Repeal "Quality in Health Services"

[Germoaustria]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL

Repeal "Quality in Health Services"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation


Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#97
Proposed by: Germoaustria

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #97: Quality in Health Services (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: UNDERSTANDING: That this bill may make health care more expensive, and may make the best health care even harder to come by for the middle and lower classes.

REALIZING: That the government may not know what is better for a private individual than a private insurance company.

FEARING: That this bill may decrease the overall quality of health care.

UNDERSTANDING: That health care is one of the biggest industries in the world, and this bill may threaten that industries stability. If that industry goes in to the red, we could face a world wide economic crisis, which would make good health care incredibly hard to come by.

Hereby repeals resolution #97.

[Quadrimmina]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL

Repeal "Quality in Health Services"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation


Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#97
Proposed by: Germoaustria

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #97: Quality in Health Services (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: UNDERSTANDING: That this bill may make health care more expensive, and may make the best health care even harder to come by for the middle and lower classes.

REALIZING: That the government may not know what is better for a private individual than a private insurance company.

FEARING: That this bill may decrease the overall quality of health care.

UNDERSTANDING: That health care is one of the biggest industries in the world, and this bill may threaten that industries stability. If that industry goes in to the red, we could face a world wide economic crisis, which would make good health care incredibly hard to come by.

Hereby repeals resolution #97.

Providing healthcare to all makes health care harder to come by for middle and lower classes than a for-profit system?

Private insurance companies know what is better for the people? How about they know what is better for their wallets? They're just vultures looking for their 20% overhead.

Decrease the quality of health care how?

How does it threaten the industry's stability?

You have posted numerous generalities with no specific context. You have simply stated that making sure everyone has access to quality healthcare pisses on the middle and lower classes, that private insurance companies are awesome, and have, without elaboration, declared that ensuring everyone has healthcare decreases its quality and threatens the healthcare industry's stability. You have made these ridiculous claims, and have no evidence or logic to back it up. AGAINST, strongly.

[Germoaustria]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL

Repeal "Quality in Health Services"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation


Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#97
Proposed by: Germoaustria

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #97: Quality in Health Services (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: UNDERSTANDING: That this bill may make health care more expensive, and may make the best health care even harder to come by for the middle and lower classes.

REALIZING: That the government may not know what is better for a private individual than a private insurance company.

FEARING: That this bill may decrease the overall quality of health care.

UNDERSTANDING: That health care is one of the biggest industries in the world, and this bill may threaten that industries stability. If that industry goes in to the red, we could face a world wide economic crisis, which would make good health care incredibly hard to come by.

Hereby repeals resolution #97.

Providing healthcare to all makes health care harder to come by for middle and lower classes than a for-profit system?

Private insurance companies know what is better for the people? How about they know what is better for their wallets? They're just vultures looking for their 20% overhead.

Decrease the quality of health care how?

How does it threaten the industry's stability?

You have posted numerous generalities with no specific context. You have simply stated that making sure everyone has access to quality healthcare pisses on the middle and lower classes, that private insurance companies are awesome, and have, without elaboration, declared that ensuring everyone has healthcare decreases its quality and threatens the healthcare industry's stability. You have made these ridiculous claims, and have no evidence or logic to back it up. AGAINST, strongly.

1: It makes the best health care harder to come by.

2: Private HC Idustries may know better than an internation organization.

3: And governments and politicians don't care about their wallets? Are you really saying the gov.s arn't corrupt, and wastefull?

4: Once again, makes the best health care harder to come by.

5: Because gov.s are not competitive, private buisnesses must provide good health care at low rates, or they will go out of buisness, where as gov. health care can just give people care for free, and tax people to make the bottom line, and if they don't it may result in tottal financial colapse of a country, look at Greece.

[Magthere]

The Armed Republic of Magthere will not support a repeal of QUality in Health Services

OOC I am getting a horrific sense of de ja vu (Spelled right?) with a certain other health care debate which was fairly recent...

[Germoaustria]

ooc: Or at Finland, Canada, and Britain and their completely bankrupt and collapsed econo-wait a second

I belive all those countries are in debt, and they do not have great econamies, not to mention that Canadians come down to America all the time for our health care, and the UK has a shortage of care, and the ration.

[Germoaustria]

The Armed Republic of Magthere will not support a repeal of QUality in Health Services

OOC I am getting a horrific sense of de ja vu (Spelled right?) with a certain other health care debate which was fairly recent...

Why, why can't you people just let other people run their nations, instead of imposing a corrupt international government, I could care less if you want to have national health care, but I do not, and under the current political circumstances, I must be in the WA.

[Germoaustria]

ooc: Or at Finland, Canada, and Britain and their completely bankrupt and collapsed econo-wait a second

I belive all those countries are in debt, and they do not have great econamies, not to mention that Canadians come down to America all the time for our health care, and the UK has a shortage of care, and the ration.

OOC: We're in debt? Look at you.

We are in debt for different reasons (IE social security, wars, war on drugs, ect.)

[Presumptions]

*looks oddly at the ambassadors in the room*

Well the region of Gatesville Pledges its support for this repeal.
For too long has the tyranny of the WA has held us in it's vice like grip, we approve of any lessening of it's hold.

[Quadrimmina]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL

Repeal "Quality in Health Services"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation


Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#97
Proposed by: Germoaustria

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #97: Quality in Health Services (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: UNDERSTANDING: That this bill may make health care more expensive, and may make the best health care even harder to come by for the middle and lower classes.

REALIZING: That the government may not know what is better for a private individual than a private insurance company.

FEARING: That this bill may decrease the overall quality of health care.

UNDERSTANDING: That health care is one of the biggest industries in the world, and this bill may threaten that industries stability. If that industry goes in to the red, we could face a world wide economic crisis, which would make good health care incredibly hard to come by.

Hereby repeals resolution #97.

Providing healthcare to all makes health care harder to come by for middle and lower classes than a for-profit system?

Private insurance companies know what is better for the people? How about they know what is better for their wallets? They're just vultures looking for their 20% overhead.

Decrease the quality of health care how?

How does it threaten the industry's stability?

You have posted numerous generalities with no specific context. You have simply stated that making sure everyone has access to quality healthcare pisses on the middle and lower classes, that private insurance companies are awesome, and have, without elaboration, declared that ensuring everyone has healthcare decreases its quality and threatens the healthcare industry's stability. You have made these ridiculous claims, and have no evidence or logic to back it up. AGAINST, strongly.

1: It makes the best health care harder to come by.

2: Private HC Idustries may know better than an internation organization.

3: And governments and politicians don't care about their wallets? Are you really saying the gov.s arn't corrupt, and wastefull?

4: Once again, makes the best health care harder to come by.

5: Because gov.s are not competitive, private buisnesses must provide good health care at low rates, or they will go out of buisness, where as gov. health care can just give people care for free, and tax people to make the bottom line, and if they don't it may result in tottal financial colapse of a country, look at Greece.

1) It makes the best health care harder to come by if its prohibitively expensive?
2) Private HC industries know how to line their wallets better. Governments offer citizens services.
3) Maybe they are, but capitalism pushes companies to want to reap a profit off consumers.
4) How?
5) They dont have to provide good health care at low rates. Even if they charge really high prices, people will buy them and get ripped off. Also, nations' budget balancing is their problem.

Also, GA#97 simply says that everyone needs to have coverage. It doesnt even prohibit private care. It simply says that if someone can't get access to reasonably priced, quality care, the government must guarantee access. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you that peoples' health shouldn't be something that a corporate fatcat can make a profit from because its not even the point! This resolution explicitly allows private industry if a nation wants there to be it.

[Glen-Rhodes]

You seems to be under the impression that the resolution doesn't allow private participation in a health system. In other words, your repeal is illegal, 'Honest Mistakes' and whatnot.

[Enn]

The entire argument put forth here depends on the word 'may'. Prevarication is all well and good, but basing an antire argument on 'may' means you haven't got an argument.

Enn will not support this repeal attempt, as it does not have an argument for repealing.

Angelo Lanerik,
Acting WA Ambassador for Enn

[Germoaustria]

The entire argument put forth here depends on the word 'may'. Prevarication is all well and good, but basing an antire argument on 'may' means you haven't got an argument.

Enn will not support this repeal attempt, as it does not have an argument for repealing.

Angelo Lanerik,
Acting WA Ambassador for Enn

May is in there because, you can not make an honest political arguement without using may or probably, and I prefer being honest than a politician.

[Germoaustria]

You seems to be under the impression that the resolution doesn't allow private participation in a health system. In other words, your repeal is illegal, 'Honest Mistakes' and whatnot.

Not at all, I am suggesting that the bill may lead to government care, or governments prefering a certain company.

[Germoaustria]

Ufortunatly, I have to tend to a bill I proposed in my region, so I will not be very active here.

[Quadrimmina]

You seems to be under the impression that the resolution doesn't allow private participation in a health system. In other words, your repeal is illegal, 'Honest Mistakes' and whatnot.

Not at all, I am suggesting that the bill may lead to government care, or governments prefering a certain company.

And how does that change from the prior system. Those things can also happen if this resolution is repealed...

[Germoaustria]

You seems to be under the impression that the resolution doesn't allow private participation in a health system. In other words, your repeal is illegal, 'Honest Mistakes' and whatnot.

Not at all, I am suggesting that the bill may lead to government care, or governments prefering a certain company.

And how does that change from the prior system. Those things can also happen if this resolution is repealed...

Those things are not internationaly enforsed, you could still have national health care if the bill is repealed too, or any other system, repealing the bill simply makes you more free to run your own nation, and not have it screwed up by bad bills like this.

[Quadrimmina]

You seems to be under the impression that the resolution doesn't allow private participation in a health system. In other words, your repeal is illegal, 'Honest Mistakes' and whatnot.

Not at all, I am suggesting that the bill may lead to government care, or governments prefering a certain company.

And how does that change from the prior system. Those things can also happen if this resolution is repealed...

Those things are not internationaly enforsed, you could still have national health care if the bill is repealed too, or any other system, repealing the bill simply makes you more free to run your own nation, and not have it screwed up by bad bills like this.

This bill does not endorse national health care. It simply says that everyone must have access to quality health care. Our UniCare national health care system has been running since our country was founded, not since this resolution was passed. Nations can still have whatever kind of system they want, so long as everyone is covered. We will not support this resolution's repeal because all that would do is remove the mandate that everyone must have access to affordable, quality health care.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Those things are not internationaly enforsed, you could still have national health care if the bill is repealed too, or any other system, repealing the bill simply makes you more free to run your own nation, and not have it screwed up by bad bills like this.

So, your official stance is that the resolution is bad because it 'may lead to government care, or governments prefering a certain company'. Your solution is to repeal it, so that governments can provide government care or prefer a certain company. You're tripping over yourself.

[Germoaustria]

Those things are not internationaly enforsed, you could still have national health care if the bill is repealed too, or any other system, repealing the bill simply makes you more free to run your own nation, and not have it screwed up by bad bills like this.

So, your official stance is that the resolution is bad because it 'may lead to government care, or governments prefering a certain company'. Your solution is to repeal it, so that governments can provide government care or prefer a certain company. You're tripping over yourself.

I want to repeal it so nations can do as they please, and so gov. can have no buisness in health care at all if that is what they want.

[Germoaustria]

You seems to be under the impression that the resolution doesn't allow private participation in a health system. In other words, your repeal is illegal, 'Honest Mistakes' and whatnot.

Not at all, I am suggesting that the bill may lead to government care, or governments prefering a certain company.

And how does that change from the prior system. Those things can also happen if this resolution is repealed...

Those things are not internationaly enforsed, you could still have national health care if the bill is repealed too, or any other system, repealing the bill simply makes you more free to run your own nation, and not have it screwed up by bad bills like this.

This bill does not endorse national health care. It simply says that everyone must have access to quality health care. Our UniCare national health care system has been running since our country was founded, not since this resolution was passed. Nations can still have whatever kind of system they want, so long as everyone is covered. We will not support this resolution's repeal because all that would do is remove the mandate that everyone must have access to affordable, quality health care.

I do not want gov. to have to be in health care at all, and that includes giving people money to buy private care.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I want to repeal it so nations can do as they please, and so gov. can have no buisness in health care at all if that is what they want.

Look, your argument makes zero sense. You are arguing to repeal because the resolution may do this and that, while simultaneous arguing that repealing it would allow nations to do those very things.

Also, again, you are completely mistaken in what the resolution does. Nowhere does it say governments must be involved in health care. In fact, it explicitly states that governments can completely privatize their health system.

[Kryozerkia]

I want to repeal it so nations can do as they please, and so gov. can have no buisness in health care at all if that is what they want.

Look, your argument makes zero sense. You are arguing to repeal because the resolution may do this and that, while simultaneous arguing that repealing it would allow nations to do those very things.

Also, again, you are completely mistaken in what the resolution does. Nowhere does it say governments must be involved in health care. In fact, it explicitly states that governments can completely privatize their health system.

Since it's apparent Germoaustra isn't taking your word seriously, I will back you up on it. A thorough review of both the repeal and the resolution as well as the arguments presented in this thread suggests that you are indeed correct. This repeal falls under 'honest mistake'.