NationStates

Repeal: Freedom to Seek Medical Care
Category: Repeal | Strength: Over 9000!

---

Crediting GAR#414 with intending to provide access to medical care to millions by allowing what is known as "medical tourism", where individuals seek medical care abroad;

Believing this goal to be, on the whole, an admirable one;

Dismayed that the resolution, which allows member states to pass the cost of treatment onto medical tourists under Clause 5, fails to account for GAR#97, Quality in Health Services, which requires member states provide a certain level of health coverage for those who cannot afford it, free of cost;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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

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

"Never tried a repeal before. Why not let this be my first?"

Ser Aegon Snow: "As a repeal we support. We cannot find any substantial flaws at this time. Dragonslund welcomes being able to prevent people coming over here for our highly advanced potions, bloodletting practices and leech application charts. Also our new experimental maggot based wound treatment procedures."

Fairburn: This resolution is clearly not strong enough. Opposed.

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 foreigners and being unable to appropriately quarantine them;

This looks like a honest mistake.

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,

You are not threatened by infected foreigners(if they aren't permanent residents), you are threatened by infected permanent residents and citiziens of your nation.

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

"This is the only clause I'm not sure about. Patient safety and welfare are hardly the only reasons some backwater hell- uh, nations of a certain bent - prohibit some medical procedures. The WA absolutely should be in the business of preventing punishment of patients who paddle across ponds and paddocks and plains for procedures to cure what ails 'em, at least where the reasons those procedures are outlawed are nothing to do with what the doctors say."

"Aside from that, support."

Clean Land wrote:

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 foreigners and being unable to appropriately quarantine them;

This looks like a honest mistake.

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,

You are not threatened by infected foreigners(if they aren't permanent residents), you are threatened by infected permanent residents and citiziens of your nation.

"As usual, ambassador, your input isn't necessary."

OOC: If you want to file a challenge, do it, but that isn't an Honest Mistake violation. The resolution legalizes travel for medical treatment. The individuals traveling are foreign individuals. That they are present in the nation doesn't make them residents. This is, at best, a semantic issue, not a legal one.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

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

"This is the only clause I'm not sure about. Patient safety and welfare are hardly the only reasons some backwater hell- uh, nations of a certain bent - prohibit some medical procedures. The WA absolutely should be in the business of preventing punishment of patients who paddle across ponds and paddocks and plains for procedures to cure what ails 'em, at least where the reasons those procedures are outlawed are nothing to do with what the doctors say."

"Aside from that, support."

"Its a hook, ambassador, and I'm looking to maximize the appeal to this."

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: If you want to file a challenge, do it, but that isn't an Honest Mistake violation. The resolution legalizes travel for medical treatment. The individuals traveling are foreign individuals. That they are present in the nation doesn't make them residents. This is, at best, a semantic issue, not a legal one.

OOC: The resolution does not however, bar nations form quarantining incoming patents, or simply refusing entry entirely.

Dismayed that the resolution, which allows member states to pass the cost of treatment onto medical tourists under Clause 5, fails to account for GAR#97, Quality in Health Services, which requires member states provide a certain level of health coverage for those who cannot afford it, free of cost;

Regardless of the resolution at vote failing to provide the WA mandated level of healthcare is noncompliance with Quality in Health Services. For this resolution to change that would require it to be an amendment. If it is an amendment then why you did not strike it down as such?

Aclion wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: If you want to file a challenge, do it, but that isn't an Honest Mistake violation. The resolution legalizes travel for medical treatment. The individuals traveling are foreign individuals. That they are present in the nation doesn't make them residents. This is, at best, a semantic issue, not a legal one.

OOC: The resolution does not however, bar nations form quarantining incoming patents, or simply refusing entry entirely.

OOC: Good thing I didn't make that claim, then.

Regardless of the resolution at vote failing to provide the WA mandated level of healthcare is noncompliance with Quality in Health Services. For this resolution to change that would require it to be an amendment. If it is an amendment then why you did not strike it down as such?

OOC: It doesn't seek to amend QiHS, and so I did not mark it as such.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Aclion wrote:OOC: The resolution does not however, bar nations form quarantining incoming patents, or simply refusing entry entirely.

OOC: Good thing I didn't make that claim, then.

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 foreigners and being unable to appropriately quarantine them;

Regardless of the resolution at vote failing to provide the WA mandated level of healthcare is noncompliance with Quality in Health Services. For this resolution to change that would require it to be an amendment. If it is an amendment then why you did not strike it down as such?

OOC: It doesn't seek to amend QiHS, and so I did not mark it as such.

Soo a dishonest mistake?

Aclion wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Good thing I didn't make that claim, then.

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 foreigners and being unable to appropriately quarantine them;

OOC: Reading comprehension is hard. You'll notice I didn't claim it barred nations from quarantining patients or refusing their entry. Merely criticized it for not dealing with it.

OOC: It doesn't seek to amend QiHS, and so I did not mark it as such.

Soo a dishonest mistake?

OOC: It doesn't amend QiHS, and I didn't mark it as doing something illegal when it wasn't. If you believe this contains an illegality, file a Challenge. If you feel I did something inappropriate in marking the target as legal, take it up in Moderation. I'm not entertaining your usual witchhunt.

OOC:
Bah, between you and Ara you've intercepted both the drafts I was working on...
Handles it better than mine anyway, absolute support!

Separatist Peoples May I suggest the creation of an article pointing out that such medical tourism would allow terrorists to recruit from all nations by using this bill as an excuse to transport recruits into their region. This is my main concern with the current proposal and I'm sure it would concern others if they were aware.

Miravana wrote:Separatist Peoples May I suggest the creation of an article pointing out that such medical tourism would allow terrorists to recruit from all nations by using this bill as an excuse to transport recruits into their region. This is my main concern with the current proposal and I'm sure it would concern others if they were aware.

"Ambassador, how would you feel if I included "other security threats" into my "Horrified" clause? Would this address your concerns?"

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Reading comprehension is hard. You'll notice I didn't claim it barred nations from quarantining patients or refusing their entry. Merely criticized it for not dealing with it.

You specifically state that nations will be unable to quarantine infected foreigners. This is false, as the resolution in question explicitly state that nations retain their authority over the acceptance of persons entering the country and are under not obligation to provide care. There is nothing in this proposal that prevents nations from quarantining income patients.

If you're going to respond to commenters with personal attacks then why draft this at all.

I will support this proposal.

Aclion wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Reading comprehension is hard. You'll notice I didn't claim it barred nations from quarantining patients or refusing their entry. Merely criticized it for not dealing with it.

You specifically state that nations will be unable to quarantine infected foreigners. This is false, as the resolution in question explicitly state that nations retain their authority over the acceptance of persons entering the country and are under not obligation to provide care. There is nothing in this proposal that prevents nations from quarantining income patients.

OOC: Still not a strong one for reading comprehension, are you? I made the claim that it increases the risk of being overwhelmed by unquarantined individuals. That is not the same thing as claiming that it bans quarantines. If you break down the sentence into the relevant clauses it goes from this:

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 foreigners and being unable to appropriately quarantine them;

To this:

Appalled that the resolution makes no attempt to reduce risks imposed by epidemics [which] threaten[s] well-intended nations with the risk of being unable to appropriately quarantine [foreigners];

Not the same thing.

Aclion wrote:If you're going to respond to commenters with personal attacks then why draft this at all.

OOC: There are two individuals in this thread who's opinions I find unnecessary: Yours and Clean Land's. I genuinely don't believe there is anything of value either of you have to offer to my drafts. Others are welcome.

Separatist Peoples wrote:snip

But nations are under no obligation to accept people at all so they would not be overwhelmed unless they accepted more contagious people then they could quarantine. No reasonable nation would do this.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Miravana wrote:Separatist Peoples May I suggest the creation of an article pointing out that such medical tourism would allow terrorists to recruit from all nations by using this bill as an excuse to transport recruits into their region. This is my main concern with the current proposal and I'm sure it would concern others if they were aware.

"Ambassador, how would you feel if I included "other security threats" into my "Horrified" clause? Would this address your concerns?"

That sounds reasonable. It would help people see the security problems raised by this bill.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Repeal: Freedom to Seek Medical Care
Category: Repeal | Strength: Over 9000!

---

Crediting GAR#414 with intending to provide access to medical care to millions by allowing what is known as "medical tourism", where individuals seek medical care abroad;

Believing this goal to be, on the whole, an admirable one;

Dismayed that the resolution, which allows member states to pass the cost of treatment onto medical tourists under Clause 5, fails to account for GAR#97, Quality in Health Services, which requires member states provide a certain level of health coverage for those who cannot afford it, free of cost;

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;

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;

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 foreigners and being unable to appropriately quarantine them;

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

Concerned at the blatant scrivner's error at the end of the first 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;

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.

"Never tried a repeal before. Why not let this be my first?"

A few things to remember
- Most nations believe that they are not obligated to pay for medical costs regarding those from other nations
- As others have stated, any nation may reject foreigners wishing to seek medical care

Aclion wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:snip

But nations are under no obligation to accept people at all so they would not be overwhelmed unless they accepted more contagious people then they could quarantine. No reasonable nation would do this.

OOC: And yet, not an Honest Mistake.

Flying Eagles wrote:A few things to remember
- Most nations believe that they are not obligated to pay for medical costs regarding those from other nations

"This is, regrettably, not entirely true, pursuant to GAR#97."

- As others have stated, any nation may reject foreigners wishing to seek medical care

"Yes, ambassador, I've seen. They may not, however, do it in a discriminatory manner, so they are left with a detailed, fact-based approach for every individual, or a flat ban, lest they discriminate in violation of GAR#35. Frankly, when it comes down to what is appropriate in regard to border control, I believe nations deserve greater discretion on that front.

"More regrettably, though, is that it seems most ambassadors cannot tell the difference between saying something is so and suggesting that it might be so. Considering the art of the repeal seems mostly a question of making merely colorable arguments, I have elected to make merely colorable arguments. I'd rather avoid lying than go for telling the truth in a repeal."

Yes. Oh god, yes.

Aclion wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:snip

But nations are under no obligation to accept people at all so they would not be overwhelmed unless they accepted more contagious people then they could quarantine. No reasonable nation would do this.

The bloated, stinking form of the ambassador from Unreasonable Nation picks up a microphone with one of its actual arms.
"We resent being discriminated against. When we import measles-carrying people to release in our airports and bus terminals, the last thing we need is having our careful evil scheme disturbed by renegade disease-releasers coming from out of town. When you assume that nations are reasonable or rational actors, you make an ass out of you, me, and the seven former ambassadors that I have to carry around after that unfortunate medical experiment."
The ambassador puts the microphone into the hand of one of the sewn-on arms, rips off the arm, and drops it.
"Mic drop!"

"For. 115% for. Now this is a repeal I can get behind."

OOC:

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 foreigners and being unable to appropriately quarantine them;

You could be more honest here. There is no fourth wall hindering you from being more honest here. This is incredibly misleading without any reason but deception.

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

Believing this goal to be, on the whole, an admirable one;

IC:
"One of these is a blatant lie.
Either you are shocked by the promise that your people actually can get medically necessary treatment without hindrance by your nation....
or you support the goal of the resolution. Both can't be it.

This does not have our support."

"You have my support on this one. A couple silly little nitpicks: Your 'Shocked' clause uses the possessive, 'tourist's', instead of the plural, 'tourists'; and the annoying typo you mention in your 'Concerned' clause occurs at the end of operative clause 5 as well. If you mention one, you should mention both."