Abandoned] Affordable Healthcare and Pre-Existing Conditions

[Hatzisland]

This is a abandoned draft on granting a right to healthcare access. If you wish to copy and paste this as your own, be my guest.

APPLAUDING GAR #97, "Quality In Health Services" for attempting to expand healthcare to all citizens,

CONCERNED that GAR #97 did nothing to affirm the right of affordable healthcare,

ALSO CONCERNED GAR #97 did not offer any protections for people with pre-existing conditions,

NOTING that this resolution neither endorses nor opposes healthcare for all, nor does it endorse or oppose state-run healthcare,

RECOGNIZES that the right to healthcare access was established for all citizens of member nations in GAR #97,

FURTHER RECOGNIZES that the healthcare provided can be either government run or privately run,

The World Assembly,

1. Mandates that no healthcare provider set a premium of over five times the average cost to that business in providing healthcare in the given period of time agreed to by the individual and the healthcare company,

2. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, a 'pre-existing condition' as a long-term physical or mental condition not self-inflicted by the person,

3. Clarifies that conditions due to extreme negligence by the person are not considered pre-existing conditions,

4. Mandates that healthcare providers not discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, unless the provider does not have the adequate facilities to care for the unique condition,

5. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be interpreted to apply in areas outside of the issue of healthcare,

6. Grants governments the exclusive right to legislate further on the topic of healthcare in the private sector,

7. Recommends that governments attempt to make healthcare even more affordable for all citizens.

APPLAUDING GAR #97, "Quality In Health Services" for attempting to expand healthcare to all citizens,

CONCERNED that GAR #97 did nothing to affirm the right of affordable healthcare,

ALSO CONCERNED GAR #97 did not offer any protections for people with pre-existing conditions,

NOTING that this resolution neither endorses nor opposes healthcare for all, nor does it endorse or oppose state-run healthcare,

RECOGNIZES that the right to healthcare access was established for all citizens of member nations in GAR #97,

FURTHER RECOGNIZES that the healthcare provided can be either government run or privately run,

The World Assembly,

1. Mandates that no private healthcare company set a price of over five times the average cost to that business of providing health care in a given period of time agreed to by the two parties to any individual,

2. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, a 'pre-existing condition' as a permanent physical or mental condition not directly caused by the living being,

3. Clarifies that conditions such as cancer, diabetes, and heart disease are considered 'pre-existing conditions', while conditions caused intentionally, or due to extreme negligence by the living being are not,

4. Mandates that governments not discriminate, whether in plan acceptance or cost, against people with pre-existing conditions,

5. Further mandates that private-sector health care companies not discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, unless the business does not have the adequate facilities to care for the unique condition,

6. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be interpreted to apply in areas outside of the issue of healthcare,

7. Grants governments the exclusive right to legislate further on the topic of healthcare in the private sector,

8. Recommends that governments attempt to make healthcare more affordable for all citizens,

9. Urges governments to expand on the rights granted in this resolution.

APPLAUDING GAR #97, "Quality In Health Services" for attempting to expand healthcare to all citizens,

HOWEVER CONCERNED that the right to access to healthcare has not been throughly clarified by the WA,

ALSO CONCERNED that GAR #97 did nothing to affirm the right of affordable healthcare, nor offer protection for people with pre-existing conditions,

NOTING that this resolution neither endorses nor opposes healthcare for all, nor does it endorse or oppose state-run healthcare,

RECOGNIZES that the right to healthcare access was established for all citizens of member nations in GAR #97,

FURTHER RECOGNIZES that the healthcare provided can be either government run or privately run,

The World Assembly,

1. Mandates that no private healthcare company set a price of over five times the average cost to that business of providing health care in a given period of time agreed to by the two parties to any individual,

2. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, a 'pre-existing condition' as a permanent physical or mental condition not directly caused by the living being,

3. Clarifies that conditions such as cancer, diabetes, and heart disease are considered 'pre-existing conditions', while conditions caused intentionally, or due to extreme negligence by the living being are not,

4. Mandates that governments not discriminate, whether in plan acceptance or cost, against people with pre-existing conditions,

5. Further mandates that private-sector health care companies not discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions in plan acceptance, unless the business does not have the adequate facilities to care for the unique condition,

6. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be interpreted to apply in areas outside of the issue of healthcare,

7. Grants governments the exclusive right to legislate further on the topic of healthcare in the private sector,

8. Recommends that governments attempt to make healthcare more affordable for all citizens,

9. Urges governments to expand on the rights granted in this resolution.

APPLAUDING GAR #97, "Quality In Health Services" for attempting to expand healthcare to all citizens,

HOWEVER CONCERNED that the right to access to healthcare has not been throughly clarified by the WA,

ALSO CONCERNED that GAR #97 did nothing to affirm the right of affordable healthcare, nor offer protection for people with pre-existing conditions,

NOTING that this resolution neither endorses nor opposes healthcare for all, nor does it endorse or oppose state-run healthcare,

RECOGNIZES that the right to healthcare access was established for all citizens of member nations in GAR #97,

FURTHER RECOGNIZES that the healthcare provided can be either government run or privately run,

The World Assembly,

1. Mandates hat no private healthcare company set a price, of over four times the average cost to that business of providing health care in a given period of time, to any individual,

2. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, a 'pre-existing condition' as a permanent physical or mental condition not directly caused by the living being,

3. Mandates that governments not discriminate, whether in plan acceptance or cost, against people with pre-existing conditions,

4. Further mandates that private-sector health care companies not discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions in plan acceptance, unless the business does not have the adequate facilities to care for the unique condition,

5. Grants governments the exclusive right to legislate further on the topic of healthcare in the private sector,

6. Recommends that governments attempt to make healthcare more affordable for all citizens,

7. Urges governments to expand on the rights granted in this resolution.

APPLAUDING GAR #97, "Quality In Health Services" for attempting to expand healthcare to all citizens,

HOWEVER CONCERNED that the right to access to healthcare has not been throughly clarified by the WA,

ALSO CONCERNED that GAR #97 did nothing to affirm the right of affordable healthcare, nor offer protection for people with pre-existing conditions,

NOTING that this resolution neither endorses nor opposes healthcare for all, nor does it endorse or oppose state-run healthcare,

RECOGNIZES that the right to healthcare access was established for all citizens of member nations in GAR #97,

FURTHER RECOGNIZES that the healthcare provided can be either government run or privately run,

The World Assembly,

1. Mandates that private-sector health care companies charge no more than a 400%(Note: Can be changed) markup from the average cost of care the company pays per customer(Note: Wording is in the process of being rephrased. Please share any recommendations with us.),

2. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, a 'pre-existing condition' as a permanent physical or mental condition not directly caused by the living being,

3. Mandates that governments not discriminate, whether in plan acceptance or cost, against people with pre-existing conditions,

4. Further mandates that private-sector health care companies not discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions in plan acceptance, unless the business does not have the adequate facilities to care for the unique condition,

5. Grants governments the exclusive right to legislate further on the topic of healthcare in the private sector,

6. Recommends that governments attempt to make healthcare more affordable for all citizens,

7. Urges governments to expand on the rights granted in this resolution.

APPLAUDING GAR #97, "Quality In Health Services" for attempting to expand healthcare to all citizens,

HOWEVER CONCERNED that the right to access to healthcare has not been throughly clarified by the WA,

ALSO CONCERNED that GAR #97 did nothing to affirm the right of affordable healthcare, nor offer protection for people with pre-existing conditions,

NOTING that this resolution neither endorses nor opposes healthcare for all, nor does it endorse or oppose state-run healthcare,

The World Assembly,

1. Clarifies that the right to healthcare access was established for all citizens of member nations in GAR #97,

2. Clarifies that the healthcare provided can be either government run or privately run,

3. Mandates that private-sector health care companies charge no more than a 400%(Note: Can be changed) markup from the average cost of care the company pays per customer(Note: Wording is in the process of being rephrased. Please share any recommendations with us.),

4. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, a 'pre-existing condition' as a permanent physical or mental condition not directly caused by the living being,

5. Mandates that governments not discriminate, whether in plan acceptance or cost, against people with pre-existing conditions,

6. Further mandates that private-sector health care companies not discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions in plan acceptance,

7. Grants governments the exclusive right to legislate further on the topic of healthcare in the private sector,

8. Recommends that governments attempt to make healthcare more affordable for all citizens,

9. Urges governments to expand on the rights granted in this resolution.

APPLAUDING GAR #97, "Quality In Health Services" for attempting to expand healthcare to all citizens,

HOWEVER CONCERNED that the right to access to healthcare has not been throughly clarified by the WA,

ALSO CONCERNED that GAR #97 did nothing to affirm the right of affordable healthcare, nor offer protection for people with pre-existing conditions,

NOTING that this resolution neither endorses nor opposes healthcare for all, nor does it endorse or oppose state-run healthcare,

The World Assembly,

Clarifies that the right to healthcare access was established for all citizens of member nations in GAR #97,

Clarifies that the healthcare provided can be either government run or privately run,

Mandates that government-run healthcare must be free or affordable to its citizens,

Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, a 'pre-existing condition' as a permanent physical or mental condition not directly caused by the living being,

Excludes cases in which the government, in cases where the government is operating for-profit, would most likely not make a profit if the cost was affordable,

Mandates that private-sector health care companies charge no more than a 400%(Note: Can be changed) markup from the average cost of care the company pays per customer(Note: Wording is in the process of being rephrased. Please share any recommendations with us.),

Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, a 'pre-existing condition' as a permanent physical or mental condition not directly caused by the living being,

Mandates that governments not discriminate, whether in plan acceptance or cost, against people with pre-existing conditions,

Further mandates that private-sector health care companies not discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions in plan acceptance,

Grants governments the exclusive right to legislate further on the topic of healthcare in the private sector,

Recommends that governments attempt to make healthcare more affordable for all citizens,

Urges governments to expand on the rights granted in this resolution.

APPLAUDING GAR #97, "Quality In Health Services" for attempting to expand healthcare to all citizens,

HOWEVER CONCERNED that the right to access to healthcare has not been throughly clarified by the WA,

ALSO CONCERNED that GAR #97 did nothing to affirm the right of affordable healthcare, nor offer protection for people with pre-existing conditions,

NOTING that this resolution neither endorses nor opposes healthcare for all, nor does it endorse or oppose state-run healthcare,

The World Assembly,

Mandates that the right to healthcare access is established for all citizens of member nations,

Clarifies that the healthcare provided can be either government run or privately run,

Mandates that government-run healthcare must be free or affordable to its citizens,

Excludes cases in which the government, in cases where the government is operating for-profit, would most likely not make a profit if the cost was affordable,

Mandates that private-sector health care companies charge no more than a 400%(Note: Can be changed) markup from the average cost of care the company pays per customer(Note: Wording is in the process of being rephrased. Please share any recommendations with us.),

Grants governments the exclusive right to pass legislate further involving affordability of healthcare in the private sector,

Recommends that governments attempt to make healthcare more affordable for all citizens,

Urges governments to expand on the rights granted in this resolution.

APPLAUDING GAR #97, "Quality In Health Services" for attempting to expand healthcare to all citizens,

HOWEVER CONCERNED that the right to access to healthcare has not been clarified by the WA,

HOPING to affirm that right,

NOTING that this resolution neither endorses nor opposes healthcare for all, nor does it endorse or oppose state-run healthcare,

The World Assembly,

Mandates that the right to healthcare access is established for all citizens of member nations,

Clarifies that:
A) The healthcare provided can be either government run or privately run,
B) If government-run, the healthcare must either be free or affordable,
C) This resolution does not require any sort of government intervention in the healthcare industry, besides requiring healthcare companies to provide healthcare to citizens of that nation,

Recommends that governments attempt to make healthcare more affordable for all citizens,

Urges governments to expand on the rights granted in this resolution.

[Marxist Germany]

"Hell, no"

[Hatzisland]

"Hell, no"

Well, first of all, I have to ask whether or not this is legal, as we are not very confident it is. Secondly, why are you opposed? This plan in no way endorses government-run health care, and right to access as something that is supported by almost all political ideologies. Do you have any concerns in particular?

OOC: This proposal was actually inspired by Ted Cruz(in a debate against Bernie Sanders), saying that people should have a right to healthcare access, but not a right to healthcare. He made a really good point, and I agree with him. (Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y7nchytFSQ)

[Imperium Anglorum]

Quality in Health Services.

[Kenmoria]

“Firstly, the health category does not have strengths, so saying it would be significant is erroneous. It has areas of effect instead: healthcare, international aid, research and bioethics. I recommend that this would be healthcare. I also find your first active clause rather vague. Who makes it available? What does this entail? How available does something have to be to fit ‘access’?”

[Bananaistan]

OOC: What does this do that GAR#97 doesn't already do?

[Hatzisland]

OOC: What does this do that GAR#97 doesn't already do?

Really clarifies a right to access to healthcare. This plan is in a very early state, and will be edited as we go.

“Firstly, the health category does not have strengths, so saying it would be significant is erroneous. It has areas of effect instead: healthcare, international aid, research and bioethics. I recommend that this would be healthcare. I also find your first active clause rather vague. Who makes it available? What does this entail? How available does something have to be to fit ‘access’?”

You are correct. We will try to clarify 'access' in a new draft.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

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

a) Full health services coverage;

OOC: There's really nothing to clarify. Full coverage is full coverage.

[Hatzisland]

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

a) Full health services coverage;

OOC: There's really nothing to clarify. Full coverage is full coverage.

OOC: I do agree, and I think the proposal will have to be restructured, as this plan was also pushing for affordable healthcare as well(I guess that will have to become the major focus now.)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: There's really nothing to clarify. Full coverage is full coverage.

OOC: I do agree, and I think the proposal will have to be restructured, as this plan was also pushing for affordable healthcare as well(I guess that will have to become the major focus now.)

OOC: Since nations are mandated to ensure full coverage, and even have recourse to WA funds if unable to make that happen through their own resources, by definition healthcare in WA states is "affordable." I very much don't see any room to expand the existing mandate other than to forbid private insurance, which would require a repeal first (and which probably won't fly anyway).

[Hatzisland]

OOC: I do agree, and I think the proposal will have to be restructured, as this plan was also pushing for affordable healthcare as well(I guess that will have to become the major focus now.)

OOC: Since nations are mandated to ensure full coverage, and even have recourse to WA funds if unable to make that happen through their own resources, by definition healthcare in WA states is "affordable." I very much don't see any room to expand the existing mandate other than to forbid private insurance, which would require a repeal first (and which probably won't fly anyway).

OOC: Technically, a government who could afford providing affordable healthcare but elects not to would get away with it under current law, but not under this. I think this new draft makes this proposal relevant and legal.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Since nations are mandated to ensure full coverage, and even have recourse to WA funds if unable to make that happen through their own resources, by definition healthcare in WA states is "affordable." I very much don't see any room to expand the existing mandate other than to forbid private insurance, which would require a repeal first (and which probably won't fly anyway).

OOC: Technically, a government who could afford providing affordable healthcare but elects not to would get away with it under current law, but not under this. I think this new draft makes this proposal relevant and legal.

(OOC: I’ve looked at GA #097 and I can’t see any way for coverage not to be granted. Healthcare services must include full healthcare access, is what the clause says. If it wasn’t affordable, then that isn’t ‘full’. If there is the capability there but the government doesn’t, then the word ‘access’ doesn’t fit. I think you are going to need some additional clauses to get around the duplication rule, if you don’t decide just to abandon this.)

[Hatzisland]

OOC: Technically, a government who could afford providing affordable healthcare but elects not to would get away with it under current law, but not under this. I think this new draft makes this proposal relevant and legal.

(OOC: I’ve looked at GA #097 and I can’t see any way for coverage not to be granted. Healthcare services must include full healthcare access, is what the clause says. If it wasn’t affordable, then that isn’t ‘full’. If there is the capability there but the government doesn’t, then the word ‘access’ doesn’t fit. I think you are going to need some additional clauses to get around the duplication rule, if you don’t decide just to abandon this.)

OOC: I am also considering removing that clause completely, or put a reaffirm or clarify clause there. Also, we are considering putting in protections for people with pre-existing conditions. I'm sure that doesn't fall under "full".

[Sierra Lyricalia]

(OOC: I’ve looked at GA #097 and I can’t see any way for coverage not to be granted. Healthcare services must include full healthcare access, is what the clause says. If it wasn’t affordable, then that isn’t ‘full’. If there is the capability there but the government doesn’t, then the word ‘access’ doesn’t fit. I think you are going to need some additional clauses to get around the duplication rule, if you don’t decide just to abandon this.)

OOC: I am also considering removing that clause completely, or put a reaffirm or clarify clause there. Also, we are considering putting in protections for people with pre-existing conditions. I'm sure that doesn't fall under "full".

OOC: The only way you could interpret "full coverage" as anything besides "full coverage" is if you're literally a health insurance executive. Words mean things, and "full" means full. You haven't shown any gap in GAR #97. Until you find one (hint: if there is one, it's not related to whether people in WA member states can obtain healthcare), this is entirely purposeless.

[Araraukar]

OOC: The only way you could interpret "full coverage" as anything besides "full coverage" is if you're literally a health insurance executive. Words mean things, and "full" means full..

OOC: Yes, words mean things, and "Full health services coverage" can also mean "health services are available to everyone", NOT "all health services are freely available to everyone". At least in RL "coverage" of some service usually means how large a percentage of the population has access to it, rather than how large a percentage of the service people have access to. So "100% health service coverage" does not necessarily mean what you think it means. (It has both meanings, don't get me wrong; I choose to read it the way you do, but it can be reasonably also read the other way.)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: The only way you could interpret "full coverage" as anything besides "full coverage" is if you're literally a health insurance executive. Words mean things, and "full" means full..

OOC: Yes, words mean things, and "Full health services coverage" can also mean "health services are available to everyone", NOT "all health services are freely available to everyone". At least in RL "coverage" of some service usually means how large a percentage of the population has access to it, rather than how large a percentage of the service people have access to. So "100% health service coverage" does not necessarily mean what you think it means. (It has both meanings, don't get me wrong; I choose to read it the way you do, but it can be reasonably also read the other way.)

OOC: Other than extremely practical concerns akin to that (for example) cisgender males do not have or need access to OB/GYN care, or blind people don't get their prescription lenses covered, I really don't see how "full coverage" can be interpreted as anything but "all people have access to all necessary care." Nations, insurers, and doctors may squabble about what constitutes "necessary," within reason, but I don't see any grounds for arguing that anyone in a member state might currently be denied care on trivial grounds like pre-existing conditions. At least not while remaining remotely in compliance with the law.

[Hatzisland]

OOC: I am also considering removing that clause completely, or put a reaffirm or clarify clause there. Also, we are considering putting in protections for people with pre-existing conditions. I'm sure that doesn't fall under "full".

OOC: The only way you could interpret "full coverage" as anything besides "full coverage" is if you're literally a health insurance executive. Words mean things, and "full" means full. You haven't shown any gap in GAR #97. Until you find one (hint: if there is one, it's not related to whether people in WA member states can obtain healthcare), this is entirely purposeless.

OOC: Once again, the purpose of the proposal has changed mostly to making healthcare more affordable, and potentially offering some protection for people with pre-existing conditions. I see your point about what 'full coverage' means, but I think there a still a debate there, a debate that would be ended if this passes. Also, I disagree with what you said about the provided coverage being affordable in GAR #97. Just because WA law requires access to healthcare does not mean the healthcare has to be affordable.

[Kenmoria]

“Your final ‘Mandates’ clause it, at least to me, indecipherable. Although I plan to suggest a change to the wording, I currently don’t know even what this clause is tying to accomplish. If you refocus the proposal to centre around standards for public, and private, healthcare, that could nicely avoid duplicating GA #097.”

[Hatzisland]

“Your final ‘Mandates’ clause it, at least to me, indecipherable. Although I plan to suggest a change to the wording, I currently don’t know even what this clause is tying to accomplish. If you refocus the proposal to centre around standards for public, and private, healthcare, that could nicely avoid duplicating GA #097.”

Yes, that is noted, and we are trying to reword. The intention is to make sure health care companies cannot charge more than 400% more than the average health care costs by its consumers(Quick OOC: For example, if a health care company spends in average of $120 a month per customer providing healthcare, it cannot charge more than $480 as its premium. 400% is a very tentative number, and we will take any recommendations.) As for the re-focus, we have, for the most part, removed duplications with GAR #97, and are in the process of removing the final parts. Please share any other concerns with the plan as we go along.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

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;
b) Provide assistance only to those who cannot afford to pay for their own care, if compelling practical purposes for such a policy can be proven beyond any doubt.

OOC: This indicates that nations are required to render assistance to those who cannot afford healthcare. In other words, by limiting the power of a nation to withhold payment assistance only from those who can afford care, the resolution requires nations to aid those who cannot.

The existing resolution is really quite airtight.

[Hatzisland]

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;
b) Provide assistance only to those who cannot afford to pay for their own care, if compelling practical purposes for such a policy can be proven beyond any doubt.

OOC: This indicates that nations are required to render assistance to those who cannot afford healthcare. In other words, by limiting the power of a nation to withhold payment assistance only from those who can afford care, the resolution requires nations to aid those who cannot.

The existing resolution is really quite airtight.

We will make the necessary adjustments. I still think there is a need for legislation.

[Araraukar]

*snipped off missing the point*

OOc: No, you said words mean things. I'm pointing out that they mean things in addition to what you're reading in it. It's the word "coverage". "Full" equals 100%, we're agreed on that, I'm sure. But if it was any other service but healthcare, like phone or post or internet or electricity, if your nation was required to have "full coverage", would you think it meant how many people the service can reach, or how large part of the service the people must have?

The resolution says:

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.

"Full health services coverage" is 1. a guideline (which I only noticed now and which makes the resolution much less rock solid than I thought it was) and 2. a quality of the "health service" itself, not what people get out of it.

Should WA nations provide full coverage to their people, in both meanings of the word? Yes, absolutely. We're agreed on that. But does that mean that's the only possible reading of the words? No. Do I think Hatzi's proposal is necessary? No, because while I can see the issue the wording causes, I don't agree that any civilized nation would do otherwise. (And as I was typing this, I realized that many players here are from USA, which does not provide full coverage in either sense of the word... I still stand by what I wrote.) So what's the point of the argument? Someone pointing out that words mean things...

[Hatzisland]

*snipped off missing the point*

OOc: No, you said words mean things. I'm pointing out that they mean things in addition to what you're reading in it. It's the word "coverage". "Full" equals 100%, we're agreed on that, I'm sure. But if it was any other service but healthcare, like phone or post or internet or electricity, if your nation was required to have "full coverage", would you think it meant how many people the service can reach, or how large part of the service the people must have?

The resolution says:

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.

"Full health services coverage" is 1. a guideline (which I only noticed now and which makes the resolution much less rock solid than I thought it was) and 2. a quality of the "health service" itself, not what people get out of it.

Should WA nations provide full coverage to their people, in both meanings of the word? Yes, absolutely. We're agreed on that. But does that mean that's the only possible reading of the words? No. Do I think Hatzi's proposal is necessary? No, because while I can see the issue the wording causes, I don't agree that any civilized nation would do otherwise. (And as I was typing this, I realized that many players here are from USA, which does not provide full coverage in either sense of the word... I still stand by what I wrote.) So what's the point of the argument? Someone pointing out that words mean things...

Once again, we have altered the contents of the proposal to make it more focused on affordability.

[Marxist Germany]

OOc: No, you said words mean things. I'm pointing out that they mean things in addition to what you're reading in it. It's the word "coverage". "Full" equals 100%, we're agreed on that, I'm sure. But if it was any other service but healthcare, like phone or post or internet or electricity, if your nation was required to have "full coverage", would you think it meant how many people the service can reach, or how large part of the service the people must have?

The resolution says:

"Full health services coverage" is 1. a guideline (which I only noticed now and which makes the resolution much less rock solid than I thought it was) and 2. a quality of the "health service" itself, not what people get out of it.

Should WA nations provide full coverage to their people, in both meanings of the word? Yes, absolutely. We're agreed on that. But does that mean that's the only possible reading of the words? No. Do I think Hatzi's proposal is necessary? No, because while I can see the issue the wording causes, I don't agree that any civilized nation would do otherwise. (And as I was typing this, I realized that many players here are from USA, which does not provide full coverage in either sense of the word... I still stand by what I wrote.) So what's the point of the argument? Someone pointing out that words mean things...

Once again, we have altered the contents of the proposal to make it more focused on affordability.

Affordable is a subjective term

[Maowi]

Is Clause 1 not a big wobbly house of cards?