[RESUMED] Repeal: “Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy”

[Araraukar]

Patients Rights Act.

OOC: Which the target resolution was carefully constructed to be in compliance with. And yes, it gives parents the right to decide on their kids' behalf on the consent, which isn't ideal, but arguing resolution X doesn't do Y as it couldn't do Y because of resolution Z, just makes no sense.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Further regretting that the resolution does not address nations with different religious practices or values,

Why do state entities get to enjoy "religious freedom" according to you? Also known as the "right" to impose the beliefs of the ruling class on their subjects?

[Araraukar]

Further regretting that the resolution does not address nations with different religious practices or values,

Why do state entities get to enjoy "religious freedom" according to you? Also known as the "right" to impose the beliefs of the ruling class on their subjects?

OOC: States actually don't have that freedom or right. Only individual people do.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Why do state entities get to enjoy "religious freedom" according to you? Also known as the "right" to impose the beliefs of the ruling class on their subjects?

OOC: States actually don't have that freedom or right. Only individual people do.

OOC: Ofc, but I wish to have OP explain to us why he thinks nations should enjoy that right.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Ofc, but I wish to have OP explain to us why he thinks nations should enjoy that right.

OOC: No, no, you'll be accused of being passive-aggressive and of having too subjective thought processes.

[Refuge Isle]

Why do state entities get to enjoy "religious freedom" according to you? Also known as the "right" to impose the beliefs of the ruling class on their subjects?

OOC: States actually don't have that freedom or right. Only individual people do.

To be clear, though, this refers to the rights of individuals to not be imprisoned for their ideology and carry out their practices in peace. When it was the same-sex marriage argument, I could see a (weak, but arguable) angle that marriage is supposedly a religious construct. In this case, the concept of trans people, somewhere in the country, living their lives in peace being an affront to religous beliefs is a stretch such that I'm impressed it can be said with a straight face. Most especially because repealing the target resolution does not delete trans people from the country, it just makes them do what they're doing now with extra financial strain.

[Catsfern]

so the discussion of weather or not transgender people should have a right to exist has been had, they do, that's great, can we move on from that now. The main reason i support the actual legal proposal to repeal “Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy” is because it requires nations no matte o big or small, no matter how rich or poor to provide 100% of the time hormone therapy at a poorly defined "affordable" level. To begin with "affordable" can be hard to determine is $1000 affordable? for some nations yes, for others no, and what about nations with a poor economy? If the market cant bring the price to a once again poorly defined "affordable" level then it falls on the government to do so, raising taxes and increasing the burden on the people. What I think needs to happen is the current resolution of “Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy” needs to be repealed and replaced with “Accessible Transgender Hormone Therapy” or a similar resolution that bars member nations from restricting access to hormone therapy rather than forcing them to provide it when the market cant.

[Araraukar]

To begin with "affordable" can be hard to determine is $1000 affordable? for some nations yes, for others no, and what about nations with a poor economy?

OOC: There is no set price or requirement for a bulk price to be set, anywhere in the target. "Affordable" indeed varies from nation to nation, hence it's up to each nation to set it at an affordable level. Think of how food costs need to be affordable, as well as housing and basic utilities (Minimum Standards of Living Act). If your nation can comply with those, then it can't use the affordability issue credibly.

[Catsfern]

To begin with "affordable" can be hard to determine is $1000 affordable? for some nations yes, for others no, and what about nations with a poor economy?

OOC: There is no set price or requirement for a bulk price to be set, anywhere in the target. "Affordable" indeed varies from nation to nation, hence it's up to each nation to set it at an affordable level. Think of how food costs need to be affordable, as well as housing and basic utilities (Minimum Standards of Living Act). If your nation can comply with those, then it can't use the affordability issue credibly.

that still doesn't alleviate my other problem with the resolution that if the market fails to provide affordability then under the resolution it falls on the government st step n and provide it, and if the government has to step in that raises taxes, which as a person who hates taxing my citizens I dont like

[East Meranopirus]

that still doesn't alleviate my other problem with the resolution that if the market fails to provide affordability then under the resolution it falls on the government st step n and provide it, and if the government has to step in that raises taxes, which as a person who hates taxing my citizens I dont like

Believe it or not, the government can just force the manufacturers and providers to lower their prices, thus requiring no spending at all.

[Catsfern]

that still doesn't alleviate my other problem with the resolution that if the market fails to provide affordability then under the resolution it falls on the government st step n and provide it, and if the government has to step in that raises taxes, which as a person who hates taxing my citizens I dont like

Believe it or not, the government can just force the manufacturers and providers to lower their prices, thus requiring no spending at all.

forcing manufacturers to do something requires greater regulation spending, greater regulation spending still increases taxes.

[The New Nordic Union]

Believe it or not, the government can just force the manufacturers and providers to lower their prices, thus requiring no spending at all.

forcing manufacturers to do something requires greater regulation spending, greater regulation spending still increases taxes.

OOC: Seeing that all resolutions require member states to do something, something along this line could be said about any given resolution.

[Catsfern]

forcing manufacturers to do something requires greater regulation spending, greater regulation spending still increases taxes.

OOC: Seeing that all resolutions require member states to do something, something along this line could be said about any given resolution.

id much prefer a resolution that just says that member nations cant make a law that prevents something over a resolution that says a nation has to do something, the government doing less things means less taxation.

[Gudmund]

Doesn't the passed resolution Ban on Conversion Therapy (#437) completely contradict the target resolution Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy (#467)? Has this already been discussed?

Resolution 437 states that ...countless analyses, studies, and evidenced-based tests have conclusively shown what already makes intuitive sense, that sexual orientation and gender identity are not choices, thus rendering conversion therapy useless, and Prohibits any public or governmental body in a World Assembly member-state from recommending or performing conversion therapy on any individual, It also Defines, for the sake of this resolution, "conversion therapy" as any attempt to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of an individual through psychological, physical, or coercive spiritual intervention,

Meaning that with 467's definition of hormone therapy as a medical operation, the affects of 437 still apply. Thus contradicting 467's requirement for ...all member-states to legalize hormone therapy for all consenting individuals,

In fact, most of 467 is completely moot.

[The New Nordic Union]

Doesn't the passed resolution Ban on Conversion Therapy (#437) completely contradict the target resolution Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy (#467)? Has this already been discussed?

Resolution 437 states that ...countless analyses, studies, and evidenced-based tests have conclusively shown what already makes intuitive sense, that sexual orientation and gender identity are not choices, thus rendering conversion therapy useless, and Prohibits any public or governmental body in a World Assembly member-state from recommending or performing conversion therapy on any individual, It also Defines, for the sake of this resolution, "conversion therapy" as any attempt to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of an individual through psychological, physical, or coercive spiritual intervention,

Meaning that with 467's definition of hormone therapy as a medical operation, the affects of 437 still apply. Thus contradicting 467's requirement for ...all member-states to legalize hormone therapy for all consenting individuals,

In fact, most of 467 is completely moot, and for some reason they were both proposed by United Massachusetts, except his opinion seems to have done a full 180. I don't get it.

OOC: Well, no. 467 does not make it legal to try to change someone's gender identity, but rather to provide them with the means to have their body fit that identity.

[Gudmund]

Doesn't the passed resolution Ban on Conversion Therapy (#437) completely contradict the target resolution Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy (#467)? Has this already been discussed?

Resolution 437 states that ...countless analyses, studies, and evidenced-based tests have conclusively shown what already makes intuitive sense, that sexual orientation and gender identity are not choices, thus rendering conversion therapy useless, and Prohibits any public or governmental body in a World Assembly member-state from recommending or performing conversion therapy on any individual, It also Defines, for the sake of this resolution, "conversion therapy" as any attempt to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of an individual through psychological, physical, or coercive spiritual intervention,

Meaning that with 467's definition of hormone therapy as a medical operation, the affects of 437 still apply. Thus contradicting 467's requirement for ...all member-states to legalize hormone therapy for all consenting individuals,

In fact, most of 467 is completely moot, and for some reason they were both proposed by United Massachusetts, except his opinion seems to have done a full 180. I don't get it.

OOC: Well, no. 467 does not make it legal to try to change someone's gender identity, but rather to provide them with the means to have their body fit that identity.

Oh I see, I've misread entirely, 437 is about forcing/coercing others through the process. And the definition of "conversion therapy" is the methods of force, not the types of medical operations. Man, now I feel dumb, I should really get more sleep.

[Bears Armed]

that still doesn't alleviate my other problem with the resolution that if the market fails to provide affordability then under the resolution it falls on the government st step n and provide it, and if the government has to step in that raises taxes, which as a person who hates taxing my citizens I dont like

Believe it or not, the government can just force the manufacturers and providers to lower their prices, thus requiring no spending at all.

OOC
Believe it or not, some manufacturers -- especially if not actually based in the nation itself -- might decide that the legally-enforced lower price makes producing or importing the drugs no longer worthwhile... unless it's subisdised by the government using taxpayers' money.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Believe it or not, the government can just force the manufacturers and providers to lower their prices, thus requiring no spending at all.

OOC
Believe it or not, some manufacturers -- especially if not actually based in the nation itself -- might decide that the legally-enforced lower price makes producing or importing the drugs no longer worthwhile... unless it's subisdised by the government using taxpayers' money.

OOC: Doesn't that happen with drugs that manufacturers believe is no longer profitable despite them being needed? Scummy, deplorable behaviour in general.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
Believe it or not, some manufacturers -- especially if not actually based in the nation itself -- might decide that the legally-enforced lower price makes producing or importing the drugs no longer worthwhile... unless it's subisdised by the government using taxpayers' money.

OOC: Doesn't that happen with drugs that manufacturers believe is no longer profitable despite them being needed? Scummy, deplorable behaviour in general.

OOC
If a drug costs 10 whatevers a unit to produce, and a government sets a legal price of 1 whatever per unit, there is nothing "scummy" about the company saying that it will require a subsidy in order to continue production of that drug. Company management has legal obligations to its shareholders.

[Tinfect]

Believe it or not, the government can just force the manufacturers and providers to lower their prices, thus requiring no spending at all.

OOC
Believe it or not, some manufacturers -- especially if not actually based in the nation itself -- might decide that the legally-enforced lower price makes producing or importing the drugs no longer worthwhile... unless it's subisdised by the government using taxpayers' money.

OOC:
Thus demonstrating that the whole matter is best handled by a public organization rather than a private actor operating on principles of profit rather than the public good.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: Given that affordable healthcare with "full coverage" is already required by member nations, I don't really see how that's very relevant. As obviously the nations have already solved the problem (or are in noncompliance already) of affordable medications. Also, like has been said a million times already, estrogen and testosterone are used for hormone deficiency treatments for cisgender people too, so they by necessity already exist in affordable form.

[Mockia]

I would support this repeal, because ATHT is very unnecessary.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
Believe it or not, some manufacturers -- especially if not actually based in the nation itself -- might decide that the legally-enforced lower price makes producing or importing the drugs no longer worthwhile... unless it's subisdised by the government using taxpayers' money.

OOC:
Thus demonstrating that the whole matter is best handled by a public organization rather than a private actor operating on principles of profit rather than the public good.

OOC
Are you seriously claiming that governments and public organisations are inherently infallible, and so would never prioritize funding in other ways?

*snip*

OOC: Given that affordable healthcare with "full coverage" is already required by member nations, I don't really see how that's very relevant. As obviously the nations have already solved the problem (or are in noncompliance already) of affordable medications. Also, like has been said a million times already, estrogen and testosterone are used for hormone deficiency treatments for cisgender people too, so they by necessity already exist in affordable form.

OOC
If you're referring to GAR #97, that allows nations to get financial help for their medical systems from the WHA meaning that they can afford medicines which might otherwise be too expensive for them. Wan't one of the main arguments behind ATHT the idea that WHA support might not be available in this situation?

[Araraukar]

If you're referring to GAR #97, that allows nations to get financial help for their medical systems from the WHA meaning that they can afford medicines which might otherwise be too expensive for them. Wan't one of the main arguments behind ATHT the idea that WHA support might not be available in this situation?

OOC: #97 also says this...

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.

I'd say also #124, given that hormones are usually regulated/restricted medications in RL, so it's reasonable to think they would be in NS as well.

Also, I can't say what ATHT's author's unsaid intentions were, so I'm just going by what the resolutions say. Additionally, if you think that WHA help accounts for hormone therapy in nations too poor to arrange it otherwise, then the argument that nations can be too poor to arrange it, is... null.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I've got multiple chapters on state capture and public choice in my textbooks. Turns out government, state-owned enterprises, etc aren't always the best.