CHALLENGE: Repeal Freedom to Seek Medical Care

[New Waldensia]

Repeal: Freedom to Seek Medical Care
Category: Repeal | Strength: Over 9000!

---

Distressed that the resolution makes no accommodation or provision for nations engaged in conflict with the home nation of the medical tourists, opening the home nation to threats of espionage and sabotage;
[...]
Shocked at the blatant efforts to hamstring national jurisdiction under Clause 4 by making it illegal for a member state to subject medical tourists to penalties, even where such treatment is clearly illegal under the home nation's laws;

I've never challenged before, so here goes...

The statement from the paragraph "Distressed that the resolution makes no accommodation or provision..." is a factual inaccuracy/misrepresentation of the resolution in question. I believe this may be in violation of the Honest Mistake rule.

2: Affirms the ability of member nations to set their own policies and restrictions regarding the acceptance or non-acceptance of non-resident patients, and further declares that no member nation is required by this measure to provide medical care to non-resident medical patients above any requirements previously imposed by the General Assembly, [emphasis added]

Additionally, the general theme of the arguments in the Repeal are mostly NatSov related, which I believe may also be another violation.

[Bears Armed]

In a previous legality dispute, discussing immigration, GenSec decided by majority vote that GAR#35 protects against discrimination by member nations on the basis of nationality even when the people involved aren't yet within the nation concerned.
I disagreed with that interpretation, but was out-voted: If it's applied as a precedent here then it would mean that GAR#35 severely limits nations' options under your clause #2 and so there's no 'Honest Mistake' in the repeal.

[Wrapper]

Additionally, the general theme of the arguments in the Repeal are mostly NatSov related, which I believe may also be another violation.

Not a ruling, of course, but the NatSov rule has only been applied when it is the "sole argument". If there's anything else of substance in the repeal, the NatSov rule should not apply.

[Bananaistan]

It would appear that the "Distressed ...." clause in the repeal refers to the security implications for the home nation whereas section 2 of the target refers to the rights of the receiving nation to refuse the medical tourist. The point is that the home nation can do little or nothing about returning medical tourists who may or may not have been recruited by the authorities in the other nation to spy on the home nation.

Think someone from the USSR travelling to the USA for medical treatment during the Cold War and then coming home. Section 2 of the target says that the USA can tell them to GTFO. The repeal is not arguing is that. What it is arguing is that after the medical treatment the USSR has to just accept them back with open arms despite the fact that they may well have been recruited to spy on the USSR during their stay in the USA.

Also "a general theme of NatSov" is not illegal. The rule refers to NatSov only, IE if every clause was just about the rights of nations to do what they want.

I also don't believe there's any issue with nationality and COCR here. The target and the repeal are concerned with where someone is resident and the facts of where someone travels.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It would appear that the "Distressed ...." clause in the repeal refers to the security implications for the home nation whereas section 2 of the target refers to the rights of the receiving nation to refuse the medical tourist. The point is that the home nation can do little or nothing about returning medical tourists who may or may not have been recruited by the authorities in the other nation to spy on the home nation.

Think someone from the USSR travelling to the USA for medical treatment during the Cold War and then coming home. Section 2 of the target says that the USA can tell them to GTFO. The repeal is not arguing is that. What it is arguing is that after the medical treatment the USSR has to just accept them back with open arms despite the fact that they may well have been recruited to spy on the USSR during their stay in the USA.

I would agree that this is the correct interpretation. The 'home nation', though somewhat unclearly worded, does refer to medical tourists returning home.

[Aclion]

I am challenging Repeal: Freedom to Seek Medical Care on the grounds that it misrepresents the resolution it is repealing in nearly every argument; in violation of the Honest Mistake rule.
proposal linkie

Dismayed that the resolution, which allows member states to pass the cost of treatment onto medical tourists under Clause 5, fails to account for GAR#97, Quality in Health Services, which requires member states provide a certain level of health coverage for those who cannot afford it, free of cost;

Failure to provide the WA mandated level of healthcare is still noncompliance with Quality in Health Services, regardless of the this resolution and this resolution cannot change that, as that would be an amendment. Repeals are not the place to bring up legality challenges.

Distressed that the resolution makes no accommodation or provision for nations engaged in conflict with the home nation of the medical tourists, opening the home nation to threats of espionage and sabotage;

Categorically false. The resolution does so in clause 2 which "Affirms the ability of member nations to set their own policies and restrictions regarding the acceptance or non-acceptance of non-resident patients,". Nations are under no obligation to accept patients from nations they are in conflict with, or under any obligation to accept patents that might be a threat.

"Appalled that the resolution makes no attempt to reduce risks imposed by epidemics, threatening well-intended nations with the risk of being overwhelmed by infected nonresidents and being unable to appropriately quarantine them;"

Again clause 2. Nations are under no obligation to accept more patents then they can quarantine and no reasonable nation would do so.

[Wrapper]

GenSec previously asked that if any additional challenges were to be made, they should be added to the existing challenge thread, to keep everything in one place. Threads merged.

[Separatist Peoples]

Dismayed that the resolution, which allows member states to pass the cost of treatment onto medical tourists under Clause 5, fails to account for GAR#97, Quality in Health Services, which requires member states provide a certain level of health coverage for those who cannot afford it, free of cost;

Failure to provide the WA mandated level of healthcare is still noncompliance with Quality in Health Services, regardless of the this resolution and this resolution cannot change that, as that would be an amendment. Repeals are not the place to bring up legality challenges.

FtSC provides that the patient bears all costs. QiHS provides that the state provide costs for those who cannot pay. The only way to reconcile the two is to assume that states still pay for QiHS-required medical care. Which I have, and have made no claims to the legality of the issue. I have pointed out that FtSC could have benefited from accounting for QiHS.

Distressed that the resolution makes no accommodation or provision for nations engaged in conflict with the home nation of the medical tourists, opening the home nation to threats of espionage and sabotage;

Categorically false. The resolution does so in clause 2 which "Affirms the ability of member nations to set their own policies and restrictions regarding the acceptance or non-acceptance of non-resident patients,". Nations are under no obligation to accept patients from nations they are in conflict with, or under any obligation to accept patents that might be a threat.

Pursuant to how CoCR has been interpreted in the past, member states cannot discriminate in regard to border entry. As such, member states cannot pick and chose based on the off chance that an individual might be a spy. Further, my (passing) repeal argument is technically correct: There is no explicit accommodation or provision for that issue in the draft. Clause 2 is hamstrung by the current CoCR interpretation.

"Appalled that the resolution makes no attempt to reduce risks imposed by epidemics, threatening well-intended nations with the risk of being overwhelmed by infected nonresidents and being unable to appropriately quarantine them;"

Again clause 2. Nations are under no obligation to accept more patents then they can quarantine and no reasonable nation would do so.

Except that isn't the argument. The argument is that the resolution makes no attempt to reduce the risks, not that nations cannot take steps to that end. And again, based on the current interpretation of CoCR, nations cannot reject citizens from an area known to have an outbreak, thus putting them at risk. You'll notice I never qualified the degree of risk, preferring to leave it ambiguous. The mind always magnifies risks, after all.

These arguments are hogwash.

[Aclion]

It's not a simple case of an issue being addressed at a national level vs an international level. You argue that because the resolution does not address the issue of quarantine nations are "threatened with the risk of of being overwhelmed by infected nonresidents and being unable to appropriately quarantine them;"
This is clearly false, as nations are under no obligation to accept patents at all.

Regarding CoCR; the law allows for nations to discriminate where there is a compelling practical purpose. Gensec has ruled this did not apply to immigration but I'd argue that preventing the spread of contagious diseases and safeguarding national security from a enemy nation are both compelling practical purposes for controlling entry into a nation.

[Separatist Peoples]

It's not a simple case of an issue being addressed at a national level vs an international level. You argue that because the resolution does not address the issue of quarantine nations are "threatened with the risk of of being overwhelmed by infected nonresidents and being unable to appropriately quarantine them;"
This is clearly false, as nations are under no obligation to accept patients at all.

Spell check is your friend. I argue that the resolution doesn't address any issues of quarantine, not that there is no viable alternative. Critical thinking is your friend, guy. I made a colorable argument that placed my repeal in the best light possible. I did not make the claim that you are reading into.

Regarding CoCR; the law allows for nations to discriminate where there is a compelling practical purpose. Gensec has ruled this did not apply to immigration but I'd argue that preventing the spread of contagious diseases and safeguarding national security from a enemy nation are both compelling practical purposes for controlling entry into a nation.

What you'd argue for is irrelevant. GenSec has ruled that one cannot discriminate in allowing individuals based on nationality when determining entry into the nation. Now, if a nation wanted to prevent only those showing symptoms, then you are correct, and there is a compelling practical purpose. But a nation cannot block all entry from Great Infectious Ebolaland on the off-chance that travelers are infected, even if there is a serious outbreak, as that would be the very definition of discrimination based on nationality.

[Bananaistan]

Dismayed that the resolution, which allows member states to pass the cost of treatment onto medical tourists under Clause 5, fails to account for GAR#97, Quality in Health Services, which requires member states provide a certain level of health coverage for those who cannot afford it, free of cost;

Failure to provide the WA mandated level of healthcare is still noncompliance with Quality in Health Services, regardless of the this resolution and this resolution cannot change that, as that would be an amendment. Repeals are not the place to bring up legality challenges.

I'm not seeing the issue here. Can you expand on the supposed honest mistake here?

Distressed that the resolution makes no accommodation or provision for nations engaged in conflict with the home nation of the medical tourists, opening the home nation to threats of espionage and sabotage;

Categorically false. The resolution does so in clause 2 which "Affirms the ability of member nations to set their own policies and restrictions regarding the acceptance or non-acceptance of non-resident patients,". Nations are under no obligation to accept patients from nations they are in conflict with, or under any obligation to accept patents that might be a threat.

You're going on about the receiving nation in your argument about clause 2 here yet the clause of the repeal you quoted refers to the home nation not the receiving nation. See my USA/USSR cold war example above.

"Appalled that the resolution makes no attempt to reduce risks imposed by epidemics, threatening well-intended nations with the risk of being overwhelmed by infected nonresidents and being unable to appropriately quarantine them;"

Again clause 2. Nations are under no obligation to accept more patents then they can quarantine and no reasonable nation would do so.

I agree that nations do not have to accept more patients than they can quarantine but I feel that the substantial point is not an honest mistake. The reepal argument is not that the nations would have to do so, it is simply that the target resolution remained silent on the matter, and it is silent on the matter. I do not feel that this is a misrepresentation of the target.

[Araraukar]

GenSec has ruled that one cannot discriminate in allowing individuals based on nationality when determining entry into the nation.

No, but you argued that they can do that on any one person's case, as long as it's not a blanket denial based on nationality. Which means it can be based on eye colour or the sincerity of a smile or just a blanket ban on anyone entering.

Also, nations are allowed to require visas and place restrictions on what the visa holders can or can't do in the nation. Since many RL nations have clauses against medical tourism on the tourist visas, it's easy to ban entry to medical tourists.

See my USA/USSR cold war example above.

And if you go by SP's explanation of the border control, in that example neither USA nor USSR would've been able to not let anyone from the other nation into the country, as long as they aren't a convicted criminal. Apparently. (Not an interpretation I support, obviously.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

Repeals are not the place to bring up legality challenges.

I'm not seeing the issue here. Can you expand on the supposed honest mistake here?

He doesn't seem to be arguing for Honest mistake, but rather, for Metagaming. I think the quoted excerpt is dispositive here. However, repeals can speak about arguments brought up in legality challenges – it is only the use of those arguments in the context of a legality challenge per se that is prohibited.

No, but you argued that they can do that on any one person's case, as long as it's not a blanket denial based on nationality. Which means it can be based on eye colour or the sincerity of a smile or just a blanket ban on anyone entering.

Also, nations are allowed to require visas and place restrictions on what the visa holders can or can't do in the nation. Since many RL nations have clauses against medical tourism on the tourist visas, it's easy to ban entry to medical tourists. [...]

And if you go by SP's explanation of the border control, in that example neither USA nor USSR would've been able to not let anyone from the other nation into the country, as long as they aren't a convicted criminal. Apparently. (Not an interpretation I support, obviously.)

I know it is in fashion right now to make bad arguments that are unconnected to the relevant point. But what is the connection to a violation of the ruleset?

[Separatist Peoples]

GenSec has ruled that one cannot discriminate in allowing individuals based on nationality when determining entry into the nation.

No, but you argued that they can do that on any one person's case, as long as it's not a blanket denial based on nationality. Which means it can be based on eye colour or the sincerity of a smile or just a blanket ban on anyone entering.

Theoretically, if it wasn't facially discriminating, yes. You would theoretically involve as-applied scrutiny to other challenges, but that's really dependent on national interpretation based on the nuance of as-applied challenges.

Also, nations are allowed to require visas and place restrictions on what the visa holders can or can't do in the nation. Since many RL nations have clauses against medical tourism on the tourist visas, it's easy to ban entry to medical tourists.

But clearly not appropriate under CoCR or FtSC.

See my USA/USSR cold war example above.

And if you go by SP's explanation of the border control, in that example neither USA nor USSR would've been able to not let anyone from the other nation into the country, as long as they aren't a convicted criminal. Apparently. (Not an interpretation I support, obviously.)

The USA or USSR aren't subject to CoCR, but yes. If they were, they'd have trouble enforcing that without violating CoCR as it is currently interpreted.

To be fair, I also don't like the policy that the interpretation of CoCR created, but I think it was the only rational interpretation based on the text. GenSec isn't there to make good IC policy.

[Araraukar]

Also, nations are allowed to require visas and place restrictions on what the visa holders can or can't do in the nation. Since many RL nations have clauses against medical tourism on the tourist visas, it's easy to ban entry to medical tourists.

But clearly not appropriate under CoCR or FtSC.

No, you're just not allowed to ban them leaving and returning. It specifically says nations don't have to accept non-resident patients. (EDIT: Hence it being legal to ban medical tourism in the visas.)

The USA or USSR Russia aren't subject to CoCR

I sincerely wish they were.

GenSec isn't there to make good IC policy.

Yet your decisions obviously (well, according to some people) are IC policies?

[Separatist Peoples]

The USA or USSR Russia aren't subject to CoCR

Nope, Russia is the USSR for always and for ever.

GenSec isn't there to make good IC policy.

Yet your decisions obviously (well, according to some people) are IC policies?[/quote]
OOC: Our decisions make IC policies, but we ignore those. GenSec interprets what the rules say and what the resolutions say. We aren't going to pick an interpretation that has good IC policies if the text doesn't support it, thats not our job.We're an OOC body.

[Aclion]

It's not a simple case of an issue being addressed at a national level vs an international level. You argue that because the resolution does not address the issue of quarantine nations are "threatened with the risk of of being overwhelmed by infected nonresidents and being unable to appropriately quarantine them;"
This is clearly false, as nations are under no obligation to accept patients at all.

Spell check is your friend... Critical thinking is your friend, guy.

There is no need to act like a cunt.

Regarding CoCR; the law allows for nations to discriminate where there is a compelling practical purpose. Gensec has ruled this did not apply to immigration but I'd argue that preventing the spread of contagious diseases and safeguarding national security from a enemy nation are both compelling practical purposes for controlling entry into a nation.

What you'd argue for is irrelevant. GenSec has ruled that one cannot discriminate in allowing individuals based on nationality when determining entry into the nation

Gensec has ruled that foreigners seeking entry into a member nation are protected by CoCR's restrictions on discrimination. Gensec has not ruled that preventing the spread of contagious diseases or preventing infiltration by enemy agents is not a compelling practical purpose.

I agree that nations do not have to accept more patients than they can quarantine but I feel that the substantial point is not an honest mistake. The reepal argument is not that the nations would have to do so, it is simply that the target resolution remained silent on the matter, and it is silent on the matter. I do not feel that this is a misrepresentation of the target.

The substantial point is not that the resolution is silent on the matter, that is not being disputed(As must as SP would like to insist on arguing the point with me.) It is the alleged consequence of the resolution being silent that is the issue.
The repeal argues that because the target resolution remained silent, nation will be at risk, unable to control in influx of infected nonresidents "well-intended nations [are threatened] with the risk of being overwhelmed by infected nonresidents and being unable to appropriately quarantine them;". But well-intended nations are not threatened, because the proposal does not strip them of control of incoming patients. It is silent on the matter.

Dismayed that the resolution, which allows member states to pass the cost of treatment onto medical tourists under Clause 5, fails to account for GAR#97, Quality in Health Services, which requires member states provide a certain level of health coverage for those who cannot afford it, free of cost;

Failure to provide the WA mandated level of healthcare is still noncompliance with Quality in Health Services, regardless of the this resolution and this resolution cannot change that, as that would be an amendment. Repeals are not the place to bring up legality challenges.

I'm not seeing the issue here. Can you expand on the supposed honest mistake here?

The author has suggested that, by making medical tourists, and not their home nation, responsible for medical costs, Freedom to Seek Medical Care fails to account for the requirements of Quality in Health Services to prevent a certain level of care free of cost.

This is an honest mistake; because Freedom to Seek Medical Care does not authorize nations to fail to provide their residents with the level of care required by Quality in Health Services. It ensures people will be allowed to seek better care outside of their home nations, if they so choose. There is nothing for Freedom to Seek Medical Care to fail to account for in Quality in Health Services. It is a dishonest attempt to present the resolution as a loophole to the requirements of Quality in Health Services.

It is also meta-gaming; because if Freedom to Seek Medical Care allowed what the repeal claims it does it would contradict Quality in Health Services; an illegality.

[Separatist Peoples]

There is no need to act like a cunt.

Nor either is there a need to ignore spell check or give half effort to reading something you go on to criticize, but you've gone and done it anyway.

Gensec has ruled that foreigners seeking entry into a member nation are protected by CoCR's restrictions on discrimination. Gensec has not ruled that preventing the spread of contagious diseases or preventing infiltration by enemy agents is not a compelling practical purpose.

Not really my argument, though. My argument is that it increases the risk by requiring a more in-depth and individualized approach rather than a broad restriction based on how CoCR operates. It could easily have included a provision that makes such restrictions compelling practical purposes, but it did not. Ergo, my criticism.

As I've said, critical reading is a good and beneficial thing. It lets you pick apart little distinctions that you might otherwise overlook.

The substantial point is not that the resolution is silent on the matter, that is not being disputed(As must as SP would like to insist on arguing the point with me.) It is the alleged consequence of the resolution being silent that is the issue.

Which are only that risks are increased. Which is technically true. Anything less than an outright closing of borders increases risk of consequences of unauthorized entry.

The repeal argues that because the target resolution remained silent, nation will be at risk, unable to control in influx of infected nonresidents "well-intended nations [are threatened] with the risk of being overwhelmed by infected nonresidents and being unable to appropriately quarantine them;". But well-intended nations are not threatened, because the proposal does not strip them of control of incoming patients. It is silent on the matter.

But that's the argument. Thanks for proving me right.

The author has suggested that, by making medical tourists, and not their home nation, responsible for medical costs, Freedom to Seek Medical Care fails to account for the requirements of Quality in Health Services to prevent a certain level of care free of cost.

This is an honest mistake; because Freedom to Seek Medical Care does not authorize nations to fail to provide their residents with the level of care required by Quality in Health Services. It ensures people will be allowed to seek better care outside of their home nations, if they so choose. There is nothing for Freedom to Seek Medical Care to fail to account for in Quality in Health Services. It is a dishonest attempt to present the resolution as a loophole to the requirements of Quality in Health Services.

Not at all. I never argued that this created a loophole in QiHS, merely that it did not account for the requirements under QiHS which require member states assist those who cannot pay for their own preventative healthcare. The logical interpretation, if we have to reconcile the two, is that states can require people only cover their care for non-QiHS procedures. I merely pointed out in my argument that FtSC didn't account for that, not that it contradicted or duplicated anything. Another careful distinction.

It is also meta-gaming; because if Freedom to Seek Medical Care allowed what the repeal claims it does it would contradict Quality in Health Services; an illegality.

I don't think that's right. Metagaming is when the game is referred to as a game. At any rate, my argument was never that there was an illegality. In fact, I even marked FtSC legal as a member of GenSec, so its hardly as though I'm using illegality as a repeal argument here.

[Wrapper]

There is no need to act like a cunt.

*** Warned for flaming. ***

[Mechtroid]

Not at all. I never argued that this created a loophole in QiHS, merely that it did not account for the requirements under QiHS which require member states assist those who cannot pay for their own preventative healthcare. The logical interpretation, if we have to reconcile the two, is that states can require people only cover their care for non-QiHS procedures. I merely pointed out in my argument that FtSC didn't account for that, not that it contradicted or duplicated anything. Another careful distinction.

Said "careful distinction" is its own logical impossibility, however.

Assuming QiHS requires member states assist for preventative healthcare that takes place out-of-state for the states that can't afford and don't have said preventative healthcare technology would would mean QiHS alone requires a form of enforced medical tourism with even more unilateral and rigid terms than those set forth in FtSC, meaning either medical tourism and the author's concerns about warfare, espionage, and quarantine in relation to it have existed since the resolution of QiHS itself, or that QiHS has no requirements on funding of out-of-state preventitive healthcare. At best, it is unsustainable to ask for a repeal based on a resolution not accounting for concerns about requirements that existed irregardless of said resolution's existence; at worst, it is downright antagonistic to ask a resolution to account for concerns about requirements that never existed in the first place!

[Separatist Peoples]

[
Said "careful distinction" is its own logical impossibility, however.

Assuming QiHS requires member states assist for preventative healthcare that takes place out-of-state for the states that can't afford

Lemme stop you here. QiHS doesn't require the home state cover such costs. It requires the host state do so. That's not what I argued.

[Mechtroid]

Lemme stop you here. QiHS doesn't require the home state cover such costs. It requires the host state do so. That's not what I argued.

That's not what I said. I specifically said QiHS asks "member states" pay for the preventitive healthcare. While I admit the home state may also be a member state of the WA and therefore required to pay, they are by no means the only one.
Please try work on your reading comprehension.

[Zenithian]

Lemme stop you here. QiHS doesn't require the home state cover such costs. It requires the host state do so. That's not what I argued.

That's not what I said. I specifically said QiHS asks "member states" pay for the preventitive healthcare. While I admit the home state may also be a member state of the WA and therefore required to pay, they are by no means the only one.
Please try work on your reading comprehension.

Considering the WA can't affect non member states, it will always be a member state being affected.

[Separatist Peoples]

Lemme stop you here. QiHS doesn't require the home state cover such costs. It requires the host state do so. That's not what I argued.

That's not what I said. I specifically said QiHS asks "member states" pay for the preventitive healthcare. While I admit the home state may also be a member state of the WA and therefore required to pay, they are by no means the only one.
Please try work on your reading comprehension.

Not that I don't believe turnabout is fair play, but that's not the proper way to turn it about.

You said:

Assuming QiHS requires member states assist for preventative healthcare that takes place out-of-state for the states that can't afford and don't have said preventative healthcare technology would would mean QiHS alone requires a form of enforced medical tourism with even more unilateral and rigid terms than those set forth in FtSC, meaning either medical tourism and the author's concerns about warfare, espionage, and quarantine in relation to it have existed since the resolution of QiHS itself, or that QiHS has no requirements on funding of out-of-state preventitive healthcare.

Your argument is contingent, based on your own wording, on the assumption that QiHS requires members assist for healthcare that takes place OUT OF STATE. QiHS doesn't. I didn't make that argument. That's not a reading comprehension issue, that's how you worded it.

QiHS creates no such medical tourism aspect, because QiHS in no way obligates member states allow tourism to that end. That said, any foreign individual present in state would, reasonably, get coverage. That affects the host state,or the state the individual travels to, and not the home state, or the state where the individual travels from.

I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding of what state I'm referring to in my arguments, and I'm trying to resolve it.

[Flying Eagles]

Distressed that the resolution makes no accommodation or provision for nations engaged in conflict with the home nation of the medical tourists, (this is regarding the host nation)

Opening the home nation to threats of espionage and sabotage; (this is regarding the home nation)

These points do not belong in the same clause, they are unconnected. Does this count as an honest mistake, GenSec can tell me. (And if this repeal is declared illegal after said repeal’s assumed passing, GenSec does have the power to remove the repeal and reinstate GA #414, right?)