Abandoned] Affordable Healthcare and Pre-Existing Conditions

[Hatzisland]

Once again, we have altered the contents of the proposal to make it more focused on affordability.

Affordable is a subjective term

That is why we have the mark-up clause(and remember, this proposal is in early drafting stages, so recommendations are more than welcome.)

Is Clause 1 not a big wobbly house of cards?

I think it would stand on its own, even if GAR #97 is repealed(which is extremely unlikely.)

[Wrapper]

Is Clause 1 not a big wobbly house of cards?

I think it would stand on its own, even if GAR #97 is repealed(which is extremely unlikely.)

OOC: I disagree. If GAR#97 is repealed, then the right to healthcare access for all WA nation citizens has no longer been established. This is an active clause, carrying the force of law, and not a preambulatory clause, which would carry no weight.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think the clause is an active one. It's assertion of some fact being true is in of itself an activity. Of course, we could use the reasoning in the ruling on House of Cards to limit analysis solely to substantive mandates, of which this is not, but considering the almost nonexistent increase in authorial choice by making such a decision and the resultant required increase in dispositive capacity, there's much to be weighed.

[United Massachusetts]

I think the clause is an active one. It's assertion of some fact being true is in of itself an activity. Of course, we could use the reasoning in the ruling on House of Cards to limit analysis solely to substantive mandates, of which this is not, but considering the almost nonexistent increase in authorial choice by making such a decision and the resultant increase in dispositive capacity, there's much to be weighed.

Now, one could also make the audacious assumption, per the substantive precedent established in Secretariat ruling GA 4.3, that the sui generis patois employed by citizens of the Imperium, when coupled with its customarily inscrutable syntax and vindicated by its largely comprehensible scores on The Golub Syntactic Density Test, itself the Imperium's interlocutory modus operandi, should be the only one admissible in these hallowed halls, long the sixth most ancient purveyor of eggnog in times of good cheer. Surely we shan't be considered ferae naturae, shall we?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Yes.

[Kenmoria]

“Is clause 2 supposed to clarify something in GA #097? If so, you can’t really do that. If it is instead clarifying something else, then I recommend for you to put it closer to that clause.”

[Hatzisland]

So my question is could I move the first 2 "clarifies" clauses to the preamble, and it be legal?

[Kenmoria]

So my question is could I move the first 2 "clarifies" clauses to the preamble, and it be legal?

(OOC: Yes, but it would have to be something such as: ‘RECOGNISING that this assembly has previously granted the right to healthcare access to all citizens of member nations, and that this right can take either governmental or privatised form,”.)

[Hatzisland]

So my question is could I move the first 2 "clarifies" clauses to the preamble, and it be legal?

(OOC: Yes, but it would have to be something such as: ‘RECOGNISING that this assembly has previously granted the right to healthcare access to all citizens of member nations, and that this right can take either governmental or privatised form,”.)

OOC: The changes will be made. Are there any other concerns?

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 4 seems potentially dangerous if the private company is not able to provide a reasonable standard of care to people who have certain conditions. Unlike public healthcare, which has the resources of the entire nation, private healthcare may be limited to one or two buildings, and not have the facilities to care for unique conditions.”

[Hatzisland]

“Clause 4 seems potentially dangerous if the private company is not able to provide a reasonable standard of care to people who have certain conditions. Unlike public healthcare, which has the resources of the entire nation, private healthcare may be limited to one or two buildings, and not have the facilities to care for unique conditions.”

Fixed. Any other concerns?

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Clause one can be made a lot clearer, though I think there is room to increase the exact percentage. I recommend just altering what you put in the OOC note, in your response to my original inquiry, into a clause format, possible with an explanatory subclause.)

[Hatzisland]

(OOC: Clause one can be made a lot clearer, though I think there is room to increase the exact percentage. I recommend just altering what you put in the OOC note, in your response to my original inquiry, into a clause format, possible with an explanatory subclause.)

OOC: I will do so, but I don't know how to word it in a way that is any less confusing as it is now. Do you have any recommendations?

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Clause one can be made a lot clearer, though I think there is room to increase the exact percentage. I recommend just altering what you put in the OOC note, in your response to my original inquiry, into a clause format, possible with an explanatory subclause.)

OOC: I will do so, but I don't know how to word it in a way that is any less confusing as it is now. Do you have any recommendations?

(OOC: How about: ‘MANDATES that no privatised healthcare company set a price, of over four times the average cost to that business of providing health care in a given period of time, to any individual treatment,’?)

[Hatzisland]

OOC: I will do so, but I don't know how to word it in a way that is any less confusing as it is now. Do you have any recommendations?

(OOC: How about: ‘MANDATES that no privatised healthcare company set a price, of over four times the average cost to that business of providing health care in a given period of time, to any individual treatment,’?)

OOC: We will make the changes. Anything else?

[Maowi]

OOC:

1. Mandates hat no private healthcare company set a price, of over four times the average cost to that business of providing health care in a given period of time, to any individual,

Change hat --> that, and personally I would prefer it without the first comma. Also, I feel like 'in a given period of time' doesn't really mean anything as written. A company could just be like 'It costs this huge sum of money to provide healthcare to an individual for 100 years, so we can charge you four times that' and it would still be in compliance with this proposal as currently worded.

2. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, a 'pre-existing condition' as a permanent physical or mental condition not directly caused by the living being,

I think you should clarify what you mean by 'not directly caused by the living being'. It's a little vague atm.

3. Mandates that governments not discriminate, whether in plan acceptance or cost, against people with pre-existing conditions,

I think you mean that governments shouldn't discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions in the context of healthcare. If you do, could you make that more explicit?

4. Further mandates that private-sector health care companies not discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions in plan acceptance, unless the business does not have the adequate facilities to care for the unique condition,

Why not cost as well as plan acceptance?

[Hatzisland]

OOC:

1. Mandates hat no private healthcare company set a price, of over four times the average cost to that business of providing health care in a given period of time, to any individual,

Change hat --> that, and personally I would prefer it without the first comma. Also, I feel like 'in a given period of time' doesn't really mean anything as written. A company could just be like 'It costs this huge sum of money to provide healthcare to an individual for 100 years, so we can charge you four times that' and it would still be in compliance with this proposal as currently worded.

2. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, a 'pre-existing condition' as a permanent physical or mental condition not directly caused by the living being,

I think you should clarify what you mean by 'not directly caused by the living being'. It's a little vague atm.

3. Mandates that governments not discriminate, whether in plan acceptance or cost, against people with pre-existing conditions,

I think you mean that governments shouldn't discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions in the context of healthcare. If you do, could you make that more explicit?

4. Further mandates that private-sector health care companies not discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions in plan acceptance, unless the business does not have the adequate facilities to care for the unique condition,

Why not cost as well as plan acceptance?

The necessary changes have been made. The reason we have decided not to add cost is because it could cause a massive increase in premiums for healthy citizens(Quick OOC: see Obamacare.) If individual nations want to apply that policy, they can. Please share any other recommendations with us.

[Araraukar]

The reason we have decided not to add cost is because it could cause a massive increase in premiums for healthy citizens(Quick OOC: see Obamacare.)

OOC: Only reason that happened in USA is because you have a private for-profit healthcare system. The exiting requirements of the WA resolutions are closer to Nordic model, which has way lower healthcare costs per person than the whole of USA, exactly because everyone pays (through taxes) and everyone benefits (public healthcare is not for-profit, and is thus usually much cheaper for the people using it too) from it.

So put cost in and if people grumble, tell them they're godmodding noncompliance. That seems to be the way to shut up critics here these days.

[Kenmoria]

“I believe clause 4 would be better without the words ‘plan acceptance or cost’, since by doing this you inadvertently allow discrimination that doesn’t fall under one of those categories. If you just have a mandate against discrimination, it covers far more possibilities.”

[Hatzisland]

“I believe clause 4 would be better without the words ‘plan acceptance or cost’, since by doing this you inadvertently allow discrimination that doesn’t fall under one of those categories. If you just have a mandate against discrimination, it covers far more possibilities.”

We have made the necessary changes.

The reason we have decided not to add cost is because it could cause a massive increase in premiums for healthy citizens(Quick OOC: see Obamacare.)

OOC: Only reason that happened in USA is because you have a private for-profit healthcare system. The exiting requirements of the WA resolutions are closer to Nordic model, which has way lower healthcare costs per person than the whole of USA, exactly because everyone pays (through taxes) and everyone benefits (public healthcare is not for-profit, and is thus usually much cheaper for the people using it too) from it.

So put cost in and if people grumble, tell them they're godmodding noncompliance. That seems to be the way to shut up critics here these days.

We will change it for now, but should we receive strong enough pushback on it, we will remove it.

[Araraukar]

We will change it for now, but should we receive strong enough pushback on it, we will remove it.

OOC: So basically you're a fairweather weathervane with editing? Also, what is "strong enough"? Do people who don't obey even the existing resolutions coming to object to this one count?

[Hatzisland]

We will change it for now, but should we receive strong enough pushback on it, we will remove it.

OOC: So basically you're a fairweather weathervane with editing? That's not a very well working tactic.

OOC: Well, no. I'm 50-50 on whether or not I support this, so I'm leaving it up to what is most popular. Anyways, if my proposal doesn't have the support of the majority of the WA, it won't pass. If I have to take out some clauses and compromise in order to pass it, I will.

Do you have any other concerns?

[Araraukar]

OOC: I'm 50-50 on whether or not I support this

OOC: Why are you drafting it if you don't believe in it and don't really want it?

[Hatzisland]

OOC: I'm 50-50 on whether or not I support this

OOC: Why are you drafting it if you don't believe in it and don't really want it?

OOC: Wow. That's really out context. I was speaking on the idea of expanding protections for people with pre-existing conditions from plan acceptance to both that and cost. That's what I'm 50-50 on, and am seeking the opinion of the WA for.

Once again, are there any other concerns with the proposal?

[Araraukar]

Once again, are there any other concerns with the proposal?

OOC: Yes. You're not fixing the issues you moan about in preamble. You're just adding another layer of vagueness.