Aclion wrote:There is no need to act like a cunt.
Nor either is there a need to ignore spell check or give half effort to reading something you go on to criticize, but you've gone and done it anyway.
Gensec has ruled that foreigners seeking entry into a member nation are protected by CoCR's restrictions on discrimination. Gensec has not ruled that preventing the spread of contagious diseases or preventing infiltration by enemy agents is not a compelling practical purpose.
Not really my argument, though. My argument is that it increases the risk by requiring a more in-depth and individualized approach rather than a broad restriction based on how CoCR operates. It could easily have included a provision that makes such restrictions compelling practical purposes, but it did not. Ergo, my criticism.
As I've said, critical reading is a good and beneficial thing. It lets you pick apart little distinctions that you might otherwise overlook.
The substantial point is not that the resolution is silent on the matter, that is not being disputed(As must as SP would like to insist on arguing the point with me.) It is the alleged consequence of the resolution being silent that is the issue.
Which are only that risks are increased. Which is technically true. Anything less than an outright closing of borders increases risk of consequences of unauthorized entry.
The repeal argues that because the target resolution remained silent, nation will be at risk, unable to control in influx of infected nonresidents "well-intended nations [are threatened] with the risk of being overwhelmed by infected nonresidents and being unable to appropriately quarantine them;". But well-intended nations are not threatened, because the proposal does not strip them of control of incoming patients. It is silent on the matter.
But that's the argument. Thanks for proving me right.
The author has suggested that, by making medical tourists, and not their home nation, responsible for medical costs, Freedom to Seek Medical Care fails to account for the requirements of Quality in Health Services to prevent a certain level of care free of cost.
This is an honest mistake; because Freedom to Seek Medical Care does not authorize nations to fail to provide their residents with the level of care required by Quality in Health Services. It ensures people will be allowed to seek better care outside of their home nations, if they so choose. There is nothing for Freedom to Seek Medical Care to fail to account for in Quality in Health Services. It is a dishonest attempt to present the resolution as a loophole to the requirements of Quality in Health Services.
Not at all. I never argued that this created a loophole in QiHS, merely that it did not account for the requirements under QiHS which require member states assist those who cannot pay for their own preventative healthcare. The logical interpretation, if we have to reconcile the two, is that states can require people only cover their care for non-QiHS procedures. I merely pointed out in my argument that FtSC didn't account for that, not that it contradicted or duplicated anything. Another careful distinction.
It is also meta-gaming; because if Freedom to Seek Medical Care allowed what the repeal claims it does it would contradict Quality in Health Services; an illegality.
I don't think that's right. Metagaming is when the game is referred to as a game. At any rate, my argument was never that there was an illegality. In fact, I even marked FtSC legal as a member of GenSec, so its hardly as though I'm using illegality as a repeal argument here.
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:22 am
