CHALLENGE: Repeal Freedom to Seek Medical Care

[Flying Eagles]

Bumped

Concerned that GenSec is violating their rule; 1d (The controlling opinion shall be released immediately after a majority of those voting agree to it; concurring or dissenting opinions may be released and added to the official record as they are completed.)

Immediately is defined as
1.
at once; instantly.

2.
without any intervening time or space.
"she was sitting immediately behind me"

It’s been 3 days since the ruling, 3 days does not equal immediately.

Oops, I mistook it as when a ruling is made, not when a majority agree on a opinion.

[Separatist Peoples]

Bumped

Concerned that GenSec is violating their rule; 1d (The controlling opinion shall be released immediately after a majority of those voting agree to it; concurring or dissenting opinions may be released and added to the official record as they are completed.)

Immediately is defined as
1.
at once; instantly.

2.
without any intervening time or space.
"she was sitting immediately behind me"

It’s been 3 days since the ruling, 3 days does not equal immediately.

Oops, I mistook it as when a ruling is made, not when a majority agree on a opinion.

Yup. Chill.

[Wallenburg]

I don't think it's out of the ordinary for it to take several days to get the full opinion.

Sometimes it's taken more than a month...

Or two. Or three.

[New Waldensia]

Any update?

[Wallenburg]

Any update?

Chances are this will have to wait for another month.

I also want to point out that for the next 3 weeks, I, and any other GenSec members in higher education, are probably swamped. Please don't expect huge movement forward until after Christmas.

[New Waldensia]

Just checking... any update, GenSecs?

[Araraukar]

Just checking... any update, GenSecs?

Technically only two weeks have passed since SP said "wait 3 weeks"...

[Sciongrad]

Forthcoming, but remember December is finals period and several members of GenSec are students!

[Araraukar]

Forthcoming, but remember December is finals period and several members of GenSec are students!

Even this week? I honestly don't know how the finals thing works, especially as they don't appear to be actual final tests, since there will be more in the spring.

[Attempted Socialism]

Forthcoming, but remember December is finals period and several members of GenSec are students!

Even this week? I honestly don't know how the finals thing works, especially as they don't appear to be actual final tests, since there will be more in the spring.

My Autumn semester exams are in January, while other exams are ending this week, with Friday being the last day of a week-long exam at my Department. I think giving some leeway is fine, academia can really steal away your time.

[New Waldensia]

Just checking in again...

[Separatist Peoples]

Just checking in again...

Yeah. Where is this?

[New Waldensia]

Just checking in again...

Yeah. Where is this?

Lost in GenSec-dom?

[New Waldensia]

Lost in GenSec-dom?

Apparently really lost...

[Araraukar]

Lost in GenSec-dom?

Apparently really lost...

Lost for 1.5 months at least by now...

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I can't make a hard promise on a timeframe, but I have reason to believe we'll have this for you within a week or so. Apologies for the delay - several factors have intervened IRL.

[New Waldensia]

I can't make a hard promise on a timeframe, but I have reason to believe we'll have this for you within a week or so. Apologies for the delay - several factors have intervened IRL.

Thanks! I was just looking for an update, confirmation that something will be coming.

[Wallenburg]

Bump

[Fauxia]

I think we’re onto the “or so” of SL’s post

[Bananaistan]

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care"
Date of Decision: 19 November 2017
Decision: Proposal is legal, 3-2 (2-2 tie within GenSec, Wrapper cast the moderators' tie break vote in favour of legal).
Rules Applied: Honest mistake; Metagaming

We find the challenged repeal legal in respect of the honest mistake and metagaming rules. Bananaistan wrote the majority opinion, joined by Sciongrad and Wrapper. Dissenting opinion written by Sierra Lyricalia. As the repeal author, Separatist Peoples recused.

War and espionage
The challenged repeal claims that the target “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.”

The challenger argues that this is an honest mistake as clause 2 of the target allows member states set their own policies regarding accepting medical tourists incoming further to the target resolution.

We find that the challenger’s argument is a misinterpretation of the repeal’s arguments. The relevant clause of the repeal does not address the member nation accepting medical tourists. It addresses the member nation which the medical tourist leaves, IE the “home nation”. This is a reasonable argument as the target effectively set up an overriding right of all persons to leave a nation and to travel to what might well be an enemy nation. Such “home nations” have a legitimate interest in preventing their residents from travelling to enemy nations. As the target did not address this, we find that this is not an honest mistake violation.

GAR#97 – Quality in Health Services
The entirety of the relevant clause in the challenged repeal is “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;”

The challenger argues that this is an honest mistake. The target “does not authorize nations to fail to provide their residents with the level of care required by [GAR#97] Quality in Health Services” and that as the target sets out the right to travel abroad for medical treatment “there is nothing for [the target] to fail to account for in [GAR#97] Quality in Health Services”.

Clause 5 of the target is: “Declares that patients seeking medical care or treatment under this act are financially responsible for any costs not compensated by existing laws in their home nation, and that such travel and payment must be arranged by the person(s) seeking treatment, or by their legal guardians or representation.”

As claimed in the challenged repeal, it is a statement of fact that GAR#97: Quality in Health Services requires that “member states provide a certain level of health coverage for those who cannot afford it, free of cost;”. The target’s provisions about the costs of medical treatment and who pays them are an added layer of complexity on top of the funding mechanism laid out in GAR#97: Quality in Health Services. It is not unreasonable for the repeal to have drawn attention to this. We find that this is not an honest mistake.

Metagaming
The challenger also made an argument regarding metagaming and claimed that “if Freedom to Seek Medical Care allowed what the repeal claims it does it would contradict [GAR#97] Quality in Health Services; an illegality.” Modly precedent suggests that it is not a valid repeal argument to claim that the target is illegal. However, the repeal did not claim an illegality, either express or implied. Therefore, we do find a metagaming violation.

Epidemics and risk
The repeal claims “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;".

The challenger argues that this is an honest mistake. As the target remains silent on the matter, there is no additional threat or risk to nations as they remain in control of medical related immigration and temporary inward travel.

The initial part of the relevant clause in the repeal, “that the resolution makes no attempt to reduce risks imposed by epidemics,” is a statement of fact. The resolution is indeed silent on the matter. However, we find that a repeal can reasonably claim that a target did not deal with a matter which was very relevant to the topic of the resolution, when the resolution factually did not. In this case, issues around epidemics and quarantines are relevant to the subject matter of the target.

The second part of the relevant clause in the repeal, “threatening well-intended nations with the risk of being overwhelmed by infected nonresidents and being unable to appropriately quarantine them”, bears further examination. It is possible to imagine a situation where infected medical tourists may be able to leave a nation prior to or during the outbreak of an epidemic and before they are quarantined by the home nation (under GAR#389: Rights Of The Quarantined). The well-intentioned receiving nations which had maintained an open border for incoming medical tourists under the target might be inundated with infectees. It just might even be overwhelmed.

Although it would appear that this may be an outlandish or unlikely interpretation, it is possible. As the target did not address the issue, there is some small element of a potential increased risk. It falls within the allowable embellishments and exaggerations under the honest mistake rule. Thus we find that this is not an honest mistake.

Dissent

I agree with the majority that the repeal is legal, for the reasons they state, as to the honest mistake allegation regarding war and espionage; the honest mistake allegation regarding GAR #97; and the metagaming allegation. I respectfully dissent from the majority on whether the "epidemics" clause constitutes an Honest Mistake. Calling out the target resolution for silence on a barely tangentially related concern that is both 1) already covered by other legislation, and 2) well within the power of nations to deal with themselves, is an Honest Mistake. GenSec has ruled other proposals illegal in the queue for doing exactly the same thing.

The repeal clause in question reads:

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;

So there must be some increased risk of contagion imposed but not mitigated by the target resolution. But I don't see one. No part of the target makes any requirement of host nations to alter the way they admit immigrants or visitors. The closest possible support is:

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,

In other words, nations are obliged to follow existing WA law when dealing with foreign entrants. But they were already obligated to do that. It is not a new requirement of the target that a member nation may not bar entry to a foreign national based on reductive categorizations; that's been law since the passage of GAR #35. If there is a risk of infection after the target's passage, that risk was virtually identical before passage as well.

Neither is the host nation bereft of possible responses to contagion. Indeed, GAR #53 and #389 detail the requirements of nations to respond to epidemics, and nations retain plenty of leeway to bar entry to obviously infectious people or even set precautionary measures for arrivals entering from a dangerous area (for example, the origin city of an airline flight is not a reductive categorization; as long as everyone on the flight is subjected to the same precautions, GAR #35 has nothing to say against them).

Is there any other reason to think the target increases the risk of disease spreading? The only plausible route I can think of is the possible increase in medical tourists from totalitarian states, now that their home nations may no longer bar them from seeking treatment abroad. But that number can't possibly be more significant than regular yearly fluctuations in tourism generally. A home nation so draconian that it previously barred medical tourists from traveling is not going to be paying any of their costs now, so only the richest (the least subject to disease, generally speaking; also the fewest in number) will now be traveling. All in all, the increased danger of epidemics spreading from a new, higher rate of medical tourists is necessarily so miniscule that it doesn't warrant mention, any more than GAR #22 needed to mention it.

It is not the job of a resolution to give instructions for every single possible outcome; only to account for the problems it attempts to solve, and the effects of its passage. Since the alleged increase in the danger of contagion resulting from the target is minimal to negligible, epidemics are outside the scope of the target resolution. An argument for repeal that claims it should have accounted for them can only be an Honest Mistake, rendering the repeal illegal.

[Wallenburg]

Finally.

[New Waldensia]

I'll get around to addressing this in a new resolution...... at some point. Gotta get my head back into the arguments and everything first.