[PASSED] Freedom to Seek Medical Care II

[Elyreia]

The Elyreian Lenton has no concerns with private citizens entering the nation to make use of our medical services on their own incomes. However, there is concern about the costs of recovery and complications of the original operation(s) which may place a strain on our own universal healthcare systems in due time.

We will admit there are many GARs to peruse and we are still reviewing. However, would anyone in particular be able to state with certainty if there is a GAR that would provide Elyreian citizens legal recourse in the events of botched operations, complications, or medical malpractice against foreign professionals, practitioners, or organizations? We would hate for our citizens to have no resource but to suffer should their privately-funded operations go awry outside of normal risks taken. Until we have such assurances, we will be voting against this measure at this time.

[Coconut Palm Island]

Coconut Palm Island is very concerned that parents will take advantage of this legislation to escape laws our nation has against giving children experimental or alternative medicine. Although we fully support any adult's decision on what alternative medicines and drugs to take and procedures to undergo, we as a nation have collectively passed multiple laws protecting children from being exposed to these alternative treatments against their will. Although modern culture has touted "alternative medicine" as the cure to everything from cancer to anxiety, the truth is there is a reason it is alternative-- if scientists could show conclusive evidence for the treatment's effectiveness, it would be approved.

We are also concerned with the language that only allows us to prohibit our citizens from travelling to areas that we are in "active armed combat" with. There are several nations/regions that we are not in active armed combat with, but that we would never allow our citizens to travel to in a trillion years, due to terrorism, political instability, etc. So we can't block our citizens from travelling to North Korea for medical treatment just because we, as an Island, are not actively shooting at them?

However, we also recognize that some nations don't have the medical capabilities that we have. We ourselves have had over one million people travel to our nation to receive medical care in 2017. And although all healthcare in our Island is free to residents, non-residents do have to pay for non-emergency procedures, generating our Island revenue. We also recognize that this legislation wasn't intended to benefit citizens of nations like ours, where healthcare is comprehensive and affordable-- it was written to help people in the poorest nations have the hope of travelling to a nation that could prevent them from dying of a curable disease.

Therefore, despite our arguments in the negation, the King of Coconut Palm Island personally directs our nation's WA representative to vote for this resolution. We furthermore encourage any individuals seeking medical care from a nation other than their own to consider travelling to Coconut Palm Island.

[Kenmoria]

“After listening to some of the arguments presented here, I have changed the Kenmoria WA Mission’s vote to AGAINST. Some of the loopholes pointed out have been in the first clause. What about nations at war with one of the member state’s allies? What about nations in a Cold War of sorts where there are high tensions and hostile leadership? What about countries embroiled ina civil war?

Furthermore, the lack of restrictions on what should be deemed ‘medically neccesary’ is worrying, as that could lead to people getting out of the country to use experimental research not fully tested.”

[Wallenburg]

Beyond my displeasure over the whole "typo" mess, Wallenburg votes against this to preserve its ability to implement quarantines upon a nation experiencing plagues or similarly dangerous epidemics, to impose travel and tourism sanctions upon anti-democratic regimes and civil rights abusers, and to keep citizens from finding themselves in active war zones. Wallenburg also opposes the permissions granted to member states under clause 6 to abandon their duty to protect the health and wellbeing of their citizens.

[Libervalley]

Fellow Delegates,

The Federation of Conservative Nations will support this resolution as it provides citizens of all nations the right to seek reasonable medical treatment that can save lives and would otherwise not be available in their own country. Many delegates have stated they will not support this resolution because of perceived "loopholes" and "ethical issues". To those delegates I say are all the resolutions this body overwhelmingly passes always perfect? No, they are not always perfect which means they require additional legislation in order to perfect them. I do not believe it is necessary to vote against an agreeable resolution for the simple reason of imperfection. Also I would note that many outlying issues for delegates against are more than likely covered by other resolutions passed by the assembly.

With this reasoning it would be my hope that instead of voting against this resolution for secondary reasons and not because they disagree with the premise, that delegates would offer up additional resolutions to resolve the concerns they have. By this method I believe we can make the kind of progress and activity we all want to see possible.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Given that I kinda approve of the spirit of this, but aren't really happy with the way it goes about it, I'm just going to abstain from voting either way. Sorry I wasn't around to help with the drafting.

[Fordana]

Honestly, this proposal has a good general layout. It’s a really good idea in theory, however it steps too much on the toes of sovereign nations. This could be abused by citizens as a free way to leave their country (granted it is a good thing if they live in an awful place) for free.
It could also be used (though this is a bit of a slippery slope) for a fugitive to escape with only a small chance of retribution.

Good proposal, but the law and order stuff scares me into voting no

[Imperium Anglorum]

If you're concerned about emigration, see Right to Emigration.

[GreaterDeseret]

Honestly, this proposal has a good general layout. It’s a really good idea in theory, however it steps too much on the toes of sovereign nations. This could be abused by citizens as a free way to leave their country (granted it is a good thing if they live in an awful place) for free.
It could also be used (though this is a bit of a slippery slope) for a fugitive to escape with only a small chance of retribution.

Good proposal, but the law and order stuff scares me into voting no

I'm glad somebody else sees this. Our mighty nation doesn't allow emigration for economic reasons. If our citizens leave to find foreign healthcare, that alone could be used as an excuse to flee the country, which could be devastating to our economy. Not to mention they won't be spending their money on our healthcare and instead will be spending it in other countries, taking it out of our economy! This resolution should not be allowed to pass, as it puts some WA members in far too much economic risk.

[Kenmoria]

Honestly, this proposal has a good general layout. It’s a really good idea in theory, however it steps too much on the toes of sovereign nations. This could be abused by citizens as a free way to leave their country (granted it is a good thing if they live in an awful place) for free.
It could also be used (though this is a bit of a slippery slope) for a fugitive to escape with only a small chance of retribution.

Good proposal, but the law and order stuff scares me into voting no

I'm glad somebody else sees this. Our mighty nation doesn't allow emigration for economic reasons. If our citizens leave to find foreign healthcare, that alone could be used as an excuse to flee the country, which could be devastating to our economy. Not to mention they won't be spending their money on our healthcare and instead will be spending it in other countries, taking it out of our economy! This resolution should not be allowed to pass, as it puts some WA members in far too much economic risk.

(OOC: Unfortunately, as IA said, Right to Emigration Exists, and is a fully-fledged piece of legislation.)

[Fordana]

If you're concerned about emigration, see Right to Emigration.

Alright I’ll see if it changes my mind


Edit: Okay so that resolution does fix all the problems I have with this resolution. I no longer have a major problem with this resolution, so I will change my vote

Thanks for clarifying guys

[Sierra Lyricalia]

If you're concerned about emigration, see Right to Emigration.

Alright I’ll see if it changes my mind

"Ambassador, the point is that your nation is legally obligated by virtue of its World Assembly membership to allow your citizens to leave the country under most circumstances. Failure to comply will result in massive economic sanctions executed by the entire membership upon your now isolated and impotent country."

"That said, the proposal at vote is flawed in other ways, and we vote against."

[Radimostan]

"Radimostanian delegation believes that adult persons are fully qualified to make decisions for their own body to seek quality medical care on their own if their home nation can't provide it. The totalitarian nature of anti-resolution arguments presented only supports our resolve."

[Wallenburg]

Alright I’ll see if it changes my mind

"Ambassador, the point is that your nation is legally obligated by virtue of its World Assembly membership to allow your citizens to leave the country under most circumstances. Failure to comply will result in massive economic sanctions executed by the entire membership upon your now isolated and impotent country."

"That said, the proposal at vote is flawed in other ways, and we vote against."

"That is a misreading of 'Right to Emigration'. It only provides emigration guarantees to inhabitants of member states. It says nothing about travel for work, visits, or tourism, only about travel for long-term settlement."

[Enjuku]

It is with great misfortune that the Enjukan delegation will vote against this resolution.

There are two main problems at hand. First, as other nations noted, this resolution's loose use of "medically necessary" treatment opens the door for member states to tolerate its citizens fleeing abroad to use alternative medicine or other dangerous treatments. In our status quo, it is up to member states to determine their own policies on allowing or restricting travel for this type of reason. However, this resolution openly endorses such a travel option so long as it fits its vague, undefined idea of medical necessity.

Secondly, by allowing people to travel abroad for care, this hurts national healthcare systems that rely on individuals spending money for care at home. Member states that need an uncompetitive medical market to sustain their national healthcare systems will no doubt suffer under this resolution. If the rich and powerful seek treatment, let them seek treatment at home or under conditions set by their home state so as to benefit their fellow citizens. Enjuku cannot endorse proposals that benefit the few over the many.

For these two reasons, we have major qualms with this resolution and must withhold our support. We hope that in the future we can find better ways to solve the difficulties of acquiring adequate medical care. This resolution is not one of those ways.

- Fran Medellin
Minister for State
Enjukan Ministry of Foreign Affairs

[Sahhara]

It is in the interest of the Confederacy of Sahhara, as well as any other nation who wishes to protect its border and people, that this proposal does not see the light of day due to the following reasons:

1: The propsosed international law stretches too widely, overlooking the concerns of nations who have rather unfriendly neighbors, or negative relations with nearby neighbors, including travel bans and embargo’s, both of which would be threatened by the dictatorial order that ALL nations must comply with free movement (for “medicinal” reasons) across borders REGARDLESS of conditions of the State in which the movement would take place.

2: Not only does this proposal overlook trade embargoes and travel bans, it also ignores the dangers that nearby, less stable States can pose to the people who would be traveling to them in search of medical needs.

3: It is in the humble opinion of the Confederacy that the W.A has no authority as to the movement of a Sovereign Nation’s people, nor to overturn laws preventing such movement that are set by any State.

It is for these reasons that the Confederacy shall vote AGAINST this proposal and implores all nations with even a semblance of care for its citizens to join Sahhara and vote AGAINST this bill as well.

[Arasi Luvasa]

It is with great misfortune that the Enjukan delegation will vote against this resolution.

There are two main problems at hand. First, as other nations noted, this resolution's loose use of "medically necessary" treatment opens the door for member states to tolerate its citizens fleeing abroad to use alternative medicine or other dangerous treatments. In our status quo, it is up to member states to determine their own policies on allowing or restricting travel for this type of reason. However, this resolution openly endorses such a travel option so long as it fits its vague, undefined idea of medical necessity.

Secondly, by allowing people to travel abroad for care, this hurts national healthcare systems that rely on individuals spending money for care at home. Member states that need an uncompetitive medical market to sustain their national healthcare systems will no doubt suffer under this resolution. If the rich and powerful seek treatment, let them seek treatment at home or under conditions set by their home state so as to benefit their fellow citizens. Enjuku cannot endorse proposals that benefit the few over the many.

For these two reasons, we have major qualms with this resolution and must withhold our support. We hope that in the future we can find better ways to solve the difficulties of acquiring adequate medical care. This resolution is not one of those ways.

- Fran Medellin
Minister for State
Enjukan Ministry of Foreign Affairs

"So if ones own nation does not have the means to treat the ailment, the ailed is to be condemned for the sake of a sub-par healthcare system?"

[New Waldensia]

Freedom to Seek Medical Care II was passed 8,071 votes to 7,772

[Palsada]

Freedom to Seek Medical Care II was passed 8,071 votes to 7,772

One of the closer votes I've seen

[Separatist Peoples]

Freedom to Seek Medical Care II was passed 8,071 votes to 7,772

"We look forward to the inevitable repeal."