Advertisement
by Scherzinger » Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:38 pm
by Wallenburg » Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:47 pm
‎
by Sil Dorsett » Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:38 am
"Prohibits member nations from denying or restricting their citizens or permanent residents from leaving to obtain medically necessary healthcare in other nations at their own expense, subject to any restrictions previously imposed by the General Assembly," (emphasis added)
4) Requires that all member nations, to the best of their capability:
- create at least one quarantine per epidemic in the nation;
- move all infected persons into the appropriate quarantine that is nearest to their current location;
- provide every treatment to all infected persons that are in a quarantine while taking any available precaution to ensure that the people administering these treatments are not infected;
- move anyone that ceases to be an infected person out of the quarantine;
- disband all quarantines of a certain epidemic when the epidemic ends;
by Republic of British Russia » Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:19 am
by Discoveria » Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:46 am
by Dragonslinding WA Mission » Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:27 am
by Imperial Polk County » Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:24 am
‎
‎
by The Hooved » Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:46 am
by Araraukar » Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:58 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by New Waldensia » Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:29 am
Army of Freedom medals received:
• N-Day² Medals -- N-Day³ Medals -- N-Day⁴ Medals
• Z-Day6 Medals
by Queer AnComville » Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:51 am
by Araraukar » Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:55 am
New Waldensia wrote:In all seriousness, that was not in the version I submitted, and I didn't catch it after submission.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Sanctaria » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:27 am
This Ministry notes that the language used in the resolution regarding the further legislating of restrictions on quarantine and emigrations, i.e. "previous resolutions", means that should the previous resolutions that regulate such be repealed, then this is the only resolution on the book that regulates quarantine and emigration - and it's use of "previous" rather than "extant" means no further legislation can be passed.
This is concerning because this resolutions tells us nations cannot prevent people from leaving for medical purposes. Quarantine is often, and almost exclusively, used for medical and public health purposes. As such, if previous resolutions on quarantine were repealed, then this would essentially prohibit it. This is not something this Ministry can support.
by Downwinds » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:16 pm
by Aclion » Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:30 pm
Downwinds wrote:Seems as if this could be taken by some nations as being ok to provide substandard healthcare as it will be taken care of abroad if the patients want it badly. It's hardly as if the world is on a roughly even level with respect to healthcare provisions - it varies wildly between states. Mostly that it could be used as a reason to underfund ones own healthcare nationally and expect patients to go elsewhere.
This disparity already exists even within nations, it is not a consequence of the proposal. The question we are facing is "Should we allow nations to prevent the underserved from seeking better healthcare outside of their nations?"Downwinds wrote:It creates a disparity in healthcare between the rich and poor - the rich can afford to travel and get the latest treatments and drugs, which may not be widely available yet everywhere. Also, we believe all people should be treated fairly. Thus, it would be against our morals to deny healthcare to foreigners in the country. And as our country has a social healthcare service which covers all people equally, a bill like this would promote health tourism to countries with extensive health services.. I can't put into words exactly what I mean but something seems a bit off about this.
by Lolz and Civfive » Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:11 pm
by Fauxia » Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:55 pm
“You mean it’s a General Assembly resolution?”Lolz and Civfive wrote:The ambassador steps up to the podium: “This proposal will encroach on my, and many other nations, soverign rights”.
by FreethinkingAnarchists ResidingWherever » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:10 pm
by Gnomeregon » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:34 pm
by Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:45 pm
Gnomeregon wrote:I would like to note concern that this legislation does not seem to prevent people from getting illegal medcine from another country and bringing it in to their home country. This could result in increase of black market trading.
by Flying Eagles » Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:08 pm
by Flying Eagles » Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:18 pm
by Flying Eagles » Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:36 pm
Sil Dorsett wrote:I'm disappointed in myself for not realizing this earlier and bringing this up, but...
If I am interpreting this and past resolutions correctly, but given Clause 1 of this proposal..."Prohibits member nations from denying or restricting their citizens or permanent residents from leaving to obtain medically necessary healthcare in other nations at their own expense, subject to any restrictions previously imposed by the General Assembly," (emphasis added)
versus Clause 4 of GA 389...4) Requires that all member nations, to the best of their capability:
- create at least one quarantine per epidemic in the nation;
- move all infected persons into the appropriate quarantine that is nearest to their current location;
- provide every treatment to all infected persons that are in a quarantine while taking any available precaution to ensure that the people administering these treatments are not infected;
- move anyone that ceases to be an infected person out of the quarantine;
- disband all quarantines of a certain epidemic when the epidemic ends;
If GA 389 were repealed, would that then mean that nations could not establish quarantines to prevent infected citizens from leaving the nation to seek care, potentially infecting others along the way?
If this does not pass or is repealed later on, I would suggest changing "restrictions previously imposed by the General Assembly" to "extant General Assembly resolutions" so that a future resolution could still legislate on matters regarding quarantines. If a resubmission is necessary and includes this alteration, I would support it.
by FreethinkingAnarchists ResidingWherever » Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:36 pm
Araraukar wrote:Unfolding the official opinion from the Central Office of Araraukar, Johan sighed, wishing again that Janis would get back soon.
"The Grand Nation of Araraukar is against any measures meant to be enacted by the World Assembly to outsource national healthcare. Quality healthcare should be the responsibility of each member nation, as is already mandated by an existing resolution. It is not acceptable for nations to worm their way out of that, as clause 7 of this proposal practically encourages them to do. As such, our vote is cast against."
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement