[PASSED] Patient Travel Freedoms

[Araraukar]

OOC: Did you get New Waldensia's permission to use the title? (Or are you New Waldensia? I can't keep track of undeclared puppets...)

[Cretox State]

OOC: Did you get New Waldensia's permission to use the title? (Or are you New Waldensia? I can't keep track of undeclared puppets...)

OOC: I wouldn't WA multi, but nice try. I'll change the title; the joke was starting to wear thin on me anyway.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I wouldn't WA multi, but nice try.

OOC: I didn't even check if they were still in the WA.

[Maowi]

"This is something to which we would be glad to lend our support.

"Speaking personally, I find your wording of clause one slightly odd and would recommend making edits there. It suggests that in the stated exceptions, member nations may "unduly interfere" with citizens' ability to seek foreign medical care, which to me seems by definition to be undesirable. I see scope for member nations to mandate that citizens take certain safety precautions in situations that fall under 1.a., as opposed to being able to completely ban them seeking foreign medical care - perhaps this proposal could reflect that possibility by allowing member nations only to interfere pursuant to allaying the concerns you raise in 1.a., and no further?"

[Cretox State]

"Perhaps you should add a clause clarifying that nations can hold medical tourists accountable for any crimes they may commit while seeking care in another country. If a person travels from Bigtopia to Maxtopia to seek medical care, and there commits a crime, the Maxtopian government should be able to prosecute such tourist like they would prosecute any criminal suspect. But other than that I support."

"Why would such clarification be necessary, when no part of the resolution insinuates that nations may not prosecute medical tourists for crimes? Additionally, we believe that extradition laws are best handled in their entirety by a separate resolution."

[Flying Eagles]

Where's the provision that stops us from having to pay for the healthcare of our citizens that got injured by being dumb aboard?

"In the absence of such a provision, wouldn't member nations be free to make their own policies on the matter?"

Unless such policies would count as “retaliation”, you would be correct.

[Cretox State]

"Speaking personally, I find your wording of clause one slightly odd and would recommend making edits there. It suggests that in the stated exceptions, member nations may "unduly interfere" with citizens' ability to seek foreign medical care, which to me seems by definition to be undesirable. I see scope for member nations to mandate that citizens take certain safety precautions in situations that fall under 1.a., as opposed to being able to completely ban them seeking foreign medical care - perhaps this proposal could reflect that possibility by allowing member nations only to interfere pursuant to allaying the concerns you raise in 1.a., and no further?"

"We split the exceptions off into their own clause."

[Kus Sikobietordia]

"Early draft of a replacement for 'Freedom to Seek Medical Care II' should this repeal prove successful. As always, any feedback is appreciated."
President Rogers I have many concerns with how quickly we can get this bill on the floor of the assembly before the appeal take please I feel that we should put a contingency plan and a time limit in the bill that allows this to me immediately take effect so that people are not without healthcare for too long and cannot seek proper Healthcare I also feel that by repealing the First Act it may have been prematurely done and you are putting security and top strings on countries that do provide these kind of access because we now in my we may not have to turn away hundreds of thousands of people at our country for dance because we are prohibiting them from getting Medical Care in our country putting a further strain on already weak defense system able The Proposal of repeal until countries can put a full contingency plan in order at this time I have to talk to my minister of health and defense and also talk to for National Security advisor to see the options that we may have as a country to still provide Medical Services after the repeal and could not turn away people at our

OOC: I stripped this down to what it actually needs to achieve, given the existence of GAR #97.

Medical Tourist Protection Act

Category: Civil Rights
Strength: Mild

---

The World Assembly,

Noting that adequate and affordable medical care is necessary to ensure the health of individuals and society as a whole;

Understanding that the unique medical needs of individuals can and do vary greatly, as does the medical infrastructure available within any given nation;

Recognizing that there are occasions in which seeking medical care in a foreign country is in the best interests of an individual, hereby:

1. Declares that, subject to this and extant World Assembly resolutions, member nations shall not prohibit or unduly interfere with the ability of their citizens or permanent residents to seek medical care within the territory of a foreign nation;
2. Clarifies that member nations may implement reasonable restrictions on the ability of their citizens or permanent residents to seek medical care within the territory of a foreign nation pursuant to any of the following conditions, so long as said conditions are met:
   1. seeking medical care within the territory of a foreign nation would compromise the safety of said citizens or permanent residents; or
   2. the citizens or permanent residents in question are legally unable to make the decision to seek medical care in the territory of a foreign nation due to incarceration, desertion, mental incompetence, or being below the age of majority;
3. Prohibits member nations from taking legal action or retaliating against their citizens or permanent residents for seeking medical care in the territory of a foreign nation, so long as said citizens or permanent residents are not in violation of policies implemented pursuant to clause 1 of this resolution;
4. Mandates that member nations implement reasonable and thoroughly developed policies for providing foreign medical care to their incarcerated populations, for situations in which such care should be required.

Medical Tourist Protection Act

Category: Civil Rights
Strength: Mild

---

The World Assembly,

Noting that adequate and affordable medical care is necessary to ensure the health of individuals and society as a whole;

Understanding that the unique medical needs of individuals can and do vary greatly, as does the medical infrastructure available within any given nation;

Recognizing that there are occasions in which seeking medical care in a foreign country is in the best interests of an individual, hereby:

1. Declares that, subject to extant World Assembly resolutions, member nations shall not prohibit or unduly interfere with the ability of their citizens or permanent residents to seek medical care within the territory of a foreign nation, unless:
   1. seeking medical care within the territory of a foreign nation would compromise the safety of said citizens or permanent residents; or
   2. the citizens or permanent residents in question are legally unable to make the decision to seek medical care in the territory of a foreign nation due to incarceration, desertion, mental incompetence, or being below the age of majority;
2. Prohibits member nations from taking legal action or retaliating against their citizens or permanent residents for seeking medical care in the territory of a foreign nation, so long as said citizens or permanent residents are not in violation of policies implemented pursuant to clause 1 of this resolution;
3. Mandates that member nations implement reasonable and thoroughly developed policies for providing foreign medical care to their incarcerated populations, for situations in which such care should be required.

The World Assembly,

Noting that adequate and affordable medical care is necessary to ensure the health of individuals and society as a whole;

Understanding that the unique medical needs of individuals can and do vary greatly, as does the medical infrastructure available within any given nation;

Recognizing that there are occasions in which seeking medical care in a foreign country is in the best interests of an individual;

Concerned by the dangers, restrictions, and financial costs often faced by individuals seeking foreign medical care, hereby:

1. Declares that member nations shall not prohibit or unduly interfere with the ability of their citizens or permanent residents to travel to another member nation's territory for the purposes of seeking medical care, except as otherwise provided by this and prior World Assembly resolutions;
2. Clarifies that member nations may restrict the ability of their citizens or permanent residents to travel to another member nation's territory for the purposes of seeking medical care, so long as that travel would compromise the safety of said citizens or permanent residents by exposing them to:
   1. armed conflict;
   2. man-made or natural disasters; or
   3. other risks to their safety of equal or greater magnitude than the above;
3. Permits member nations to:
   1. place reasonable restrictions on travel for the purposes of seeking medical care within the extent they may already do so, for the purpose of combating the spread of infectious disease;
   2. set their own policies regarding the intake of foreign citizens or permanent residents seeking medical care within their borders;
   3. set their own policies regarding the coverage of costs for medical care provided to foreign citizens or permanent residents within their territory;
4. Prohibits member nations from taking legal action or retaliating against their citizens or permanent residents for seeking medical care within the territory of a foreign nation;
5. Encourages member nations to further fund the development of effective medical infrastructure.

[Kus Sikobietordia]

"Early draft of a replacement for 'Freedom to Seek Medical Care II' should this repeal prove successful. As always, any feedback is appreciated."
Members of the assembly I have many concerns with how quickly we can get this bill on the floor of the assembly before the appeal take please I feel that we should put a contingency plan and a time limit in the bill that allows this to me immediately take effect so that people are not without healthcare for too long and cannot seek proper Healthcare I also feel that by repealing the First Act it may have been prematurely done and you are putting security and top strings on countries that do provide these kind of access because we now in my we may not have to turn away hundreds of thousands of people at our country for dance because we are prohibiting them from getting Medical Care in our country putting a further strain on already weak defense system able The Proposal of repeal until countries can put a full contingency plan in order at this time I have to talk to my minister of health and defense and also talk to for National Security advisor to see the options that we may have as a country to still provide Medical Services after the repeal and could not turn away people at our borders
With further investigation it would cost us more to try to stop this bill turn them away then to actually allow them in our country
OOC: I stripped this down to what it actually needs to achieve, given the existence of GAR #97.

Medical Tourist Protection Act

Category: Civil Rights
Strength: Mild

---

The World Assembly,

Noting that adequate and affordable medical care is necessary to ensure the health of individuals and society as a whole;

Understanding that the unique medical needs of individuals can and do vary greatly, as does the medical infrastructure available within any given nation;

Recognizing that there are occasions in which seeking medical care in a foreign country is in the best interests of an individual, hereby:

1. Declares that, subject to this and extant World Assembly resolutions, member nations shall not prohibit or unduly interfere with the ability of their citizens or permanent residents to seek medical care within the territory of a foreign nation;
2. Clarifies that member nations may implement reasonable restrictions on the ability of their citizens or permanent residents to seek medical care within the territory of a foreign nation pursuant to any of the following conditions, so long as said conditions are met:
   1. seeking medical care within the territory of a foreign nation would compromise the safety of said citizens or permanent residents; or
   2. the citizens or permanent residents in question are legally unable to make the decision to seek medical care in the territory of a foreign nation due to incarceration, desertion, mental incompetence, or being below the age of majority;
3. Prohibits member nations from taking legal action or retaliating against their citizens or permanent residents for seeking medical care in the territory of a foreign nation, so long as said citizens or permanent residents are not in violation of policies implemented pursuant to clause 1 of this resolution;
4. Mandates that member nations implement reasonable and thoroughly developed policies for providing foreign medical care to their incarcerated populations, for situations in which such care should be required.

Medical Tourist Protection Act

Category: Civil Rights
Strength: Mild

---

The World Assembly,

Noting that adequate and affordable medical care is necessary to ensure the health of individuals and society as a whole;

Understanding that the unique medical needs of individuals can and do vary greatly, as does the medical infrastructure available within any given nation;

Recognizing that there are occasions in which seeking medical care in a foreign country is in the best interests of an individual, hereby:

1. Declares that, subject to extant World Assembly resolutions, member nations shall not prohibit or unduly interfere with the ability of their citizens or permanent residents to seek medical care within the territory of a foreign nation, unless:
   1. seeking medical care within the territory of a foreign nation would compromise the safety of said citizens or permanent residents; or
   2. the citizens or permanent residents in question are legally unable to make the decision to seek medical care in the territory of a foreign nation due to incarceration, desertion, mental incompetence, or being below the age of majority;
2. Prohibits member nations from taking legal action or retaliating against their citizens or permanent residents for seeking medical care in the territory of a foreign nation, so long as said citizens or permanent residents are not in violation of policies implemented pursuant to clause 1 of this resolution;
3. Mandates that member nations implement reasonable and thoroughly developed policies for providing foreign medical care to their incarcerated populations, for situations in which such care should be required.

The World Assembly,

Noting that adequate and affordable medical care is necessary to ensure the health of individuals and society as a whole;

Understanding that the unique medical needs of individuals can and do vary greatly, as does the medical infrastructure available within any given nation;

Recognizing that there are occasions in which seeking medical care in a foreign country is in the best interests of an individual;

Concerned by the dangers, restrictions, and financial costs often faced by individuals seeking foreign medical care, hereby:

1. Declares that member nations shall not prohibit or unduly interfere with the ability of their citizens or permanent residents to travel to another member nation's territory for the purposes of seeking medical care, except as otherwise provided by this and prior World Assembly resolutions;
2. Clarifies that member nations may restrict the ability of their citizens or permanent residents to travel to another member nation's territory for the purposes of seeking medical care, so long as that travel would compromise the safety of said citizens or permanent residents by exposing them to:
   1. armed conflict;
   2. man-made or natural disasters; or
   3. other risks to their safety of equal or greater magnitude than the above;
3. Permits member nations to:
   1. place reasonable restrictions on travel for the purposes of seeking medical care within the extent they may already do so, for the purpose of combating the spread of infectious disease;
   2. set their own policies regarding the intake of foreign citizens or permanent residents seeking medical care within their borders;
   3. set their own policies regarding the coverage of costs for medical care provided to foreign citizens or permanent residents within their territory;
4. Prohibits member nations from taking legal action or retaliating against their citizens or permanent residents for seeking medical care within the territory of a foreign nation;
5. Encourages member nations to further fund the development of effective medical infrastructure.

[Anistria]

"Perhaps you should add a clause clarifying that nations can hold medical tourists accountable for any crimes they may commit while seeking care in another country. If a person travels from Bigtopia to Maxtopia to seek medical care, and there commits a crime, the Maxtopian government should be able to prosecute such tourist like they would prosecute any criminal suspect. But other than that I support."

I also agree that there should be a clause that medical tourists should be accountable for any crimes committed. I also support this.

[Cretox State]

"Perhaps you should add a clause clarifying that nations can hold medical tourists accountable for any crimes they may commit while seeking care in another country. If a person travels from Bigtopia to Maxtopia to seek medical care, and there commits a crime, the Maxtopian government should be able to prosecute such tourist like they would prosecute any criminal suspect. But other than that I support."

I also agree that there should be a clause that medical tourists should be accountable for any crimes committed. I also support this.

"Perhaps you should add a clause clarifying that nations can hold medical tourists accountable for any crimes they may commit while seeking care in another country. If a person travels from Bigtopia to Maxtopia to seek medical care, and there commits a crime, the Maxtopian government should be able to prosecute such tourist like they would prosecute any criminal suspect. But other than that I support."

"Why would such clarification be necessary, when no part of the resolution insinuates that nations may not prosecute medical tourists for crimes? Additionally, we believe that extradition laws are best handled in their entirety by a separate resolution."

[Bananaistan]

OOC: As currently written this is verbal diarrhoea and takes far too long to parse and establish what is meant than is reasonable for such a short proposal. In particular, "pursuant to any of the following conditions, so long as said conditions are met" in section 2, and "so long as said citizens or permanent residents are not in violation of policies implemented pursuant to clause 1 of this resolution;" in section 3. What does this even mean?

[Honeydewistania]

There ought to be provisions for extradition laid out in here, or at least clarify that it will be covered by future legislation

[Cretox State]

OOC: As currently written this is verbal diarrhoea and takes far too long to parse and establish what is meant than is reasonable for such a short proposal. In particular, "pursuant to any of the following conditions, so long as said conditions are met" in section 2, and "so long as said citizens or permanent residents are not in violation of policies implemented pursuant to clause 1 of this resolution;" in section 3. What does this even mean?

OOC: I changed the offending phrase in section 2; getting the wording right has been giving me some problems. I fixed that part of section 3. It should've referred to section 2, specifically to any restrictions imposed as per section 2. Otherwise, governments would be unable to prosecute their citizens for disobeying travel restrictions.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: As currently written this is verbal diarrhoea and takes far too long to parse and establish what is meant than is reasonable for such a short proposal. In particular, "pursuant to any of the following conditions, so long as said conditions are met" in section 2, and "so long as said citizens or permanent residents are not in violation of policies implemented pursuant to clause 1 of this resolution;" in section 3. What does this even mean?

OOC: I changed the offending phrase in section 2; getting the wording right has been giving me some problems. I fixed that part of section 3. It should've referred to section 2, specifically to any restrictions imposed as per section 2. Otherwise, governments would be unable to prosecute their citizens for disobeying travel restrictions.

OOC: Fair enough, it makes more sense now.

You might also look at the mention of desertion. Are you saying that if an oppressive member state is concerned about someone deserting, they can stop them travelling? Or that deserters are mentally incompetent?

IC: "This proposal is a blow against social solidarity. Establishing a right for the rich and powerful to piss off abroad for better treatment than that available domestically means that they will never sort out the domestic health service. Opposed."

[Anistria]

I also agree that there should be a clause that medical tourists should be accountable for any crimes committed. I also support this.

"Why would such clarification be necessary, when no part of the resolution insinuates that nations may not prosecute medical tourists for crimes? Additionally, we believe that extradition laws are best handled in their entirety by a separate resolution."

From: Oscar Lancaster, Anistrian Representative to the World Assembly

If that's the case, then I withdraw my previous objection. Other than that, the Government of Anistria still support the draft.

[Maowi]

OOC: "Unduly interfere" in clause 1 seems like weak language; I feel like it could easily be abused. I think the exceptions in the clarification clause cover that so that you could replace "unduly interfere" with "hinder" or something like "obstructively interfere" maybe.

[Cretox State]

You might also look at the mention of desertion. Are you saying that if an oppressive member state is concerned about someone deserting, they can stop them travelling? Or that deserters are mentally incompetent?

OOC: I removed desertion from the draft entirely. If someone deserts, they would be prosecuted for desertion, not for seeking medical care.

IC: "This proposal is a blow against social solidarity. Establishing a right for the rich and powerful to piss off abroad for better treatment than that available domestically means that they will never sort out the domestic health service. Opposed."

"The primary benefit we see in this proposal is ensuring that individuals can travel abroad for specialized procedures that might simply not be available in their home countries. We could potentially restrict the scope of the proposal to medical care that cannot reasonably be attained by individuals within their home country."

OOC: "Unduly interfere" in clause 1 seems like weak language; I feel like it could easily be abused. I think the exceptions in the clarification clause cover that so that you could replace "unduly interfere" with "hinder" or something like "obstructively interfere" maybe.

OOC: I'll use "obstructively interfere."

[Kenmoria]

“In clause 2b, you use the wording ‘legally unable to make the decision’ to describe incarcerated persons. Can we take it from this that such wording also applies to soldiers intending to desert this posts?”

[Kus Sikobietordia]

I feel that the current draft of this new bill is too broad there has to be specific and it's to watered-down that it will not be accepted or voted on we need to get deeper in the new draft or it will be turn down and and there will be a great consequence I asked that we build a subcommittee for this bill so that all parties get a opportunity to really get what they want out of the bill

[Cretox State]

“In clause 2b, you use the wording ‘legally unable to make the decision’ to describe incarcerated persons. Can we take it from this that such wording also applies to soldiers intending to desert this posts?”

"Wouldn't desertion be covered by clause 4?"

[Kenmoria]

“In clause 2b, you use the wording ‘legally unable to make the decision’ to describe incarcerated persons. Can we take it from this that such wording also applies to soldiers intending to desert this posts?”

"Wouldn't desertion be covered by clause 4?"

“Why would soldiers be incarcerated? I presume you’re saying that the soldier could be arrested for deserting his or her post, then provided foreign medical care while in prison. I’m arguing that, since desertion as an action involves nothing but leaving to go to another country, it would qualify under this as medical tourism. That is only false if soldiers fall under ‘legally unable to make the decision’ in clause 2b.”

[Cretox State]

"Wouldn't desertion be covered by clause 4?"

“Why would soldiers be incarcerated? I presume you’re saying that the soldier could be arrested for deserting his or her post, then provided foreign medical care while in prison. I’m arguing that, since desertion as an action involves nothing but leaving to go to another country, it would qualify under this as medical tourism. That is only false if soldiers fall under ‘legally unable to make the decision’ in clause 2b.”

"It seems as though the best course of action would be to simply exempt deserters from this proposal altogether."

[Malashaan Colony]

I'm a little concerned that 2 is too open to abuse. "Safety" and "reasonable restrictions" are both relatively broad. Particularly in this context where the medical treatment itself almost certainly involves a degree of risk (i.e., it is not safe). There's a whole range of restrictions and requirements that could be deemed reasonable to protect safety, but that prevent a patient from seeking care they wish to have.

I'd also like to see 2 and 3 more closely tied together. As currently written, 3 doesn't apply at all if a policy implemented under 2 is violated. In other words, once a reasonable restriction policy has been violated, nations would appear to then be free to retaliate to their hearts' content. Something like the following might work better:

"Prohibits member nations from taking legal action or retaliating against their citizens or permanent residents for seeking medical care in the territory of a foreign nation, except as necessary to enforce valid restrictions put in place pursuant to clause 2."

[Cretox State]

I'm a little concerned that 2 is too open to abuse. "Safety" and "reasonable restrictions" are both relatively broad. Particularly in this context where the medical treatment itself almost certainly involves a degree of risk (i.e., it is not safe). There's a whole range of restrictions and requirements that could be deemed reasonable to protect safety, but that prevent a patient from seeking care they wish to have.

I'd also like to see 2 and 3 more closely tied together. As currently written, 3 doesn't apply at all if a policy implemented under 2 is violated. In other words, once a reasonable restriction policy has been violated, nations would appear to then be free to retaliate to their hearts' content. Something like the following might work better:

"Prohibits member nations from taking legal action or retaliating against their citizens or permanent residents for seeking medical care in the territory of a foreign nation, except as necessary to enforce valid restrictions put in place pursuant to clause 2."

OOC: I updated it with the above in mind.