[PASSED] Repeal: Freedom to Seek Medical Care

[Fauxia]

“Ambassador Bell, you always put up a good fight. You have convinced me on this one. We support this. Although, I do not like the penultimate clause. It seems a bit overly harsh. The term ‘foreigners’ seems disparaging, and while this doesn’t matter to me, it may to others.”

[Separatist Peoples]

“Ambassador Bell, you always put up a good fight. You have convinced me on this one. We support this. Although, I do not like the penultimate clause. It seems a bit overly harsh. The term ‘foreigners’ seems disparaging, and while this doesn’t matter to me, it may to others.”

"Changed 'Foreigner' to 'Nonresident.'"

[Fauxia]

“Ambassador Bell, you always put up a good fight. You have convinced me on this one. We support this. Although, I do not like the penultimate clause. It seems a bit overly harsh. The term ‘foreigners’ seems disparaging, and while this doesn’t matter to me, it may to others.”

"Changed 'Foreigner' to 'Nonresident.'"

“Did you?”

[Separatist Peoples]

"Changed 'Foreigner' to 'Nonresident.'"

“Did you?”

"...yes?"

[Fauxia]

“Did you?”

"...yes?"

OOC: I’m still seeing “over... foreigners”

[Miravana]

“Did you?”

"...yes?"

Ambassador Krux, having nothing better to do, interjects, "I believe he is referring to the final statement... here" he says, pointing at the Draft.

Believing that the members of the World Assembly deserve a resolution which protects their domestic interests instead of prioritizing those of foreigners;

Hereby repeals GAR#413, Freedom to Seek Medical Care, with the appropriate amount of prejudice.

[Separatist Peoples]

"...yes?"

Ambassador Krux, having nothing better to do, interjects, "I believe he is referring to the final statement... here" he says, pointing at the Draft.

Believing that the members of the World Assembly deserve a resolution which protects their domestic interests instead of prioritizing those of foreigners;

Hereby repeals GAR#413, Freedom to Seek Medical Care, with the appropriate amount of prejudice.

"Addressed the second instance of 'foreigners.'"

[Kranostav]

OOC: Has it yet been addressed that the 'scrivner's error' is in fact a coding error. It is not the fault of the author.

"‎ is used in html for marking left to right words in right to left languages
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-to-right_mark "

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Has it yet been addressed that the 'scrivner's error' is in fact a coding error. It is not the fault of the author.

"‎ is used in html for marking left to right words in right to left languages
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-to-right_mark "

OOC: Since this was addressed on Discord and not the public thread, I'll leave it here for posterity. It is a coding error, but it's an error that should have been screened out in the preview. There isn't a good way to ICly refer back to it as a coding error when a lot of nations view the process as being not-digital. Seemed the safest bet.

[Eldrahar]

Heh, given the last proposal that Separatist Peoples proposed, that was passed, this clearly stinks of hypocrisy. Whining about nations' rights here while having attacked nations' rights in their last proposal. Definitely not going to support, but here are reasons why:

"Distressed that the resolution makes no accommodation or provision for nations engaged in conflict with the home nation of the medical tourists, opening the home nation to threats of espionage and sabotage;"

This is just a blatant lie. Refuted by:

"2: Affirms the ability of member nations to set their own policies and restrictions regarding the acceptance or non-acceptance of non-resident patients, and further declares that no member nation is required by this measure to provide medical care to non-resident medical patients above any requirements previously imposed by the General Assembly,"

"Horrified that the resolution, under Clause 1, makes it impossible for member nations to prevent criminals, minors, military deserters, or those under current investigation from traveling abroad if they are seeking medical attention, and makes no provisions allowing member states to retrieve such individuals after they have received medical attention;"

Once again, a blatant lie. The resolution has nothing in it that says that the nation from which said person is from can not send a police escort with them. All it says is that they can't impede them seeking treatment abroad. Nothing more.

"4: Prohibits member nations from taking legal action against citizens or permanent residents as relating to them seeking medical treatments or operations abroad, as long as General Assembly resolutions have not been violated,"

Once again, an issue that can be easily combated by either a ban or by careful preparation, and covered under clause 2 of the proposal:

"Appalled that the resolution makes no attempt to reduce risks imposed by epidemics, threatening well-intended nations with the risk of being overwhelmed by infected nonresidents and being unable to appropriately quarantine them;"

At this point it is just sad: "Shocked at the blatant efforts to hamstring national jurisdiction under Clause 4 by making it illegal for a member state to subject medical tourists to penalties, even where such treatment is clearly illegal under the home nation's laws;"

Refuted by Clauses 2-4. Unless you are referring to the right of the home nation to punish its own citizens, in which case they are traveling to leave the jurisdiction of their own country before receiving treatment.

Really, just stop: "Concerned at the blatant scrivner's error at the end of the first and fifth clause, which demonstrates a lack of attention and care by the author, in blatant disregard for the high standard of quality demanded by this Assembly;"

This is very reasonable. It doesn't force nations to pay for procedures, and it also doesn't force them to help their populace seek care abroad. The cost falls on the one seeking the care, including travel. This absolves the home nation of paying for everything, while letting them comply with the proposal. If the citizen can't afford the travel, then that is not the fault of the home nation. You also can't say that this is the home nation preventing travel in any way. Also, nitpicking over a slight grammatical error is just petty.

[Separatist Peoples]

Heh, given the last proposal that Separatist Peoples proposed, that was passed, this clearly stinks of hypocrisy. Whining about nations' rights here while having attacked nations' rights in their last proposal.

"Ambassador, it is disappointing that you cannot understand the arguments in this proposal. Certainly, it would be a silly thing if a nation was not allowed to write a repeal merely because that same nation had written a substantive law."

Definitely not going to support, but here are reasons why:

"Your support, ambassador, would likely do me more harm than good."

"Distressed that the resolution makes no accommodation or provision for nations engaged in conflict with the home nation of the medical tourists, opening the home nation to threats of espionage and sabotage;"

This is just a blatant lie.

OOC: If you think it's a lie, file a Challenge for Honest Mistake.

Refuted by:

"2: Affirms the ability of member nations to set their own policies and restrictions regarding the acceptance or non-acceptance of non-resident patients, and further declares that no member nation is required by this measure to provide medical care to non-resident medical patients above any requirements previously imposed by the General Assembly,"

"Restrictions must comply with the non-discriminatory requirements of GAR#35, which ensures, in relevant part, that no individual may be discriminated upon by nationality. While there may be some compelling, practical purposes for minor restriction, espionage is famously a game of stealth and subtly, things you are unfamiliar with. As such, I feel it essential to give nations adequate tools to prevent such acts. Since one cannot ensure a blanket ban without legal repercussions, member states must screen every individual, a more arduous process than a mere ban from a known hostile nation. A wartime exception is appropriate."

"Horrified that the resolution, under Clause 1, makes it impossible for member nations to prevent criminals, minors, military deserters, or those under current investigation from traveling abroad if they are seeking medical attention, and makes no provisions allowing member states to retrieve such individuals after they have received medical attention;"

Once again, a blatant lie. The resolution has nothing in it that says that the nation from which said person is from can not send a police escort with them. All it says is that they can't impede them seeking treatment abroad. Nothing more.

"You'll notice that having to send a criminal or active duty military personnel under escort is still being unable to prevent them from leaving. You'll also notice that there are no provisions detailing the right of member nations to send escorts. Further, there are no provisions detailing how nations might retrieve such individuals in the target resolution. Since escorts can be denied, the at-risk individual can escape them, and since there is zero expectation that police from your nation have any jurisdiction to operate as anything but private citizens while abroad, you will find that the statement is factually accurate.

"I think, ambassador, that you are confusing objective fact, which is that the proposal doesn't include such clauses, with subjective inference, which is that nothing necessarily bans the use of such tactics. Since I am only claiming the former, I have no need to address the latter."

4: Prohibits member nations from taking legal action against citizens or permanent residents as relating to them seeking medical treatments or operations abroad, as long as General Assembly resolutions have not been violated,"

Once again, an issue that can be easily combated by either a ban or by careful preparation, and covered under clause 2 of the proposal:

"Easily combated? Perhaps. In the proposal? No. Clause 2 deals with accepting individuals into the host nation and giving them no less than the standard amount of care. It does not involve the home nation's interest in preventing their citizens from evading their law by traveling abroad. This is a question of criminal jurisdiction, not of access to foreign medical care."

"Appalled that the resolution makes no attempt to reduce risks imposed by epidemics, threatening well-intended nations with the risk of being overwhelmed by infected nonresidents and being unable to appropriately quarantine them;"

At this point it is just sad:

"Factually true, ambassador. The target resolution makes no such provisions."

"Shocked at the blatant efforts to hamstring national jurisdiction under Clause 4 by making it illegal for a member state to subject medical tourists to penalties, even where such treatment is clearly illegal under the home nation's laws;"

Refuted by Clauses 2-4. Unless you are referring to the right of the home nation to punish its own citizens, in which case they are traveling to leave the jurisdiction of their own country before receiving treatment.

"Jurisdiction over the activities of nationals does not end at the borders. Were that the case, nobody would be able to punish foreign sex tourism, yet that is clearly a power member states have. Further, this is not refuted by Clause 2 or 4. Clause 2 deals exclusively with the ability of host nations and their border control authority. Clause 4 does exactly what you are denying it does:

Prohibits member nations from taking legal action against citizens or permanent residents as relating to them seeking medical treatments or operations abroad, as long as General Assembly resolutions have not been violated,

"With the exception of extant World Assembly law, member states can levy no punishment for any procedure done abroad, which, as previously noted, harms the integrity of the rule of law by allowing citizens to evade their home nation's national jurisdiction. This is, at it's core, a question on the rule of law, and allowing evasion of the law is never beneficial."

Really, just stop:

"Concerned at the blatant scrivner's error at the end of the first and fifth clause, which demonstrates a lack of attention and care by the author, in blatant disregard for the high standard of quality demanded by this Assembly;"

"Do you have an argument here, or merely an expression of exasperation? If that formulated an argument, ambassador, I could write a treatise on my interactions with you."

This is very reasonable.

"Nearly half of the World Assembly disagrees."

It doesn't force nations to pay for procedures,

"Aha, not strictly true. GAR#97 requires member states cover the cost of certain medical procedures under the guise of a universal basic healthcare coverage mandate. That mandate does not differentiate between residents and non-residents. As such, there are certain procedures that member states are incapable of requiring the medical tourist pay for, at risk of violating GAR#97. The only procedures the nation does not have to pay for are the non-preventative or emergent procedures. Which, I am willing to concede, is probably the lion's share of the procedures. But it is not all of the procedures, and this assertions is therefore incorrect."

and it also doesn't force them to help their populace seek care abroad.

"An argument I have not made."

The cost falls on the one seeking the care, including travel. This absolves the home nation of paying for everything, while letting them comply with the proposal.

"I've already explained why this isn't entirely true.

If the citizen can't afford the travel, then that is not the fault of the home nation.

"You'll notice I haven't bothered to make an argument to that effect."

You also can't say that this is the home nation preventing travel in any way.

"As noted above, that's the entire point."

Also, nitpicking over a slight grammatical error is just petty.

"The ambassador is trying to lecture me on pettiness? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Pray tell, why should we tolerate easily reparable grammatical errors, exactly? When there are so many opportunities to police one's own work here? What do you suppose, under the presumption of intent that canons of construction apply to statutory interpretation, that we translate a string of random symbols as to give them meaning? You hold yourself out as an expert, so I'm interested in how you reconcile basic statutory construction standards with your laissez faire attitude towards errors."

[Imperial Polk County]

Concerned at the blatant scrivner's error at the end of the first and fifth clause

"Should be 'errors' and 'clauses'. I see no other issues; you have my support, Ambassador Bell."

[Separatist Peoples]

Concerned at the blatant scrivner's error at the end of the first and fifth clause

"Should be 'errors' and 'clauses'. I see no other issues; you have my support, Ambassador Bell."

"Since the error appears to be the same error, I left it singular. Connoting the idea that it is the same error twice. Which, from my understanding, it essentially is. I am happy to have your support, Ambassador Drane."

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

OOC: If you think it's a lie, file a Challenge for Honest Mistake.

OOC: Wasn't it ruled at one point that blatent lies ARE allowed but actual honest mistakes aren't? Or was that overturned? I can't remember. If that wasn't overturned, a challenge wouldn't go anywhere.

And besides, wasn't it also stated that legality challenges should be saved for when a proposal has already been submitted or when the author has refused to address the legality issue?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Wasn't it ruled at one point that blatent lies ARE allowed but actual honest mistakes aren't? Or was that overturned? I can't remember. If that wasn't overturned, a challenge wouldn't go anywhere.

And besides, wasn't it also stated that legality challenges should be saved for when a proposal has already been submitted or when the author has refused to address the legality issue?

OOC: None of these are blatant lies, which would be illegal. They are carefully crafted to avoid that or take advantage of a particular interpretation. Which all repeals do.

In this instance, I am refusing, and indeed unable to accommodate at this point, any edits to address the perceived legality challenge. I believe my interpretation is the one supported by the text of both resolutions, and, if I'm being candid, I am not known for dishonesty. A certain shrewdness, perhaps, but not dishonesty.

If Eldarhar or whatever you spell it as is feeling obstructionist, I'll happily entertain a challenge that I am confident I will win based on how GenSec has previously discussed Honest Mistake. I'll admit that I am at an advantage here, having been present for those confidential conversations, but since I have not used my powers as a member of GenSec in furtherance of my proposal, I'm not overly concerned about malfeasance accusations.

[Wrapper]

OOC: Wasn't it ruled at one point that blatent lies ARE allowed but actual honest mistakes aren't? Or was that overturned? I can't remember. If that wasn't overturned, a challenge wouldn't go anywhere.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Very briefly, after the rules were rewritten in 2016, intentional, blatant lies were not covered under the revised Honest Mistake rule. After a controversial and unpopular (but technically correct) ruling exposed that loophole, there were riots in the streets, moderators burned in effigy, it was not a pretty sight. So, that loophole was quickly closed when the Honest Mistake rule was again amended.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Wasn't it ruled at one point that blatent lies ARE allowed but actual honest mistakes aren't? Or was that overturned? I can't remember. If that wasn't overturned, a challenge wouldn't go anywhere.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Very briefly, after the rules were rewritten in 2016, intentional, blatant lies were not covered under the revised Honest Mistake rule. After a controversial and unpopular (but technically correct) ruling exposed that loophole, there were riots in the streets, moderators burned in effigy, it was not a pretty sight. So, that loophole was quickly closed when the Honest Mistake rule was again amended.

OOC: Which was, if I haven't said it before, not your fault, buddy.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

OOC: Wasn't it ruled at one point that blatent lies ARE allowed but actual honest mistakes aren't? Or was that overturned? I can't remember. If that wasn't overturned, a challenge wouldn't go anywhere.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Very briefly, after the rules were rewritten in 2016, intentional, blatant lies were not covered under the revised Honest Mistake rule. After a controversial and unpopular (but technically correct) ruling exposed that loophole, there were riots in the streets, moderators burned in effigy, it was not a pretty sight. So, that loophole was quickly closed when the Honest Mistake rule was again amended.

OOC: That was what I was remembering, then. Thanks for the recap.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: It's come to my attention that there is what can be only technically described as a counter-campaign by Clean Land. The text is as follows:

Esteemed World Assembly delegates,

We ask you for your support, your approval for vote, for our version of the repeal of "Freedom to Seek Medical Care", here:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1510648610

It is short, but to the point. You might not know that the WA did pass multiple WA resolutions about quarantines and as Freedom to Seek Medical Care contains exceptions about restrictions from previous WA resolutions... that does prevent quarantine hazards right now. It, however, blocks the quarantine regulations from ever being improved, or, if we all are somehow careless and do repeal the quarantine resolutions, causes a catastrophe.(We chose not to include this in the proposal because that might cause it to be marked illegal)
Furthermore, it helps any hostile nation attacking you to drain your wounded soldiers from you if you cannot help them all adequately(lack of resources or so, very common in times of war, especially when you are attacked)... who then can desert to the enemy without any negative consequences... and you are not allowed to stop them!
We would support a similar resolution, that does not have these critical flaws.

You might have noticed that there is another version of the repeal in the General Assembly. It contains a number of almost-lies and unnecessary deceptions.
OOC:You can find more about this matter and our proposal in the General Assembly forum
viewforum.php?f=9

Its pretty cute. As a counter-campaign, it's not great. It's nonetheless relevant to this proposal, so in the interest of full disclosure, here it is.

I'm not sure that the counter campaign has made a difference, but here's the bone I'm going to toss to Clean Land: I'm not about to run a campaign against them. I don't think it's necessary based on their own construction.

[Greater Gilead]

You have our support for this repeal.
"Shocked at the blatant efforts to hamstring national jurisdiction under Clause 4 by making it illegal for a member state to subject medical tourists to penalties, even where such treatment is clearly illegal under the home nation's laws;"
We cannot abide by this section, if a person goes to another country to have an illegal procedure, we will punish them.

[Bears Armed]

"Distressed that the resolution makes no accommodation or provision for nations engaged in conflict with the home nation of the medical tourists, opening the home nation to threats of espionage and sabotage;"

OOC: If you think it's a lie, file a Challenge for Honest Mistake.


"Restrictions must comply with the non-discriminatory requirements of GAR#35, which ensures, in relevant part, that no individual may be discriminated upon by nationality. While there may be some compelling, practical purposes for minor restriction, espionage is famously a game of stealth and subtly, things you are unfamiliar with. As such, I feel it essential to give nations adequate tools to prevent such acts. Since one cannot ensure a blanket ban without legal repercussions, member states must screen every individual, a more arduous process than a mere ban from a known hostile nation. A wartime exception is appropriate."

OOC
I'm sorry that I was too busy to keep up with the drafting process on this one.
As you may recall from a previous legality dispute, I disagreed with some other GenSec members about GAR#35. My interpretation of GAR #35 was that it outlaws discrimination on the basis of nationality within either the relevant people's home nation or any other member nation within which they are now an inhabitant, but does not bar member nations from using the nationality of prospective foreign visitors (who are not yet within their borders) as grounds for refusing entry. Under that interpretation, there would indeed be an 'Honest Mistake' here.
If that interpretation of GAR#35 is rejected by GenSec as a whole, the "compelling practical purpose" exception would -- as you seem to be saying, in this comment -- allow for a blanket restriction on 'enemy nationals' in wartime. That being the case, the wording of your clause would [in my opinion] just scrape through as 'legal' because of the difference in meaning between "conflict" and "war".
Because I was outvoted about interpreting GAR#35 before I'm not going to mark it as illegal for an Honest Mistake, yet, but because of my interpretation of GAR#35 I'm not going to mark it as 'legal' yet either. Let's see what other GenSec members say...

[Gagium]

"Gagium stands opposed to the proposed repeal, for the following reasons. The repeal, while stating that Clause 1 gives people a home nation would not want travelling abroad the right to travel abroad, does not prevent the home nation from sending an armed escort or other person along with the individual, and Clause 5 mandates that the individual would have to arrange the finances for the said trip. The repeal also mentions that GA#414 makes no effort to reduce epidemics, however Clause 2 allows for nations to set their own restrictions. Also, I may mention that all previous resolutions on quarantines are still in place."

[Fauxia]

Heh, given the last proposal that Separatist Peoples proposed, that was passed, this clearly stinks of hypocrisy. Whining about nations' rights here while having attacked nations' rights in their last proposal. Definitely not going to support, but here are reasons why:

"Distressed that the resolution makes no accommodation or provision for nations engaged in conflict with the home nation of the medical tourists, opening the home nation to threats of espionage and sabotage;"

This is just a blatant lie. Refuted by:

"2: Affirms the ability of member nations to set their own policies and restrictions regarding the acceptance or non-acceptance of non-resident patients, and further declares that no member nation is required by this measure to provide medical care to non-resident medical patients above any requirements previously imposed by the General Assembly,"

"Horrified that the resolution, under Clause 1, makes it impossible for member nations to prevent criminals, minors, military deserters, or those under current investigation from traveling abroad if they are seeking medical attention, and makes no provisions allowing member states to retrieve such individuals after they have received medical attention;"

Once again, a blatant lie. The resolution has nothing in it that says that the nation from which said person is from can not send a police escort with them. All it says is that they can't impede them seeking treatment abroad. Nothing more.

"4: Prohibits member nations from taking legal action against citizens or permanent residents as relating to them seeking medical treatments or operations abroad, as long as General Assembly resolutions have not been violated,"

Once again, an issue that can be easily combated by either a ban or by careful preparation, and covered under clause 2 of the proposal:

"Appalled that the resolution makes no attempt to reduce risks imposed by epidemics, threatening well-intended nations with the risk of being overwhelmed by infected nonresidents and being unable to appropriately quarantine them;"

At this point it is just sad: "Shocked at the blatant efforts to hamstring national jurisdiction under Clause 4 by making it illegal for a member state to subject medical tourists to penalties, even where such treatment is clearly illegal under the home nation's laws;"

Refuted by Clauses 2-4. Unless you are referring to the right of the home nation to punish its own citizens, in which case they are traveling to leave the jurisdiction of their own country before receiving treatment.

Really, just stop: "Concerned at the blatant scrivner's error at the end of the first and fifth clause, which demonstrates a lack of attention and care by the author, in blatant disregard for the high standard of quality demanded by this Assembly;"

This is very reasonable. It doesn't force nations to pay for procedures, and it also doesn't force them to help their populace seek care abroad. The cost falls on the one seeking the care, including travel. This absolves the home nation of paying for everything, while letting them comply with the proposal. If the citizen can't afford the travel, then that is not the fault of the home nation. You also can't say that this is the home nation preventing travel in any way. Also, nitpicking over a slight grammatical error is just petty.

OOC: I can't even read this on dark, which is what I use.

[Kuttabul]

OOC: Can we stop this trend of repealing resolutions that are a day old? It's rather dull seeing the same resolution for a week.

[Tinfect]

OOC: Can we stop this trend of repealing resolutions that are a day old? It's rather dull seeing the same resolution for a week.

OOC:
Just as soon as people stop pushing crap proposals to vote and passing them.