Health event! I wrote this to try to add another liberal health policy card to the pool (the fifth option), but I think it provides options for people to sort their nations widely.
I’ve noticed that NationStates has obesity rates tend to collapse in very egalitarian nations. I really think the simulation is onto something there. Bad nutrition policy and hatred of the public in the real world seems to have been driven by inequality, and it became self-reinforcing once the public’s health had been disdained thoroughly enough. That sickly, hated public was not equipped to prosper. I expect a state that disdains most of it people in favor of ‘a few who actually matter’ has little reason to invest in the health of the public. They’re more efficiently kept down if they’re encouraged to inflict bad health on themselves! On that note, “they do it to themselves,” is something that I’ve seen used quite rudely. This event creates an opportunity for societies to inflict good health on themselves, instead.
I don't know everything about what's going on behind the scenes in this game, so obviously the suggested stat effects are just a starting point that would be likely to change during implementation.
Introductory gag: Against all odds, a group of awful death-fearing conservatives have managed to launch an independent candidate into the legislature, much to the misery of the good right-thinking liberals who everyone knows just long to die as fast as possible. Amidst a storm of violent rhetoric and three broken podiums, a crying mob of lobbyists and legislators has begged you to do something to shut him up.
Option 1: MANDATORY SHAME
“We have let the purveyors of bad health run RAMPANT!” blusters the burly conservative legislator at the center of the controversy, with a strike to his podium for emphasis and a wagging finger after. “We are letting the strength of our nation be DESTROYED! It’s time we took back our health. Every business that could harm public health needs NEW POSTERS to remind their patrons how they are SHAMING THEIR NATION!”
Effect line: Legal businesses can be very SHAMEFUL.
Stats: Conservative. Authoritarian. Can only lower death rates. “Polite” in rude nations; rude in polite nations. Increases patriotism and crime; reduces pacifism (violent behavior) and probably reduces safety. Increases health and ignorance. Hurts retail; may extinguish it if retail is weak. Slightly decreases food quality, economic freedom, basket-weaving, pizza delivery, beverage sales, information technology, intelligence, and tourism, slightly increases wealth equality, manufacturing, mining, timber woodchipping, and arms manufacturing. If the nation is VERY authoritarian, this acts as liberal infiltrationism, thereby decreasing both conservatism and authoritarianism while slightly increasing economic freedom and retail; the posters are used as an excuse to tolerate some (SHAMEFUL) things that were previously not legal at all.
Option 2: Sugar taxes (+Inclusivity) (Requires retail to exist in nation.)
The fat banker you hired to be your finance minister purely because he looks like an offensive capitalist stereotype pats his belly and says, “Ho hum on this shame business! Fat people don’t want to be fat, and there’s no sense being rude about it. Let’s just raise sugar taxes and let the price system work itself out.”
Effect line: Protein bars have replaced candy bars next to checkout stands.
Stats: Slightly polite, inclusive, and pacifist, and almost certain to lower death rates. Hurts retail and beverage sales, but won’t extinguish them. Good for health if the nation isn’t already doing it. Less effect on obesity rates than most pro-health policies; tiny chance of very slightly increasing obesity rate and health. Slightly reduces income tax; no overall effect on size of government. Slightly conservative, slightly authoritarian, and slightly increases food quality, trout fishing, and furniture restoration, while slightly reducing agriculture. Very slight increase of wealth inequality. Slight decrease in patriotism? Being told to be tolerant drains some of the flag-waving types, I think. Slightly increases ignorance without reducing intelligence; price-focused policy is ‘invisible policy’ that helps people whether they notice it or not, so a few more of the ignorant people are healthy.
Option 3: “Accidentally” mess up the supply for sweets (Socialist economies only)
“We’re feedin' people ourselves, ain’t we? So why we feeding ‘em badly?” asks a comrade from the state planning department. “Bludger this taxes business. Let’s just lose a few shipments. Engineer a shortage of wot people ought not eat anyways. Send a year’s supply of candy bars to Maxtopia! Let’s not HAVE unhealthy foods in the stores for a little while, eh?”
Effect line: Kids who like candy love the children of smugglers.
Stats: Corrupt (obviously), but good for health. Probably reduces death rates, but also increases crime and risks increasing death rates (less likely if obesity rates are actually high; greater need = saner policy). Potentially increases safety despite crime (safety-conscious state planners are at least ostensibly doing it for the public health). Slightly increases food quality. Slightly decreases business subsidization, law enforcement, agriculture, retail, employment, and economy; slightly increases manufacturing, trout fishing, and furniture restoration. Slightly decreases size of government if the business subsidization and law enforcement hits land, but due to economic losses it’s unlikely to increase freedom from taxation. Usually favors ignorance over intelligence (these corrupt people are protecting the stupid people in their society). Slightly authoritarian.
Option 4: The omni-health audit (erratic effects on corruption/integrity)
“I’ve the sense that we may be facing some intrinsic contradictions,” says an enterprising bureaucrat from the civil service. “Maybe we should take a ‘first, do no harm’ approach and make sure that the whole government is aligned for health. I mean, ARE we subsidizing ANY unhealthy products? Let’s audit everything!”
Effect line: The administrative department is auditing the administrative department to find out if the administrative department’s audits affect health outcomes.
Integrity/corruption note: This launches a bunch of odd-angle audits that currently corrupt people in government are unlikely to have prepared for… but it’s also a great opportunity for featherbedding an assignment that never has to yield a real result. On average, this is corrupt, and it’s more likely to change the guard than increase integrity… though if there are actual gains in health policy to be made this way (nations with heavy unhealthy business subsidies, f’rex), it’s more likely to increase integrity.
Other stats: This MAY increase health and lower death rates. SLIGHTLY. It also slightly trims sectors of government other than administration (largest trim in business subsidies), but the increase to administration means that it almost never reduces the overall size of government. It also slightly increases safety, pacifism, ignorance, and environmental beauty, while slightly decreasing crime and rudeness (the ‘corruption’ in this case mostly pays placid people to do nothing). The rudeness reduction is larger if doing this increases integrity. Unless this reduces the overall size of government, it should decrease freedom from taxation (no effect on FFT if it reduces the size of government). Should this fail to improve health or integrity, it’s likely to very slightly increase the death rate…
Option 5: Cut public healthcare and fund biotech scholarships (“make good health something people do to themselves”)
“All these proposals seem a bit intrusive,” says your Health Minister, a fellow you appointed entirely for seeming like the nation’s chillest doctor. “Obviously I can't say we shouldn't do something for health, but maybe we can do something unusual? I’ve read that biotech students have better health than average. Launch a scholarship program for doctors, biologists, botanists, so forth, and I bet I could even knock down a few marginal programs to cover the cost. We can make good health something people do to themselves.”
Effect line: Education-first health policy is putting doctors in the unemployment line.
Stats: Trims public health spending while increasing educational spending; increases freedom from taxation if public health spending is considerably larger than education spending (net reduction of size of government), but otherwise decreases freedom from taxation. Small health improvement; effect is small, but it can only lower death rates. Increases science and intelligence; slight drain on primitivism and may sometimes fail to drain primitivism (biotechnology favors wilderness more than other fields), but moderately drains ignorance. Slightly increases environmental beauty, safety, pacifism, unemployment, basket-weaving, pizza delivery, beverage sales, agriculture, trout fishing, timber woodchipping, book publishing, and patriotism. Increases weather by 1 point. Slightly reduces crime, mining, manufacturing, automobile manufacturing, and probably slightly reduces rudeness… unless it increased tax burdens, in which case it may slightly increase rudeness instead. Liberal and anti-authoritarian.
