NationStates

I have expanded the resolution to deal with veterans issues in general, since healthcare was too specific. Here is the new resolution I wrote up.

Ensuring Veterans Rights

Category: Civil Rights (?)
Strength: Significant

---

The World Assembly,


Recognizing that many nations employ civilians in their armed forces;

Noting that many of those returning find themselves in an environment that is far different to what it was during their service;

Worried that during this confusing time, veterans can be left to enter civilian life without any support;

Seeking to assure that veterans are sufficiently assisted in their return to civilian life;


1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution:

a) "Veteran" as a civilian that has served and been discharged in their nations respective armed forces for any amount of time;

b) "Civilian Life" as life as a civilian of a nation without being in said nations military;


2. Mandates that returning veterans be offered full reinstatement to their former place of employment before their military service, if they still qualify for the position;

a) Noting that this shall include (but not be limited to):

i. Full pay at the time before their military service;

ii. Their former rank or position within their place of employment


3. Declares that governments shall assist veterans in finding a new place of employment if so desired, or if the veteran was not employed before deployment;


4. Proclaims that veterans that refuse employment or are unable to find new employment shall recieve a government issued welfare paycheck equal to their pay during military service;

a) Noting that in cases where normal welfare payments would equal more than the set military paycheck, then the veteran will receive normal welfare payments;


5. Affirms that veterans shall receive tailored care for their injuries, both mental and physical, that are related to combat;

a) Noting that if a situation exists where a veteran is unable to pay for their own care, then the government will cover all costs;


6. States that veterans who wish to retire, if that is an option, will receive retirement pay from their national government;


7. Urges governments to provide payments for veteran housing and food if the veteran is unable to provide the funds to pay for it themselves;


8. Acknowledging that veterans who were discharged dishonerably will not receive any benefits outlined in this resolution;

a) Noting that if a veteran who is being tried for war crimes after being discharged will also be excluded.

Mathuvan Union is co-author

So, here it is. Any thoughts?

Dominioan wrote:ACKNOLEDGING that there are many veterans who return from military service back to civilian life;

That's "Acknowledging"

Nooooooooooooooo wrote:

Dominioan wrote:ACKNOLEDGING that there are many veterans who return from military service back to civilian life;

That's "Acknowledging"

You...could have told me on the RMB, we are in the same region, but thanks

Dominioan wrote:a) Returning veterans are reinstated to their former healthcare plan in their former civilian life;

But what about Veterans who didn't have a healthcare plan before serving?

Nooooooooooooooo wrote:

Dominioan wrote:a) Returning veterans are reinstated to their former healthcare plan in their former civilian life;

But what about Veterans who didn't have a healthcare plan before serving?

There is the area that says "Returning veterans are given the chance to freely choose from any other healthcare plan if they so desire".

Dominioan wrote:

Nooooooooooooooo wrote:
But what about Veterans who didn't have a healthcare plan before serving?

There is the area that says "Returning veterans are given the chance to freely choose from any other healthcare plan if they so desire".

Yes, from any other healthcare plan, implying that they already had one.

Nooooooooooooooo wrote:

Dominioan wrote:There is the area that says "Returning veterans are given the chance to freely choose from any other healthcare plan if they so desire".

Yes, from any other healthcare plan, implying that they already had one.

I could add something to it saying that it also applies to veterans who had no plan before deployment?

Dominioan wrote:

Nooooooooooooooo wrote:Yes, from any other healthcare plan, implying that they already had one.

I could add something to it saying that it also applies to veterans who had no plan before deployment?

Yes.

I should also add that the category is probably wrong. I would change it to Category: health - Effect: healthcare.

Nooooooooooooooo wrote:

Dominioan wrote:I could add something to it saying that it also applies to veterans who had no plan before deployment?

Yes.

I should also add that the category is probably wrong. I would change it to Category: health - Effect: healthcare.

Ah, okay. Thanks!

Against. It is devolved too much to the National Government to a point where I see little point in the resolution. It doesn’t much cover situations in which someone had decently healthcare or was homeless. It doesnt cover actually helping these people.

Mathuvan Union wrote:Against. It is devolved too much to the National Government to a point where I see little point in the resolution. It doesn’t much cover situations in which someone had decently healthcare or was homeless. It doesnt cover actually helping these people.

If someone had decent healthcare, then they are free to return to their former plan, and not use any governmental financial aid.

Dominioan wrote:

Mathuvan Union wrote:Against. It is devolved too much to the National Government to a point where I see little point in the resolution. It doesn’t much cover situations in which someone had decently healthcare or was homeless. It doesnt cover actually helping these people.

If someone had decent healthcare, then they are free to return to their former plan, and not use any governmental financial aid.

What if they where seriously wounded and did not have good healthcare? Is this more shit government healthcare?

Mathuvan Union wrote:

Dominioan wrote:If someone had decent healthcare, then they are free to return to their former plan, and not use any governmental financial aid.

What if they where seriously wounded and did not have good healthcare? Is this more shit government healthcare?

They can choose government healthcare if that is an option, but they are free to choose any coverage, including private healthcare.

Dominioan wrote:

Mathuvan Union wrote:What if they where seriously wounded and did not have good healthcare? Is this more shit government healthcare?

They can choose government healthcare if that is an option, but they are free to choose any coverage, including private healthcare.

But what areas does it really cover? What is the definition of quality healthcare?

Mathuvan Union wrote:

Dominioan wrote:They can choose government healthcare if that is an option, but they are free to choose any coverage, including private healthcare.

But what areas does it really cover? What is the definition of quality healthcare?

I am pretty sure that has been defined in other resolutions (I can look), should I add it has to meet WA standards?

Dominioan wrote:

Mathuvan Union wrote:But what areas does it really cover? What is the definition of quality healthcare?

I am pretty sure that has been defined in other resolutions (I can look), should I add it has to meet WA standards?

you need to define it, too. I could just give my vets North Korea.

Mathuvan Union wrote:

Dominioan wrote:I am pretty sure that has been defined in other resolutions (I can look), should I add it has to meet WA standards?

you need to define it, too. I could just give my vets North Korea.

Should I put the definition as "meeting WA standards of healthcare", or something more detailed?

Dominioan wrote:

Mathuvan Union wrote:you need to define it, too. I could just give my vets North Korea.

Should I put the definition as "meeting WA standards of healthcare", or something more detailed?

I believe that would work, a Secretariat should say more honestly.
going onto my nextpoint, what type of healthcare? literal healthcare like health insurance or an overall program to boost the welfare of a veteran of @@nation@@'s armed forces?

Mathuvan Union wrote:

Dominioan wrote:Should I put the definition as "meeting WA standards of healthcare", or something more detailed?

I believe that would work, a Secretariat should say more honestly.
going onto my nextpoint, what type of healthcare? literal healthcare like health insurance or an overall program to boost the welfare of a veteran of @@nation@@'s armed forces?

Health insurance.

Dominioan wrote:

Mathuvan Union wrote:I believe that would work, a Secretariat should say more honestly.
going onto my nextpoint, what type of healthcare? literal healthcare like health insurance or an overall program to boost the welfare of a veteran of @@nation@@'s armed forces?

Health insurance.

what area does it cover?

Mathuvan Union wrote:

Dominioan wrote:Health insurance.

what area does it cover?

I’m not sure what you mean. If in terms of coverage, everything. It mandates for coverage for all types of care.

Dominioan wrote:

Mathuvan Union wrote:what area does it cover?

I’m not sure what you mean. If in terms of coverage, everything. It mandates for coverage for all types of care.

alright.

Dominioan wrote:

Mathuvan Union wrote:I believe that would work, a Secretariat should say more honestly.
going onto my nextpoint, what type of healthcare? literal healthcare like health insurance or an overall program to boost the welfare of a veteran of @@nation@@'s armed forces?

Health insurance.

I guess you're American? This is written as if healthcare is private, or a "plan", as in the US. In the developed world, and most of the developing world, this doesn't exist. "Health plan" in Denmark, for instance, means something completely different; likewise, health insurance is largely not a thing.
In NS, this couldn't apply to my nation, because the mandates cannot give what doesn't exist, the same probably goes for all other WA nations, because all citizens already have healthcare at a high standard (Resolution #97). The legal effect of this resolution would be nil.

Attempted Socialism wrote:

Dominioan wrote:Health insurance.

I guess you're American? This is written as if healthcare is private, or a "plan", as in the US. In the developed world, and most of the developing world, this doesn't exist. "Health plan" in Denmark, for instance, means something completely different; likewise, health insurance is largely not a thing.
In NS, this couldn't apply to my nation, because the mandates cannot give what doesn't exist, the same probably goes for all other WA nations, because all citizens already have healthcare at a high standard (Resolution #97). The legal effect of this resolution would be nil.

You are right about that. I was thinking of redoing this legislation to be a General veterans rights one, not just a health one. Would that be better?

Check the passed resolutions first, would be my advice, though I can't recall one off the top of my head.