NSG Senate Coffee Shop: We don't serve decaf

[The Liberated Territories]

Perhaps then senator, the subject should of utilized her liberty to avoid getting the tumor in the first place, instead of voiding the liberties of others to deal with it by not paying for the consequences. That guarantee creates no incentive to actually reduce the number of abortions taking place, beyond simply legalizing it and safeguarding the operation. And of course it does no justice for the masses who may or may not agree with the prospect of abortion, agitating them further under the knowledge that their money goes to what they consider murder, not unlike what the liberal minded among us sees the death penalty or torture.

How exactly do you avoid getting a tumor? Does someone who suffers from a crippling disease, but not a lethal one, someone how healthy? Is a national health service not designed to prevent and treat such diseases?

Your analogy was stupid. I don't like abortion, and I want a time limit on how late it can be done, but it is a legitimate medical practice and should be funded as such.

PREGNANCY IS TYPICALLY PREVENTABLE. A tumor isn't.

Now can we move on?

[Estva]

How exactly do you avoid getting a tumor? Does someone who suffers from a crippling disease, but not a lethal one, someone how healthy? Is a national health service not designed to prevent and treat such diseases?

Your analogy was stupid. I don't like abortion, and I want a time limit on how late it can be done, but it is a legitimate medical practice and should be funded as such.

PREGNANCY IS TYPICALLY PREVENTABLE. A tumor isn't.

Now can we move on?

Getting hit by a car is avoidable too. As is falling of a cliff. Should these two events happen, even through individual negligence, should they be covered?

[Sebastianbourg]

The Calaverde Defence Act

Author: Senator Léon Suero
Sponsors:

Section 1 - Establishment:
1. This act shall hereby establish the Calaverde Armed Forces (CAF), with the goal of defending the nation and pursuing the collective security of its citizens using lethal force if neccessary.
2. The CAF shall be comprised of three branches. The Calaverde National Army (CNA), the Calaverde National Navy (CNN), and the Calaverde National Air force (CNAF).
3. Each branch shall have a Chief of Staff, apoointed by the Minister of Defence, who shall be the highest ranking officer of said branch.
4. The three Chiefs of Staff shall convene and make decisions regarding the military as a whole. As a group they shall be known as the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
5. Each Chief of Staff may be removed from office by the President.
6. The President of Calaverde shall be the Commander-in-chief of the CAF. Any order by the President shall overrule orders by a subordinate, so long as the order is within the President's legal powers.
7. The Minister of Defence shall have the same legal power of the President over the CAF, with the exception of overruling the President's orders.
8. Courts dealing with military matters and its laws shall be named the Calaverde Military Court System, and shall be an arm of the judiciary.
9. Funding shall be determined by the Calaverde legislature.
Section 2 - Membership:
1. All Calaverde citizens at or above the age of 18 may petition to join the CAF.
2. Physical and educational requirements may apply to different positions, as well as generally required physical and educational requirements for basic enlistment.
3. These requirements are to be decided by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
4. The time period of enlistment obligation shall be decided by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
5. These are subject to change by Calaverde legislation.
Section 3 - Limitations:
1. The CAF shall not be used for policing, with the exception of military installations or national emergency.
2. The CAF is not authorized to use lethal force on Calaverde citizens unless they are a) aiding an invading nation, b) aiding or otherwise taking violent part in a rebellion, c) actively taking part in a crime or fleeing from military police officers attempting to arrest them, on a military installation and/or d) attacking members or property of the CAF.
3. The CAF shall be subject to any international treaties or laws regarding human rights Calaverde has ratified.

I (Sebastian van Oldenbarnevelt of the Liberal Democrats) sponsor this bill.

[The Liberated Territories]

PREGNANCY IS TYPICALLY PREVENTABLE. A tumor isn't.

Now can we move on?

Getting hit by a car is avoidable too. As is falling of a cliff. Should these two events happen, even through individual negligence, should they be covered?

Only if it doesn't make others cover for it, sure.

[Estva]

I (Sebastian van Oldenbarnevelt of the Liberal Democrats) sponsor this bill.

Thank you.

[Sebastianbourg]

I (Sebastian van Oldenbarnevelt of the Liberal Democrats) sponsor this bill.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

[Estva]

Getting hit by a car is avoidable too. As is falling of a cliff. Should these two events happen, even through individual negligence, should they be covered?

Only if it doesn't make others cover for it, sure.

So then you are just opposed to a national healthcare system period?

[Atlanticatia]

How exactly do you avoid getting a tumor? Does someone who suffers from a crippling disease, but not a lethal one, someone how healthy? Is a national health service not designed to prevent and treat such diseases?

Your analogy was stupid. I don't like abortion, and I want a time limit on how late it can be done, but it is a legitimate medical practice and should be funded as such.

PREGNANCY IS TYPICALLY PREVENTABLE. A tumor isn't.

Now can we move on?

I mean, you can also prevent breaking your leg by not skiing. You can prevent being mugged by not walking through a dangerous neighborhood.

Why should people be punished for their mistakes? Should we withhold health care from anyone who has an accident? Should the person who breaks their leg while skiing not get publicly funded emergency treatment? Should the person who gets HIV from having unprotected sex not get publicly funded HIV medication?

And to address the morality part: should the government not fund birth control, because some people are morally and religiously opposed to it? Should public hospitals not treat gay people, since people might be opposed to their tax dollars to fund the treatment of someone who is gay?

That is a very silly reason to not want to fund abortion, because pregnancy is (in some cases, and definitely not 100%) preventable. The key thing is that abortion, regardless of how the person got pregnant, is a valid and necessary medical service and should be funded as such.

[The Nihilistic view]

How exactly do you avoid getting a tumor? Does someone who suffers from a crippling disease, but not a lethal one, someone how healthy? Is a national health service not designed to prevent and treat such diseases?

Your analogy was stupid. I don't like abortion, and I want a time limit on how late it can be done, but it is a legitimate medical practice and should be funded as such.

PREGNANCY IS TYPICALLY PREVENTABLE. A tumor isn't.


Now can we move on?

"Don't be a slut and prevent your pregnancy!" said Boris.

[The Liberated Territories]

PREGNANCY IS TYPICALLY PREVENTABLE. A tumor isn't.

Now can we move on?

I mean, you can also prevent breaking your leg by not skiing. You can prevent being mugged by not walking through a dangerous neighborhood.

Why should people be punished for their mistakes? Should we withhold health care from anyone who has an accident? Should the person who breaks their leg while skiing not get publicly funded emergency treatment? Should the person who gets HIV from having unprotected sex not get publicly funded HIV medication?

And to address the morality part: should the government not fund birth control, because some people are morally and religiously opposed to it? Should public hospitals not treat gay people, since people might be opposed to their tax dollars to fund the treatment of someone who is gay?

That is a very silly reason to not want to fund abortion, because pregnancy is (in some cases, and definitely not 100%) preventable. The key thing is that abortion, regardless of how the person got pregnant, is a valid and necessary medical service and should be funded as such.

Why should other people have to pay for others mistakes? Why should we guarantee healthcare to people who may not learn from their mistakes, abuse it, or whatever? I am more than happy to cover the costs of a person who developed terminal cancer, because they couldn't have possibly prevented that. But when you overtly know about the risks that a particular situation you are in, and decide to continue with it, you consent to any consequences that may befallen you. We are not lenient on drunk drivers that decide to have a bit too much to drink and then take someone's life. Why, because it's preventable.

Yes and yes. You are initiating force against those who have no say in the matter. And of course, "gayness" doesn't qualify as a treatable illness.

With the exception of rape, all sex is voluntary. Stop bsing yourself.

[Atlanticatia]

I mean, you can also prevent breaking your leg by not skiing. You can prevent being mugged by not walking through a dangerous neighborhood.

Why should people be punished for their mistakes? Should we withhold health care from anyone who has an accident? Should the person who breaks their leg while skiing not get publicly funded emergency treatment? Should the person who gets HIV from having unprotected sex not get publicly funded HIV medication?

And to address the morality part: should the government not fund birth control, because some people are morally and religiously opposed to it? Should public hospitals not treat gay people, since people might be opposed to their tax dollars to fund the treatment of someone who is gay?

That is a very silly reason to not want to fund abortion, because pregnancy is (in some cases, and definitely not 100%) preventable. The key thing is that abortion, regardless of how the person got pregnant, is a valid and necessary medical service and should be funded as such.

Why should other people have to pay for others mistakes? Why should we guarantee healthcare to people who may not learn from their mistakes, abuse it, or whatever? I am more than happy to cover the costs of a person who developed terminal cancer, because they couldn't have possibly prevented that. But when you overtly know about the risks that a particular situation you are in, and decide to continue with it, you consent to any consequences that may befallen you. We are not lenient on drunk drivers that decide to have a bit too much to drink and then take someone's life. Why, because it's preventable.

Yes and yes. You are initiating force against those who have no say in the matter. And of course, "gayness" doesn't qualify as a treatable illness.

With the exception of rape, all sex is voluntary. Stop bsing yourself.

Because access to health care is a right and it makes sense to have a universal, public health insurer. The state should be a caring state - not a paternalistic state that punishes people and withholds medical treatment because 'personal responsibility' or whatever libertarianthink was being mentioned.

The drunk driver that gets injured while drunk driving should still receive medical treatment, though.

The whole point of health insurance is to be insured for accidents and such.

[Estva]

Why should other people have to pay for others mistakes? Why should we guarantee healthcare to people who may not learn from their mistakes, abuse it, or whatever? I am more than happy to cover the costs of a person who developed terminal cancer, because they couldn't have possibly prevented that.

So you are fine with covering a smoker who developed terminal lung cancer? If no, what about someone who developed cancer from working a dangerous job dealing with chemicals? Both are avoidable.

But when you overtly know about the risks that a particular situation you are in, and decide to continue with it, you consent to any consequences that may befallen you. We are not lenient on drunk drivers that decide to have a bit too much to drink and then take someone's life. Why, because it's preventable.

If they are hurt during the accident, they are still treated. They are held accountable through criminal charges. What if someone was driving and got slammed by a drunk driver, and had their leg broken in the process? Such an incident was avoidable - they could have simply not driven.

[The Liberated Territories]

Why should other people have to pay for others mistakes? Why should we guarantee healthcare to people who may not learn from their mistakes, abuse it, or whatever? I am more than happy to cover the costs of a person who developed terminal cancer, because they couldn't have possibly prevented that. But when you overtly know about the risks that a particular situation you are in, and decide to continue with it, you consent to any consequences that may befallen you. We are not lenient on drunk drivers that decide to have a bit too much to drink and then take someone's life. Why, because it's preventable.

Yes and yes. You are initiating force against those who have no say in the matter. And of course, "gayness" doesn't qualify as a treatable illness.

With the exception of rape, all sex is voluntary. Stop bsing yourself.

Because access to health care is a right and it makes sense to have a universal, public health insurer. The state should be a caring state - not a paternalistic state that punishes people and withholds medical treatment because 'personal responsibility' or whatever libertarianthink was being mentioned.

The drunk driver that gets injured while drunk driving should still receive medical treatment, though.

The whole point of health insurance is to be insured for accidents and such.

I'd like to see proof of these magical rights, then.

Yes. But the expenses should come out of his pocket, unless they are life threatening. Because of /a/

Okay that's great. Now insure yourself.

Why should other people have to pay for others mistakes? Why should we guarantee healthcare to people who may not learn from their mistakes, abuse it, or whatever? I am more than happy to cover the costs of a person who developed terminal cancer, because they couldn't have possibly prevented that.

So you are fine with covering a smoker who developed terminal lung cancer? If no, what about someone who developed cancer from working a dangerous job dealing with chemicals? Both are avoidable.

But when you overtly know about the risks that a particular situation you are in, and decide to continue with it, you consent to any consequences that may befallen you. We are not lenient on drunk drivers that decide to have a bit too much to drink and then take someone's life. Why, because it's preventable.

If they are hurt during the accident, they are still treated. They are held accountable through criminal charges. What if someone was driving and got slammed by a drunk driver, and had their leg broken in the process? Such an incident was avoidable - they could have simply not driven.

Such loaded questions, But alright.

1.) Yes - no. Because a positive right to "good health" doesn't exist as much as a negative right to life does.

2.) If they are aware that their work would cause it, no.

3.) Then why don't, instead of pressing criminal charges for the mere act of being stupid, make him pay for his own medical affairs as an added natural consequence alongside the murder? That would be a much better deterrent when waying the risks. Except the victim never consented to be hurt by a drunk driver. It is aggression on the drunk driver's part.

[Geilinor]

Utilized her liberty to avoid getting a tumor? What???

She can prevent her cancer by just trying harder and, you know, liberty, I guess, in libertarianthink.

Pregnancy is however, to a point, preventable. That is a stupid comparison.

Negative liberty is a thing. But of course I know most social democrats throw that idea out in their pursuit of morally ambiguous entitlements.

If we're talking about abortion, what do entitlements have to do with this?

[Heraklea-]

Pregnancy is however, to a point, preventable. That is a stupid comparison.

Negative liberty is a thing. But of course I know most social democrats throw that idea out in their pursuit of morally ambiguous entitlements.

If we're talking about abortion, what do entitlements have to do with this?

Any time some dumb ass libertarian wants to rail against government involvement, they call it an entitlement like it's supposed to scare you.

[The Liberated Territories]

Pregnancy is however, to a point, preventable. That is a stupid comparison.

Negative liberty is a thing. But of course I know most social democrats throw that idea out in their pursuit of morally ambiguous entitlements.

If we're talking about abortion, what do entitlements have to do with this?

Entitlement to be covered for abortion by the taxpayer.

[Estva]

1.) Yes - no. Because a positive right to "good health" doesn't exist as much as a negative right to life does.

I don't care about positive vs. negative rights. I simply believe national health service should be established.

2.) If they are aware that their work would cause it, no.

Then why have universal healthcare at all?

3.) Then why don't, instead of pressing criminal charges for the mere act of being stupid, make him pay for his own medical affairs as an added natural consequence alongside the murder?

What would that solve? It's not going to dissuade someone any further considering they are going to jail for so long anyway. It certainly doesn't stop people in the US.

That would be a much better deterrent when waying the risks. Except the victim never consented to be hurt by a drunk driver. It is aggression on the drunk driver's part.

They could have avoided it though, by not driving. When you choose to drive, you consent you might be harmed, otherwise you would not drive.

Ttell me specific scenarios where you would be covered under you plan, as it seems more would not be covered than those who are covered. And how exactly would you prove it was their fault? They need immediate treatment, what are you going to do, prove it in court? A colossal waste of spending.

[Geilinor]

If we're talking about abortion, what do entitlements have to do with this?

Entitlement to be covered for abortion by the taxpayer.

If it's only covered in the cases of rape and medical complication, fine.

[Atlanticatia]

I don't care about positive vs. negative rights. I simply believe national health service should be established.

This, this, this.

I could care less about negative rights and libertarian philosophy or the "big, bad coercive state". Those arguments aren't relevant to me. I just think we need a national health service: it makes a lot of sense, will make people better off, and improve the public health. And we can ensure that people get what they're entitled to: health care. Which makes people far better off than keeping some tax dollars ever would.

[Geilinor]

I agree with Estva and Atlanticatia. I don't believe that taxes violate individual rights and I don't recognize negative vs. positive rights.

[Estva]

I don't care about positive vs. negative rights. I simply believe national health service should be established.

This, this, this.

I could care less about negative rights and libertarian philosophy or the "big, bad coercive state". Those arguments aren't relevant to me. I just think we need a national health service: it makes a lot of sense, will make people better off, and improve the public health. And we can ensure that people get what they're entitled to: health care. Which makes people far better off than keeping some tax dollars ever would.

Especially in a region where so many people may lack healthcare.

[Sebastianbourg]

Proposed flag.

Orange: Our Dutch influences;
Red: The blood lost to the Junta and our Spanish and French influences (it's a colour in the flags of both countries);
White: The peaceful and harmonious society we seeks to build;
Blue: The sea and our British influences.

[Atlanticatia]

Proposed flag.

(Image)

Orange: Our Dutch influences;
Red: The blood lost to the Junta and our Spanish and French influences (it's a colour in the flags of both countries);
White: The peaceful and harmonious society we seeks to build;
Blue: The sea and our British influences.

I like that. I'd prefer a bit less harshness in the red, though, and a bit more of an aqua tint on the blue.

[Sebastianbourg]

Proposed flag.

(Image)

Orange: Our Dutch influences;
Red: The blood lost to the Junta and our Spanish and French influences (it's a colour in the flags of both countries);
White: The peaceful and harmonious society we seeks to build;
Blue: The sea and our British influences.

I like that. I'd prefer a bit less harshness in the red, though, and a bit more of an aqua tint on the blue.

I'll see what I can do.

[Novsvacro]

Henrico returns from getting more coffee.

"As some of us have said, I think that a NHS would very positively affect our nation. Many citizens do not have the income for effective healthcare, and many would doubt our government's dedication to the national welfare if we didn't address that issue. Taxes will have to be higher of course; I don't see the problem with that, since less income disparity, the better it is for our Republic."