[SUBMITTED] Hard Times Ahead?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

SUBMITTED 16/4/18

Second Draft:

TITLE:

Hard Times Ahead?

VALIDITY:

Nations with an NHS.
Adult.

DESCRIPTION:

Drew Peacock, your Minister for Party Solidarity, as been looking a bit listless lately. It turns out that he's been having trouble with his sex life, and his doctor has told him that the National Health Service shouldn't be paying for his erectile dysfunction medications.

OPTION ONE

"This is no laughing matter," moans Minister Peacock. "These days I can barely raise even a smile when I'm with my girl, and that's making our relationship difficult. Sexual health is part of overall physical health, and I feel that the NHS should be funding the necessary medications, as well as maybe offering sex counselors and libido clinics. I wouldn't even mind if there was some sort of specialist in the bedroom, giving us advice and showing us where we're going wrong."

Outcome: therapists are always willing to lend a hand with sensitive medical problems


OPTION TWO

"Look, the NHS is having a hard time as it is," complains general practitioner Dr. Roger Knott stiffly. "We're not here to give leisure drugs to old men who want their jollies. The health service should be focusing on dealing only with diseases and conditions that threaten life and limb. And no, that doesn't count as a limb, no matter how proud the good Minister is of its dimensions. Look, here's the deal: let them have four pills per month each, and that's a reasonable level of healthcare balanced against a cost-effective prescribing."

Outcome: the nation is noticeably more cheerful on Tuesdays


OPTION THREE
Capitalist nations only.

"You got to look at the root problem here, and I'm not talking about the Minister's wife's milk-curdling ugliness," observes visiting United Federation ambassador Ima Meancow. "I'm talking about your socialist medicine. Allow the free market to penetrate the stiff front erected by the communist healthcare entities! It'll be hard on our wallets, but we wont beat it by being soft! Competition will drive down the prices of treatment and drugs, and as a nation I reckon you'll spend a smaller percentage of the national GDP on medical care. That's exactly what things are like in the good ole United Federation, right?"

Outcome: there's stiff competition in the medical marketplace


OPTION FOUR

"Maybe you don't need to be in such a hurry to see this as a problem," interjects the minister's wife Ivana Newlove, who has always kept her maiden name. "If the little fella doesn't feel like getting up in the morning, then let him sleep! Drew is almost fifty, for goodness sake, it's only natural that his love life is over. Respect mother nature, and also this tired mother-of-three, and instead ban these treatments."

Outcome: slippers are more common than satin slips in most couples' bedrooms

First Draft:

TITLE:

Hard Times Ahead?

VALIDITY:

Nations with an NHS
Adult.

DESCRIPTION:

Drew Peacock, your Minister for Party Solidarity, as been looking a bit listless and lacking in energy lately. It turns out that he's been having trouble with his sex life, and his doctor has told him that the National Health Service shouldn't be paying for his erectile dysfunction medications.

OPTION ONE

"This is no laughing matter," moans Minister Peacock. "These days I can barely raise even a smile when I'm with my girl, and that's making our relationship difficult. Sexual health is part of overall physical health, and I feel that the NHS should be funding the necessary medications, as well as maybe offering sex counselors and libido clinics. I wouldn't even mind if there was some of specialist in the bedroom, giving us advice and showing us where we're going wrong."

Outcome: therapists are always willing to lend a hand with sensitive medical problems


OPTION TWO

"Look, the NHS is having a hard time as it is," complains general practitioner Dr. Roger Knott stiffly. "We're not here to give leisure drugs to old men who want their jollies. The health service should be focusing on dealing only with diseases and conditions that threaten life and limb. And no, that doesn't count as a limb, no matter how proud the good Minister is of its dimensions. Look, here's the deal: let them have four pills per month each, and that's a reasonable level of healthcare balanced against a cost-effective prescribing."

Outcome: the nation is noticeably more cheerful on Tuesdays


OPTION THREE
Capitalist nations only.

"You got to look at the root problem here, and I'm not talking about the Minister's wife's milk-curdling ugliness," observes visiting United Federation ambassador Roland De Hay. "I'm talking about your socialist medicine. You get that commie NHS shut down, and everything back in the private sector, so free market forces can decide what is cost-effective treatment. Competition will drive down the prices of treatment and drugs, and as a nation I reckon you'll spend a smaller percentage of the national GDP on medical care. That's exactly what things are like in the good ole United Federation, right?"

Outcome: there's stiff competition in the medical marketplace

[Palos Heights]

I feel like you could do a version of this issue for nations without an NHS and have privatized medicine and switch out the NHS for a private insurance company. I mean, you're getting into a whole nother hornets nest with that and the increasing influence of insurance providers in dictating treatment decisions, but you'd be getting away from the issue at its core of sex-related treatments not being seen as "medically necessary" and health programs opting to not treat them.

Also it will be interesting to see how this problem evolves now that the little blue pill has a generic being sold in the US thanks to Teva despite Pfizer's patent protecting it from generic formulation until 2020

Option three could use more George Carlin quotes to be honest. "Allow the free market to penetrate the stiff front erected by the communist healthcare entities! It'll be hard on our wallets, but we wont beat it by being soft!"

Aside from that, seems like this issue could use a fourth option, maybe one where the wives of these gentlemen speak out against treating it at all because they miss the peace and quiet before their husbands found a "second wind" so-to-speak.

[Fauxia]

Heh, not a bad little issue you got here, totally new person, now let’s take a look:

TITLE:

Hard Times Ahead?

You love these very mildly adult references, don’t you? I notice one you suggested to Jutsa in the drafting thread of a recently published issue was removed... anyway, got no issue with this one, pun may or may not have been intended.

VALIDITY:

Nations with an NHS.
Adult.

DESCRIPTION:

Drew Peacock, your Minister for Party Solidarity, as been looking a bit listless and lacking in energy lately. It turns out that he's been having trouble with his sex life, and his doctor has told him that the National Health Service shouldn't be paying for his erectile dysfunction medications.

OPTION ONE

"This is no laughing matter," moans Minister Peacock. "These days I can barely raise even a smile when I'm with my girl, and that's making our relationship difficult. Sexual health is part of overall physical health, and I feel that the NHS should be funding the necessary medications, as well as maybe offering sex counselors and libido clinics. I wouldn't even mind if there was some of specialist

I think you forgot “sort” in this

in the bedroom, giving us advice and showing us where we're going wrong."

Outcome: therapists are always willing to lend a hand with sensitive medical problems

Any chance you could make this a bit funnier? Not that it’s bad, but it isn’t all that funny to me

OPTION TWO

"Look, the NHS is having a hard time as it is,"

Is that a pun? Knowing you, I bet it’s deliberate.

complains general practitioner Dr. Roger Knott stiffly. "We're not here to give leisure drugs to old men who want their jollies. The health service should be focusing on dealing only with diseases and conditions that threaten life and limb. And no, that doesn't count as a limb, no matter how proud the good Minister is of its dimensions.

The little finger doesn’t count? Anyways, are you sure that isn’t a bit much?

Look, here's the deal: let them have four pills per month each, and that's a reasonable level of healthcare balanced against a cost-effective prescribing."

Outcome: the nation is noticeably more cheerful on Tuesdays

This is probably an obvious joke, but I’m missing it here...

OPTION THREE
Capitalist nations only.

"You got to look at the root problem here, and I'm not talking about the Minister's wife's milk-curdling ugliness," observes visiting United Federation ambassador Roland De Hay. "I'm talking about your socialist medicine. You get that commie NHS shut down, and everything back in the private sector, so free market forces can decide what is cost-effective treatment. Competition will drive down the prices of treatment and drugs, and as a nation I reckon you'll spend a smaller percentage of the national GDP on medical care. That's exactly what things are like in the good ole United Federation, right?"

Outcome: there's stiff competition in the medical marketplace

Not all that funny, imo. Can you do better?

[Fauxia]

I know CWA would like there to be more socialist iissues, though, so it might be better to just have it be the NHS. Furthermore, I don’t think it makes much sense on a private company, and it would have to make the description a lot more ambiguous.

Also, that suggestion you had may be just a bit too much

[Palos Heights]

I know CWA would like there to be more socialist iissues, though, so it might be better to just have it be the NHS. Furthermore, I don’t think it makes much sense on a private company, and it would have to make the description a lot more ambiguous.

Also, that suggestion you had may be just a bit too much

It makes plenty of sense on a private company simply because there are insurance companies who will not pay for medications because those medications are not on their formularies, because those medications do not follow evidence-based medicine, or because the companies believe that certain procedures and medications are not medically necessary and as such they do not believe that they have to pay for them.

[The Free Joy State]

Outcome: the nation is noticeably more cheerful on Tuesdays

This is probably an obvious joke, but I’m missing it here...

I took it as a reference to everyone having their weekly sex on a Monday night, putting them in a better mood on a Tuesday morning.

But I may be wrong.

First Draft:

TITLE:

Hard Times Ahead?

Good title.

Drew Peacock,

What a name for a man in his situation.

your Minister for Party Solidarity, as been looking a bit listless and lacking in energy lately.

On a minor point, you could cut "and lacking in energy".

I do like this issue.

I have to disagree with Fauxia. I creased up at the line:

And no, that doesn't count as a limb, no matter how proud the good Minister is of its dimensions.

If "dimensions" is thought of as too much, you could shorten to "And no, that doesn't count as a limb, no matter how proud the good Minister is of it."

But I like the line as-is.

OPTION THREE
Capitalist nations only.

"You got to look at the root problem here, and I'm not talking about the Minister's wife's milk-curdling ugliness," observes visiting United Federation ambassador Roland De Hay. "I'm talking about your socialist medicine. You get that commie NHS shut down, and everything back in the private sector, so free market forces can decide what is cost-effective treatment. Competition will drive down the prices of treatment and drugs, and as a nation I reckon you'll spend a smaller percentage of the national GDP on medical care. That's exactly what things are like in the good ole United Federation, right?"

It's a sound option (I got a giggle out of the name "Roland De Hay"), but does seem a tad tame when stacked up next to the very pun-tastic first two options. Maybe throw in some observational humour alongside?

Outcome: there's stiff competition in the medical marketplace

The effect line -

Also can there be a communist alternate to option three?

[Baggieland]

Party Solidarity, as been looking

'has' been looking, or is he a cockney?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I feel like you could do a version of this issue for nations without an NHS and have privatized medicine and switch out the NHS for a private insurance company. I mean, you're getting into a whole nother hornets nest with that and the increasing influence of insurance providers in dictating treatment decisions, but you'd be getting away from the issue at its core of sex-related treatments not being seen as "medically necessary" and health programs opting to not treat them.

I actually wanted this as a purely NHS thing. I realise that's only 11% of nations though, so maybe we ought to be coding it so that all communist nations count as having an NHS, on the assumption that there's no private healthcare in those nations.

The core dilemma here is in what public healthcare should pay for, the viagra is just window dressing.

Option three could use more George Carlin quotes to be honest. "Allow the free market to penetrate the stiff front erected by the communist healthcare entities! It'll be hard on our wallets, but we wont beat it by being soft!"

I like that.

Aside from that, seems like this issue could use a fourth option, maybe one where the wives of these gentlemen speak out against treating it at all because they miss the peace and quiet before their husbands found a "second wind" so-to-speak.

Yeah, I see that.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

You love these very mildly adult references, don’t you? I notice one you suggested to Jutsa in the drafting thread of a recently published issue was removed... anyway, got no issue with this one, pun may or may not have been intended.

Tolerances vary. Pun obviously intended.

I wouldn't even mind if there was some of specialist

I think you forgot “sort” in this in the bedroom, giving us advice and showing us where we're going wrong."

Thanks, added.

Outcome: therapists are always willing to lend a hand with sensitive medical problems

Any chance you could make this a bit funnier? Not that it’s bad, but it isn’t all that funny to me

I think you've missed the double entendre there.
The set up is "experts in the bedroom" "showing us where we're going wrong". The pay off is "lending a hand". As in, a hand-job, or a few fingers. The idea is that if you're a class nation seeing over the effect line, the effect line is entirely innocuous, but adult nations getting the issue would see both halves of the joke, and snigger at its filthiness.

Was it obvious to others, or is the joke too hard to get?

The little finger doesn’t count? Anyways, are you sure that isn’t a bit much?

Tolerances may vary. I figure that its still innuendo, so its fine. If I'd said "And no, your penis doesn't count", then I think that would have been too far. As it is, anyone who knows what the speaker is saying is mature enough to hear the speaker say it.

Outcome: the nation is noticeably more cheerful on Tuesdays

Four pills per month means sex once per week. No reason for Tuesday in particular I guess. Would you phrase it differently?

Outcome: there's stiff competition in the medical marketplace

Not all that funny, imo. Can you do better?

Just to clarify, did you again miss the innuendo, or did you see it and not find it funny? Either answer is fine.

To spell it out, stiff = erection.

[Jutsa]

I think that's an amazing effect line, personally.

'has' been looking, or is he a cockney?

My word, CWA, you could make the third speaker cockney!

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I took it as a reference to everyone having their weekly sex on a Monday night, putting them in a better mood on a Tuesday morning.

Ah, so glad you understood!

Drew Peacock,

What a name for a man in his situation.

I admit, the issue started with this name.

your Minister for Party Solidarity, as been looking a bit listless and lacking in energy lately.

On a minor point, you could cut "and lacking in energy".

Okay done.

I have to disagree with Fauxia. I creased up at the line:

If "dimensions" is thought of as too much, you could shorten to "And no, that doesn't count as a limb, no matter how proud the good Minister is of it."
But I like the line as-is.

Then I will leave it as it is,

It's a sound option (I got a giggle out of the name "Roland De Hay"), but does seem a tad tame when stacked up next to the very pun-tastic first two options. Maybe throw in some observational humour alongside?

I changed the name. I thought it was as punned up as the first two, but I admit I used more international sex slang on this one, which may have been less clear to a British editor like yourself. Root = f***, for example. But yeah, Palos' changes help this.

Outcome: there's stiff competition in the medical marketplace

The effect line -

Ah thank god.

Also can there be a communist alternate to option three?

Wrote one, then took it out again. Instead I'll go with adding a fourth option as Palos says.

[The Free Joy State]

Any chance you could make this a bit funnier? Not that it’s bad, but it isn’t all that funny to me

I think you've missed the double entendre there.
The set up is "experts in the bedroom" "showing us where we're going wrong". The pay off is "lending a hand". As in, a hand-job, or a few fingers. The idea is that if you're a class nation seeing over the effect line, the effect line is entirely innocuous, but adult nations getting the issue would see both halves of the joke, and snigger at its filthiness.

Was it obvious to others, or is the joke too hard to get?

I got the double entendre and found it funny.

But others might have a cleaner mind than me...

I like the new option four.

[Caracasus]

Agreed. Any more double etendres and this runs the risk of turning into a single etendre.

[Fauxia]

Eh, I'm one of the youngest members of GI, and I was also taking a break from writing a paper at the time of my comments (thus my brain was half fried), so it makes sense that I missed the double entendre. It's probably good, then.

[Australian rePublic]

Why is a politician unable to afford such drugs?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Why is a politician unable to afford such drugs?

Issue 214, maybe?

Honestly though, that's not the issue. Maybe he can afford the drugs, the sex counselors, libido clinics and bedroom assistants. That doesn't remove the question.

What may do, of course, is incline you to feel that option 2 or 3 are more moral, but that's up to you, the player.