[WITHDRAWN] Single Payer Option Act

[Quadrimmina]

Single Payer Option Act
Social Justice > Mild

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

UNDERSTANDING the disparity of the availability of health services in WA nations.

FURTHER UNDERSTANDING the number of dead and dying persons and lowered standards and qualities of life as a result of such a disparity.

SEEKING to correct this disparity.

HEREBY ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Health Care Option (HCO)

CREATES the World Assembly Single Payer Committee (WASPC), which will be in charge of running and regulating the HCO to compete with those currently in place in member nations.

DECLARES that this option can operate as supplemental insurance to a single-payer plan, as a government-offered plan, or as competition with private insurance, depending on agreement between the WASPC and the nation in question.

CONSIDERS the HCO inactive unless it has received sufficient orders from nations or individuals to be financially self-sustainable.

URGES nations to allow such the HCO to compete with their existing insurance systems or to integrate the HCO into their systems.

ACKNOWLEDGES that non-WA nations may also buy into this plan, but that reasonable pricing disparities may be set by the WASPC between WA and non-WA nations.

APPROPRIATES any surplus funds at the end of a fiscal year that is not necessary for the operations of the HCCO over the next fiscal year or appropriate reserve funds to the World Assembly General Fund.

CLARIFIES that the HCO is not mandatory and does not need to be bought into by any nation.

[Grays Harbor]

Isn't this in effect already covered under resolution #97, Quality Health whatever?

IT IS THEREFORE ESTABLISHED:

1) The health services shall constitute separate systems in each & every nation, organized according to the following guidelines:

a) Full health services coverage;

Why do we also now need more insurance on top of that? How much redundancy do we need?

[Quadrimmina]

Isn't this in effect already covered under resolution #97, Quality Health whatever?

IT IS THEREFORE ESTABLISHED:

1) The health services shall constitute separate systems in each & every nation, organized according to the following guidelines:

a) Full health services coverage;

Why do we also now need more insurance on top of that? How much redundancy do we need?

It's not that, it's simply another option nations have in providing full services coverage.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Isn't this in effect already covered under resolution #97, Quality Health whatever?

Has Your Excellency's gone so maddenly insane because of #97, that Your Excellency cannot ever get around to pronouncing its name? Or it is just an early symptom of dementia?

Yours,

[Melki]

Single Payer Option Act
Social Justice > Mild

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

UNDERSTANDING the disparity of the availability of health services in WA nations.

FURTHER UNDERSTANDING the number of dead and dying persons and lowered standards and qualities of life as a result of such a disparity.

SEEKING to correct this disparity.

HEREBY CREATES the World Assembly Single Payer Committee (WASPC), which will be in charge of running and regulating a health insurance option to compete with those currently in place in member nations.

ALLOWS nations to contract the insurance option as a nation-offered health care plan.

FORBIDS the insurance plan from running unless it has received sufficient pledges from nations or individuals to be financially self-sustainable.

URGES nations to allow such a plan to compete with their private insurance plans or their public single payer plans.

ACKNOWLEDGES that non-WA nations may also buy into this plan, but that reasonable pricing disparities may be set by the WASPC between WA and non-WA nations.

I am supporting this.
Sincerely,

[Grays Harbor]

Isn't this in effect already covered under resolution #97, Quality Health whatever?

IT IS THEREFORE ESTABLISHED:

1) The health services shall constitute separate systems in each & every nation, organized according to the following guidelines:

a) Full health services coverage;

Why do we also now need more insurance on top of that? How much redundancy do we need?

It's not that, it's simply another option nations have in providing full services coverage.

"Another option"? More like another bureau of the Department of Redundancy Department.

[Grays Harbor]

Isn't this in effect already covered under resolution #97, Quality Health whatever?

Has Your Excellency's gone so maddenly insane because of #97, that Your Excellency cannot ever get around to pronouncing its name? Or it is just an early symptom of dementia?

Yours,

Not at all. It is merely that the constrictions on behavior in the general assembly preclude and prevent us from voicing our true opinion of #97 as well as certain fellow ambassadors. So, your mild insult is noted, and we shall now go back to ignoring your commentaries as being insignificant to our decision process.

[Quadrimmina]

The purpose of this act is to provide an alternative for smaller nations who cannot support a national health insurance option or plan, or for nations that want to foster more free market competition. If it was Department of Redundancy Department, it would be a declaration of the need for universal services. In other words, we considered "Quality in Health Services" to be an unfunded mandate that hurts many nations (we have UniCare, we're covered just fine), and therefore offer this as a way to bridge that disparity, as opposed to repealing a resolution that has some merits.

[Sionis Prioratus]

In other words, we considered "Quality in Health Services" to be an unfunded mandate that hurts many nations (we have UniCare, we're covered just fine), and therefore offer this as a way to bridge that disparity, as opposed to repealing a resolution that has some merits.

Maybe dementia has evolved into an epidemic:

2) The health system shall be financed by national budgets or the budgets of assigned political divisions, as well as other existing private voluntary sources. The WHA may also fund at the request of any nation, but never before a thorough audit of the health system, ensuring transparency & honesty. 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.

This argument is below pathetic.

Yours,

[Astralsideria]

Satisfied that Resolution #97, Quality In Health Services, amply covers this area of necessity, and further satisfied that that Resolution deals sufficiently with any possible financial concerns, His Most Serene Majesty's Government in Right of the Most Serene Kingdom of Astralsideria fails to see the need for another Resolution on the same topic.

[Quadrimmina]

In other words, we considered "Quality in Health Services" to be an unfunded mandate that hurts many nations (we have UniCare, we're covered just fine), and therefore offer this as a way to bridge that disparity, as opposed to repealing a resolution that has some merits.

Maybe dementia has evolved into an epidemic:

2) The health system shall be financed by national budgets or the budgets of assigned political divisions, as well as other existing private voluntary sources. The WHA may also fund at the request of any nation, but never before a thorough audit of the health system, ensuring transparency & honesty. 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.

This argument is below pathetic.

Yours,

It should be noted that the WHA gets money from the WA general fund, or the money of every nation. While we have no issue with this, we must note that our proposal mitigates the need for our funding of those nations that cannot provide for themselves by allowing them to have a secondary solution, like providing a plan for multiple people. The issue is simply that this cuts the burden that the WA must use to
"bail out" other nations via GA#97, and allows them to fund a plan by creating a de facto "cooperative".

[Ammador]

The Republic of Ammador already has a Universal Healthcare system (AB 12846-HTC: 1033 - The People's Health Protection Act of 1990 Created "Amma-Care"). We have a small private sector health insurance industry offering supplemental and private insurance plans.

We wonder if the esteemed author would add a clause that makes an exception for nations with Universal Healthcare Programs?

[Sionis Prioratus]

we must note that our proposal mitigates the need for our funding of those nations that cannot provide for themselves by allowing them to have a secondary solution, like providing a plan for multiple people. The issue is simply that this cuts the burden that the WA must use to "bail out" other nations via GA#97, and allows them to fund a plan by creating a de facto "cooperative".

First of all, there is no such "burden". #97 has the most stringent requisites of any resolution to dispense funds, in order to ensure honesty and transparency. Further:

4) Nations, or any assigned political divisions, shall:

a) Provide health personnel & supplies to health services at least once every budget cycle, aiming at the gradual reduction of internal health disparities;
b) Establish the standards of review, evaluation & control of allocation of health personnel & supplies;
c) The WHA shall assist the shaping of said standards if, and only if, so asked by any nation.

5) Nations or any assigned political divisions shall retain full freedom to:

a) Allow or not, partial to full participation of private enterprise in their health systems;

They are so allowed already.

As for "de facto cooperation":

IT IS THEREFORE ESTABLISHED:

1) The health services shall constitute separate systems in each & every nation, organized according to the following guidelines:

a) Full health services coverage;
b) Community participation;
c) Cooperation between nations that are not at a declared state of war amongst themselves.

It exists already.

We are beginning to wonder if Your Excellency has actually read #97.

Yours,

[Sionis Prioratus]

The Republic of Ammador already has a Universal Healthcare system (AB 12846-HTC: 1033 - The People's Health Protection Act of 1990 Created "Amma-Care"). We have a small private sector health insurance industry offering supplemental and private insurance plans.

We wonder if the esteemed author would add a clause that makes an exception for nations with Universal Healthcare Programs?

He will not, Your Excellency, as this text is redundant head to toe, and as such has no future.

Yours,

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The honoured ambassador from Charlotte Ryberg has enough healthcare insurance already: some member states provide free healthcare without insurance, no questions asked.

[Freeoplis]

This Nation provides free health care which is publicly funded to all citizens, this proposal is therefore unnecessary.

[Quadrimmina]

The Republic of Ammador already has a Universal Healthcare system (AB 12846-HTC: 1033 - The People's Health Protection Act of 1990 Created "Amma-Care"). We have a small private sector health insurance industry offering supplemental and private insurance plans.

We wonder if the esteemed author would add a clause that makes an exception for nations with Universal Healthcare Programs?

He will not, Your Excellency, as this text is redundant head to toe, and as such has no future.

Yours,

My delegation puts forward the possibility that your esteemed delegation is insulted simply that we imply that Your Excellency's amazing resolution has some requisite flaws. We are sorry to say that that is the case. While it is a stringent method of protecting funds, we are also under the impression that sole private (and thus for-profit) health insurance plans are not sufficient to provide quality healthcare to high risk individuals. Therefore, we provide the nations that your resolution funds and a lot of them that don't and therefore technically have quality health care by GA#97 but maybe not as well as it could be, if it were a part of a large risk-equalizing pool. This is simply creating an extremely large risk-equalization pool, much larger than your "cooperation between nations" pool, since it creates an established system that any nation can buy into.

To answer the concerns of Ammador, our nation as well has a universal healthcare program. It is actually rather similar to yours (ours is called UniCare), with a single payer system and supplemental coverage available. However, we must note that this is not a mandatory plan, simply one that is set up. If Your Excellency would like me to remove the URGES part that urges those with single payer to offer this as competition, I will gladly do so. However, we feel that the language exempts nations like yours and mine who offer single-payer healthcare, since it is an opt-in system for nations.

The same goes for Freeoplis and Charlotte Ryberg.

This is not a mandatory system, I think this is the misunderstanding that nations have. The non-effect clause that says that the system does not operate without sufficient pledge should be an indication of that.

[Sionis Prioratus]

The non-effect clause that says that the system does not operate without sufficient pledge should be an indication of that.

Optionality, as Redundancy, is illegal as well.

Yours,

[Freeoplis]

To answer the concerns of Ammador, our nation as well has a universal healthcare program. It is actually rather similar to yours (ours is called UniCare), with a single payer system and supplemental coverage available. However, we must note that this is not a mandatory plan, simply one that is set up. If Your Excellency would like me to remove the URGES part that urges those with single payer to offer this as competition, I will gladly do so. However, we feel that the language exempts nations like yours and mine who offer single-payer healthcare, since it is an opt-in system for nations.

The same goes for Freeoplis and Charlotte Ryberg.

This is not a mandatory system, I think this is the misunderstanding that nations have. The non-effect clause that says that the system does not operate without sufficient pledge should be an indication of that.

We understand the reasoning in providing an alternative health care system within Nations, even in those providing free health care, however we spend billions of Freelas on our public health care system each year, why would we want to spend more money on a WA proposal to create a second option, it just wouldn't make sense and it would be difficult to encourage us to support an unnecessary spending of such money.

[Quadrimmina]

To answer the concerns of Ammador, our nation as well has a universal healthcare program. It is actually rather similar to yours (ours is called UniCare), with a single payer system and supplemental coverage available. However, we must note that this is not a mandatory plan, simply one that is set up. If Your Excellency would like me to remove the URGES part that urges those with single payer to offer this as competition, I will gladly do so. However, we feel that the language exempts nations like yours and mine who offer single-payer healthcare, since it is an opt-in system for nations.

The same goes for Freeoplis and Charlotte Ryberg.

This is not a mandatory system, I think this is the misunderstanding that nations have. The non-effect clause that says that the system does not operate without sufficient pledge should be an indication of that.

We understand the reasoning in providing an alternative health care system within Nations, even in those providing free health care, however we spend billions of Freelas on our public health care system each year, why would we want to spend more money on a WA proposal to create a second option, it just wouldn't make sense and it would be difficult to encourage us to support an unnecessary spending of such money.

The issue is simply that currently, we spend some money, within reason of course, for the nations that are covered by the WHA under GA#97. Only nations that want to subscribe to this plan can, and will, pay for it. It will be there simply as an option for those nations that wish to subscribe to it. An option that will not be available until enough nations subscribe to it to make it self-sustaining and profitable. Therefore, we can assure you that this proposal will not cost you a dime unless your nation wishes to subscribe to the program. Quite the opposite effect as a matter of fact. We save some money, be it very little, and offer better healthcare to a subset of the world population.

The non-effect clause that says that the system does not operate without sufficient pledge should be an indication of that.

Optionality, as Redundancy, is illegal as well.

Yours,

It should be noted that while buying into the program is optional and the program being brought into effect is optional, creating it is not. Therefore, it shouldn't be illegal.

[Sionis Prioratus]

The non-effect clause that says that the system does not operate without sufficient pledge should be an indication of that.

Optionality, as Redundancy, is illegal as well.

Yours,

It should be noted that while buying into the program is optional and the program being brought into effect is optional, creating it is not. Therefore, it shouldn't be illegal.

Should that argument be true - we doubt it - we are puzzled as to what exactly constitutes "sufficient pledges".

Yours,

[Quadrimmina]

The non-effect clause that says that the system does not operate without sufficient pledge should be an indication of that.

Optionality, as Redundancy, is illegal as well.

Yours,

It should be noted that while buying into the program is optional and the program being brought into effect is optional, creating it is not. Therefore, it shouldn't be illegal.

Should that argument be true - we doubt it - we are puzzled as to what exactly constitutes "sufficient pledges".

Yours,

Whenever the gnomes who run the program determine that they can be profitable as a single payer plan with the money they get in from pledging nations. Hence the necessity of the committee, considering our nation's aversion to them.

[Freeoplis]

The optional Nature is welcomed but we raise the issue that what would stop all Nations from opting out making this proposal redundant. The reality is at a National level insurance and pharmaceutical companies will lobby politicians to opt out as they will want to keep their monopoly on health care in tact, economic and National pressures on politicians will in the end win the day against such an optional proposal.

[Sionis Prioratus]

The non-effect clause that says that the system does not operate without sufficient pledge should be an indication of that.

Optionality, as Redundancy, is illegal as well.

Yours,

It should be noted that while buying into the program is optional and the program being brought into effect is optional, creating it is not. Therefore, it shouldn't be illegal.

Should that argument be true - we doubt it - we are puzzled as to what exactly constitutes "sufficient pledges".

Yours,

Whenever the gnomes who run the program determine that they can be profitable as a single payer plan with the money they get in from pledging nations. Hence the necessity of the committee, considering our nation's aversion to them.

Good! Will World Assembly members receive a letter from the Compliance Commission when the Committee Your Excellency Is Creating Notwithstanding Your Excellency Has Aversion To Committees deems there are "sufficient pledges"?

Yours,

[Quadrimmina]

The optional Nature is welcomed but we raise the issue that what would stop all Nations from opting out making this proposal redundant. The reality is at a National level insurance and pharmaceutical companies will lobby politicians to opt out as they will want to keep their monopoly on health care in tact, economic and National pressures on politicians will in the end win the day against such an optional proposal.

Of course that is true. The proposal is only as redundant as nations make it. However, there are over 10,000 nations in the WA and over 50,000 in the world. We are sure we will find enough to run a single payer healthcare plan. And if not, then maybe it does become redundant. But it is there in the event that it is needed in the future. Also, with GA#97, those lobbyists have few feet to stand on, cuz universal coverage is mandatory now. Either the companies cover them, or the nation does.

The non-effect clause that says that the system does not operate without sufficient pledge should be an indication of that.

Optionality, as Redundancy, is illegal as well.

Yours,

It should be noted that while buying into the program is optional and the program being brought into effect is optional, creating it is not. Therefore, it shouldn't be illegal.

Should that argument be true - we doubt it - we are puzzled as to what exactly constitutes "sufficient pledges".

Yours,

Whenever the gnomes who run the program determine that they can be profitable as a single payer plan with the money they get in from pledging nations. Hence the necessity of the committee, considering our nation's aversion to them.

Good! Will World Assembly members receive a letter from the Compliance Commission when the Committee Your Excellency Is Creating Notwithstanding Your Excellency Has Aversion To Committees deems there are "sufficient pledges"?

Yours,

Actually, I was thinking they'd get a letter from the Compliance Commission when the bill is passed, and nothing changed in their laws unless they wanted to, and then the WASPC would inform nations when the policy was active.