the doctor, swipe your Medicare card. The doctor then submits records of Medicare cards and is paid for the number of visitors.

Not completely relevant but I had to comment.

CWA is correct in pointing out that it's means-tested (albeit in a limited fashion). Low income earners pay a part or none of the Medicare surcharge.

As for the validity, does there need to be a 'no autocracy' option to account for the Opposition rabble-rouser?

As for the issue, I would reword the description slightly to make it flow a bit more smoothly:

Uproar occurred when it was revealed that your Health Minister's recent vasectomy was carried out in a private hospital, sidestepping the long waiting lists and crowded clinics of the state-funded NHS.

Good points. Amended the opening, and dropped the word "Opposition".

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:How would you have written this, for contrast?

Here's a quick and dirty edit:

Your Health Minister has been put under the public microscope when it was discovered his recent vasectomy was carried out in a private hospital, sidestepping the long waiting lists and crowded clinics of the state-funded NHS.

I'm really sorry I can't come up with an actual justification for why I don't like your opening phrase other than I just find it ever-so-slightly annoying.

Drasnia wrote:

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:How would you have written this, for contrast?

Here's a quick and dirty edit:

Your Health Minister has been put under the public microscope when it was discovered his recent vasectomy was carried out in a private hospital, sidestepping the long waiting lists and crowded clinics of the state-funded NHS.

I'm really sorry I can't come up with an actual justification for why I don't like your opening phrase other than I just find it ever-so-slightly annoying.

I can't say I disagree; "Uproar occurred..." just feels heavy-handed. I don't think this is a problem with passive voice in and of itself.

Cretox State wrote:I can't say I disagree; "Uproar occurred..." just feels heavy-handed. I don't think this is a problem with passive voice in and of itself.

Not to pile on, I also thought that "Uproar occurred" was an awkward construction (I did consider it on the edit above, but on balance decided to keep it for the sake of keeping your words). Passive voice is fine because the emphasis is on the Health Minister's actions, not the Health Minister himself.

You've convinced me!

Plus, it gives me an opportunity to conjure the image of the minister's genitals being examined with a magnifying glass!

Amended.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Plus, it gives me an opportunity to conjure the image of the minister's genitals being examined with a magnifying glass!

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Plus, it gives me an opportunity to conjure the image of the minister's genitals being examined with a magnifying glass!

That was the intent

Maybe you should directly say National Health Service instead of using NHS? I think some players might not understand what the acronym means.

Like I said, there's plenty of precedent for it in Issues, so happy to leave it as it is.

You could have high earners pay an NHS-contributions surcharge that is waived if they have private healthcare, and also have the state subsidise paying patients, perhaps to the tune of 50% of the cost they saved the NHS.

While personally I am a fan of long, complex sentences, perhaps you could consider separating this into two sentences. It could improve readability of that sentence, I think

the poor are expected to be grateful to the rich for making the hard sacrifice of being richer

Perhaps consider changing this effect line to "the poor are expected to thank the rich for making hard sacrifices for being rich"?

That'll keep private prices nice and high

Perhaps it's silly, but consider changing this to "That'll keep private practice prices nice and high", as the repeated 'pr' sounds would have a nice tick to it, haha

I think this issue would serve well in expanding what we have about healthcare in the issue pool so far! It also appears very streamlined and neatly written. Well done!

Great comments, thanks.

The more I looked at that effect line, the more I disliked it. I knew what I was trying to say, but was using too many words.

Replaced with this:

OUTCOME:
the poorest in society rely on "trickle-down healthcare"

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Great comments, thanks.

The more I looked at that effect line, the more I disliked it. I knew what I was trying to say, but was using too many words.

Replaced with this:

OUTCOME:
the poorest in society rely on "trickle-down healthcare"

It relays the previous effect line more succinctly, I believe, so it sounds good to me!