[PASSED] Quality in Health Services

[Sionis Prioratus]

THANK YOU post!

RECOGNIZING health is a duty of every nation, aiming at universal & equal access to health services (promotion, protection & recovery);

FURTHER RECOGNIZING health services rank among the ones which have the highest public relevance;

AFFIRMING it is necessary, under the law, to have government regulation & supervision, to be carried out directly or through third parties, and the duty of the World Health Authority (WHA) in assisting such actions if, and only if, so asked by any nation;

IT IS THEREFORE ESTABLISHED:

1) The health services shall constitute separate systems in each & every nation, organized according to the following guidelines:

a ) Full health services coverage;
b ) Community participation;
c ) Cooperation between nations that are not at a declared state of war amongst themselves.

2) The health system shall be financed by national budgets or the budgets of assigned political divisions, as well as other existing private voluntary sources. The WHA may also fund at the request of any nation, but never before a thorough audit of the health system, ensuring transparency & honesty. The WHA shall deny funding to any nation if there is:

a ) Reasonable suspicion of occurrence of deliberate diversion of money from the health budget towards other uses; the WHA shall never cover deliberate budgetary shortages;
b ) Reasonable evidence a nation’s economy is strong enough as to not actually need external help.

3) World Assembly members are strongly urged to provide voluntary health personnel & donated medical supplies to nations that ask for such help, due to issues such as, but not limited to, extreme poverty or disasters;

4) Nations, or any assigned political divisions, shall:

a ) Provide health personnel & supplies to health services at least once every budget cycle, aiming at the gradual reduction of internal health disparities;
b ) Establish the standards of review, evaluation & control of allocation of health personnel & supplies;
c ) The WHA shall assist the shaping of said standards if, and only if, so asked by any nation.

5) Nations or any assigned political divisions shall retain full freedom to:

a ) Allow or not, partial to full participation of private enterprise in their health systems;
b ) Provide assistance only to those who cannot afford to pay for their own care, if compelling practical purposes for such a policy can be proven beyond any doubt.

6) The health system of a nation, or any assigned political divisions, is responsible for:

a ) Helping the training of health personnel;
b ) Participating in the effort of eradication of endemic diseases;
c ) Participating in policy formulation & implementation of basic sanitation projects.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It cost billions to reform and reorganize Glen-Rhodes' health care system the first time around. Not to mention it shaped our political atmosphere for decades. Instituting a national health care system is something that cannot be mandated through international law.

The innumerous intricacies of health politics are only viewable on national levels; it takes thousands of pages of legal language to adequately govern. Frankly, it would be a folly to attempt establishing universal health care in 3,500 characters, in an institution encompassing thousands of unique governments and cultures.

Although I would agree to the World Assembly declaring health care a human right, I can't find any reasonable international qualification for going any further.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Charlotte Ryberg]

It is difficult to tell what a perfect health care system would be in the NS world: In some countries fully-nationalized health care may be the best for them while here in Charlotte Ryberg we have both public, private and not for profit because the citizens should have a choice. Other countries may just prefer to leave it to the private sector.

Amid the myriad systems all over the world, it would be completely plausible to promote the right to health care, but the extreme challenge would be convincing member states to accept responsibility for providing a particular type of health-care, like national insurance, because some member states may provide health-care for absolutely nothing, not even with national insurance!

Bear in mind that we already have the World Health Authority as a resolution but, as always, if you think you could pull off a imporved replacement, feel welcome to do so.

Mrs. Neda Ackermann MSc
Vice Ambassador to the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg, as Ms. Sarah Harper is currently on holiday.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Health care is a universal human right

How so? If people have rights simply because they are humans then it stands to reason that those rights exist even in the absence of government and could be violated even if there is no government. You can be robbed, raped or murdered, for example and those are human rights violations even if there is no government in existence to protect you or punish those who violated your rights. How can a "universal human right to health care" exist in a nation too poor to provide adequate health care for all? How did those rights exist in a time before modern medicine? Did cavemen have a "universal human right" to health care? If so, who was violating their rights if they didn't receive health care?

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

For the record, I don't have a problem with you requiring that people be given access to health care any more than I would have a problem with you requiring unemployment compensation or aid to families with dependent children. I have a problem with you declaring it a universal human right. Because it simply isn't.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It is a matter of ideological beliefs. I am a progressive, as I suspect the author is as well. I believe that "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control", as written in the constitutional law of Glen-Rhodes. (OOC: And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.)

Perhaps you disagree with the words because of your own definition of a 'human right'. I was a little confused about why one would say health care cannot be a human right; I figured that such a person must be confused about rights and freedoms. Rights are granted by governments to their people. What you describe is more of a freedom. In short: freedom is; rights are given. I believe it's permissible, at the very least, to call 'health care' a human right... though we're arguing semantics, here. Freedom or right, it would still have the same practical effect.

I suppose I should make clear my position on this, straightforward: I agree that health care is a human right, and I agree that the World Assembly can and probably should declare it so and mandate that health care be made accessible to all people. However, we should not be organizing national health care systems ourselves; leave those details to national governments.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Sionis Prioratus]

The innumerous intricacies of health politics are only viewable on national levels;

Indeed. I venture one step further and proclaim "[t]he innumerous intricacies of health politics" are only viewable on subnational levels. Thus:

The public health actions & services shall integrate a regionalized and hierarchical network and constitute a single system, organized according to the following guidelines:

I - Decentralization, with a single management in each sphere of government;
[...]
III - Community participation.

§ 2 The WHA, the Nations and any political subdivisions shall:

[...]
II - Establish together the standards of review, evaluation and control of expenditure on health in the Universal, National and local spheres;

It is not like some some fat geniuses at the WHA would be micromanaging all the health woes of the Universe. The WHA gnomes would be one more participant in an eternal discussion where the local (not even national) community's voice takes precedence; the WHA will not be a berserk King vomiting insane regulations coming from nowhere.

[Sionis Prioratus]

It is difficult to tell what a perfect health care system would be in the NS world: In some countries fully-nationalized health care may be the best for them while here in Charlotte Ryberg we have both public, private and not for profit because the citizens should have a choice.

Notwithstanding sharp disagreements in the past, the People & Goverment of Sionis Prioratus commend the Diplomatic Mission from Charlotte Ryberg for an attention to detail that borders on obsession, being thusly a major force in ensuring the overall quality of the Resolutions, whether we agree over the substance or not.

That said, the text precludes none of these:

1) "[F]ully-nationalized health care"
2) Systems where "we have both public, private and not for profit because the citizens should have a choice."

If you can demonstrate me wrong on this, I'll publicly acknowledge so and correct it.

What the text does preclude is leaving people to the Law of the Wolf, where people too weak and sick to pay to health care should simply shut up and die.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Health care is a universal human right

How so? If people have rights simply because they are humans then it stands to reason that those rights exist even in the absence of government and could be violated even if there is no government. You can be robbed, raped or murdered, for example and those are human rights violations even if there is no government in existence to protect you or punish those who violated your rights. How can a "universal human right to health care" exist in a nation too poor to provide adequate health care for all? How did those rights exist in a time before modern medicine? Did cavemen have a "universal human right" to health care? If so, who was violating their rights if they didn't receive health care?

I see your point.

Well first, rights can never be "created", by dicta or otherwise. Rights are. A proclamation of rights does not create rights, it merely acknowledges them.

In this case, it is a proclamation of a right that has been trampled on for far too much time.

1) How can a "universal human right to health care" exist in a nation too poor to provide adequate health care for all?

You may call this a non sequitur but, right now, "[any] nation too poor to provide adequate health care for all" has the right to possess nuclear weapons (the NAPA). And it strikes me as odd a certain correlation... The poorer a nation is, more it wants to have nuclear weapons.

How come nuclear weapons are moral but health care is not?

2) How did those rights exist in a time before modern medicine?

We can scrap the "modern medicine" here and leave it at "medicine". Medicine, old or modern or future, has the imprint of civilization here. Thus the right to health care can only be cogent in civilization where civilization itself has dawned.

3) Did cavemen have a "universal human right" to health care?

Even if such health care was limited medicinal herbs with low scores of therapeutical success, yes they did.

4) If so, who was violating their rights if they didn't receive health care?

I hope this one is already answered.

For the record, I don't have a problem with you requiring that people be given access to health care any more than I would have a problem with you requiring unemployment compensation or aid to families with dependent children. I have a problem with you declaring it a universal human right. Because it simply isn't.

Well, it simply is. You do not acknowledge it, which is another point. But I'm happy Your Honor does not "have a problem with [me] requiring that people be given access to health care any more than [...] would have a problem with you requiring unemployment compensation or aid to families with dependent children."

Since the operative clauses flow from the recognition of such a right, what matters is what works. Should a number of other delegations agree on the operative clauses, but disagree on the proclamation (which would not make it any less of a right, anyway) I'll lean towards its removal. But I have no reason to do so now.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

OOC: It might be wise to leave "Healthcare" out of the title, I'm not American, however putting "Health Care" in the title might leave your resolution victim to the ol' Trade Enhancement Syndrome -- where lemmings see the title and correlate it to what the media is saying about that subject, and media has a way of sharply dividing Americans into categories of the "Pro" side, and the "Pro-Anti" side, instead of informing people. People might feel obligated to vote against because they've heard bad things about universal health care from Faux News.

[Sionis Prioratus]

It is a matter of ideological beliefs. I am a progressive, as I suspect the author is as well. I believe that "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control", as written in the constitutional law of Glen-Rhodes. (OOC: And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.)

Perhaps you disagree with the words because of your own definition of a 'human right'. I was a little confused about why one would say health care cannot be a human right; I figured that such a person must be confused about rights and freedoms. Rights are granted by governments to their people. What you describe is more of a freedom. In short: freedom is; rights are given. I believe it's permissible, at the very least, to call 'health care' a human right... though we're arguing semantics, here. Freedom or right, it would still have the same practical effect.

I suppose I should make clear my position on this, straightforward: I agree that health care is a human right, and I agree that the World Assembly can and probably should declare it so and mandate that health care be made accessible to all people. However, we should not be organizing national health care systems ourselves; leave those details to national governments.

Yes, I am a progressive too. Loud and proud. We are on the same page in what regards the morality of such legislation. I hope the underlined concerns are answered by the previous post where I answered Your Honor.

[Sionis Prioratus]

OOC: It might be wise to leave "Healthcare" out of the title, I'm not American, however putting "Health Care" in the title might leave your resolution victim to the ol' Trade Enhancement Syndrome -- where lemmings see the title and correlate it to what the media is saying about that subject, and media has a way of sharply dividing Americans into categories of the "Pro" side, and the "Pro-Anti" side, instead of informing people. People might feel obligated to vote against because they've heard bad things about universal health care from Faux News.

OOC: I understand, was also a worry of mine. But Faux News lemmings are a lost cause anyway. Bear in mind there is a LOT of progressive American, European, Latin American, Canadian players out there. And players from a host of other nationalities who find the lack of universal health care coverage appalling.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

OOC: It might be wise to leave "Healthcare" out of the title, I'm not American, however putting "Health Care" in the title might leave your resolution victim to the ol' Trade Enhancement Syndrome -- where lemmings see the title and correlate it to what the media is saying about that subject, and media has a way of sharply dividing Americans into categories of the "Pro" side, and the "Pro-Anti" side, instead of informing people. People might feel obligated to vote against because they've heard bad things about universal health care from Faux News.

OOC: I understand, was also a worry of mine. But Faux News lemmings are a lost cause anyway. Bear in mind there is a LOT of progressive American, European, Latin American, Canadian players out there. And players from a host of other nationalities who find the lack of universal health care coverage appalling.

Canadians? Where? Who!?

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

3) Did cavemen have a "universal human right" to health care?

While my nation was degraded to a civilization of bubbling cavemen, we did not have healthcare, however our government also did not prevent citizens from getting universal healthcare.

Its like in any anarchy, or primal society.. you have the universal right to watch silly cartoons on a big screen television till the cows come home, if you so please too, the thing is, there are no televisions in a primal society.. so until you make one, that right means squat.

[Grays Harbor]

Just for this alone

The public health actions & services shall integrate a regionalized and hierarchical network and constitute a single system, organized according to the following guidelines:

We are set dead against this. We shall not be party to nor condone one grand international medical system. Never. Nobody from the Kingdom has used the "national sovereignty" argument for years, yet that is precicely what this is, one of the biggest infringements of national sovereignty we have seen in quite some time. To use a more current term, it is also unneccessary micromanagement of national affairs by an international agency. Our health system is doing quite fine on its own, thank you, and does not require "reform".

[Grays Harbor]

OOC: It might be wise to leave "Healthcare" out of the title, I'm not American, however putting "Health Care" in the title might leave your resolution victim to the ol' Trade Enhancement Syndrome -- where lemmings see the title and correlate it to what the media is saying about that subject, and media has a way of sharply dividing Americans into categories of the "Pro" side, and the "Pro-Anti" side, instead of informing people. People might feel obligated to vote against because they've heard bad things about universal health care from Faux News.

OOC: I understand, was also a worry of mine. But Faux News lemmings are a lost cause anyway. Bear in mind there is a LOT of progressive American, European, Latin American, Canadian players out there. And players from a host of other nationalities who find the lack of universal health care coverage appalling.

OOC - Lets keep the RW partisan political BS out of the WA, the GA and the RP side of this game. You want to whine and bitch about politics and how Cons hate Libs and Libs hate Cons, take it to NSG. Most of us on the RP side want none of that for a reason, we are here to play a game, and for you to try and use that as an argument for this proposal, because only somebody who is a "progressive" American, Europoean, etc etc etc would want this.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Our health system is doing quite fine on its own, thank you, and does not require "reform".

If your "health system", is doing quite fine on its own, you're welcome, and does not require reform... Guess what, it won't be reformed!

I - Decentralization, with a single management in each sphere of government;
II - Full coverage, with priority given to preventive activities, without prejudice to assistance services;
III - Community participation.

These are the guidelines. From what you say, that is already implemented in your Nation.

[Grays Harbor]

Our health system is doing quite fine on its own, thank you, and does not require "reform".

If your "health system", is doing quite fine on its own, you're welcome, and does not require reform... Guess what, it won't be reformed!

I - Decentralization, with a single management in each sphere of government;
II - Full coverage, with priority given to preventive activities, without prejudice to assistance services;
III - Community participation.

These are the guidelines. From what you say, that is already implemented in your Nation.

We also do not require your "decentralization". This proposal, unless drastically altered in scope, shall never have our support.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Bear in mind that we already have the World Health Authority as a resolution but, as always, if you think you could pull off a imporved replacement, feel welcome to do so.

As Bob Flibble has said, on another topic:

Honestly, I think that this is covered all or in part by several previous resolutions:

OK, I've gone through these and here's my assessment.
[...]

#31 World Health Authority

This one deals more with distributing information than actual medicine.

#41 Access to Life-saving Drugs

While this one does empower the WHA with the right to purchase and distribute drugs, there's nothing in it to say that the WHA couldn't be affected by an embargo.

I do not see it as a replacement of any kind at all; but as an improvement instead.

[Grays Harbor]

We have to ask, how is creating a massive WA bureaucracy an "improvement". Perhaps an improvement for the mtriad bureaucrats employed, but nothing that would actually help healthcare other than increase the levels of bureaucracy involved.

[Sionis Prioratus]

We have to ask, how is creating a massive WA bureaucracy an "improvement". Perhaps an improvement for the mtriad bureaucrats employed, but nothing that would actually help healthcare other than increase the levels of bureaucracy involved.

Dear Sir, since Your Honor's contributions to the topic have been limited so far to ranting about big scaaaary bureaucrats, all this in spite of

I venture one step further and proclaim "[t]he innumerous intricacies of health politics" are only viewable on subnational levels. Thus:

The public health actions & services shall integrate a regionalized and hierarchical network and constitute a single system, organized according to the following guidelines:

I - Decentralization, with a single management in each sphere of government;
[...]
III - Community participation.

§ 2 The WHA, the Nations and any political subdivisions shall:

[...]
II - Establish together the standards of review, evaluation and control of expenditure on health in the Universal, National and local spheres;

It is not like some some fat geniuses at the WHA would be micromanaging all the health woes of the Universe. The WHA gnomes would be one more participant in an eternal discussion where the local (not even national) community's voice takes precedence; the WHA will not be a berserk King vomiting insane regulations coming from nowhere.

(I won't grow tired of re-quoting ad aeternum passages Your Honor selectively chooses to ignore)

...I would humbly ask Your Honor to describe Your Honor's Nation own "health system".

[Krioval]

We have to ask, how is creating a massive WA bureaucracy an "improvement". Perhaps an improvement for the mtriad bureaucrats employed, but nothing that would actually help healthcare other than increase the levels of bureaucracy involved.

Allow us to let you in on a secret: it doesn't. Sadly, there are many nations who flock to the WA because of their innate love of administrative overhead. Much to our detriment, as it turns out.

Ambassador Darvek[-kan] Tyvok
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Grays Harbor]

...I would humbly ask Your Honor to describe Your Honor's Nation own "health system".

It is not our healthcare system which is at debate here, but your attempt to hijack everybodies healthcare system.

We humbly apologize that our arguments so far do not meet with your approval, however, as we are duly empowered to voice our opinion, we shall continue to do so whether we have your permission or not.

This proposal is not required, it only adds levels of bureaucracy to what already is in existance, despite your ad nauseum protestations that it does not.

[Sionis Prioratus]

It is not our healthcare system which is at debate here, but your attempt to hijack everybodies healthcare system.

A smart, albeit unelegant way to flee the question.

Hijacking. Hm. Sure. Giving "abductees" control over their own "hijacking", is it some new modality of hijacking occurring in your Nation? Surely I have never heard about such a thing.

Community controls own community health care. Some "hijacking"!

I venture one step further and proclaim "[t]he innumerous intricacies of health politics" are only viewable on subnational levels. Thus:

The public health actions & services shall integrate a regionalized and hierarchical network and constitute a single system, organized according to the following guidelines:

I - Decentralization, with a single management in each sphere of government;
[...]
III - Community participation.

§ 2 The WHA, the Nations and any political subdivisions shall:

[...]
II - Establish together the standards of review, evaluation and control of expenditure on health in the Universal, National and local spheres;

It is not like some some fat geniuses at the WHA would be micromanaging all the health woes of the Universe. The WHA gnomes would be one more participant in an eternal discussion where the local (not even national) community's voice takes precedence; the WHA will not be a berserk King vomiting insane regulations coming from nowhere.

We humbly apologize that our arguments so far do not meet with your approval, however, as we are duly empowered to voice our opinion, we shall continue to do so whether we have your permission or not.

I shall admit that a fact-based argumentation, in my view, would be far more productive. But, Your Honor, suit yourself.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

OOC: It might be wise to leave "Healthcare" out of the title, I'm not American, however putting "Health Care" in the title might leave your resolution victim to the ol' Trade Enhancement Syndrome -- where lemmings see the title and correlate it to what the media is saying about that subject, and media has a way of sharply dividing Americans into categories of the "Pro" side, and the "Pro-Anti" side, instead of informing people. People might feel obligated to vote against because they've heard bad things about universal health care from Faux News.

OOC: I understand, was also a worry of mine. But Faux News lemmings are a lost cause anyway. Bear in mind there is a LOT of progressive American, European, Latin American, Canadian players out there. And players from a host of other nationalities who find the lack of universal health care coverage appalling.

OOC - Lets keep the RW partisan political BS out of the WA, the GA and the RP side of this game. You want to whine and bitch about politics and how Cons hate Libs and Libs hate Cons, take it to NSG. Most of us on the RP side want none of that for a reason, we are here to play a game, and for you to try and use that as an argument for this proposal, because only somebody who is a "progressive" American, Europoean, etc etc etc would want this.

OOC: Bitch and whine to yourself, I was criticizing the choice of title from a strategical point of view. Both Sionis and I know the importance of a solid, fluffy title.