We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Health Care Access and Freedom Act.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 2362
Description[?]:
| A bill to improve access to Health Care, and to give more choice to individuals in how and where they get their health care. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Health care policy.
Old value:: There is a free public health care system and a small number of private clinics, which are heavily regulated to ensure they treat their patients well and provide good care.
Current: There is a public health care system, but private clinics are allowed.
Proposed: Health care is private, but is paid for by the state for people with low incomes.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 09:13:32, February 15, 2007 CET | From |  We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Health Care Access and Freedom Act. |
| Message | How, in the name of anything, do you believe that privatising health care and allowing private companies to choose who they provide a service to, regulate prices, and operate the entireity of the health system can possibly improve the standard of health care?? The current system provides that health care is provided by the state for everyone but, should they choose, or if an operation is not medically viable/required (i.e. cosmetic surgery), they can already receive private treatment. What you intend to introduce is state sponsored limitations to public health access and we cannot, and will not support anything which causes harm to our citizens and, even more importantly, that then makes the government pay the private sector to provide a level of care that is already being provided excellently by our current health care system. |
| Date | 09:18:23, February 15, 2007 CET | From | First Party Of Hobrazia | To | Debating the Health Care Access and Freedom Act. |
| Message | We believe in private comapnies but not in this sector. Health is a need that must be free when it is needed. |
| Date | 19:03:03, February 15, 2007 CET | From | Alliance for Freedom | To | Debating the Health Care Access and Freedom Act. |
| Message | We support it. |
| Date | 22:55:41, February 15, 2007 CET | From |  Liberal Party | To | Debating the Health Care Access and Freedom Act. |
| Message | "How, in the name of anything, do you believe that privatising health care and allowing private companies to choose who they provide a service to, regulate prices, and operate the entireity of the health system can possibly improve the standard of health care??" Because private health care offers a superior service at a low cost. That's capitalism for you. Gov't health care is bogged down with the inherent inefficiencies of a bureaucracy. The larger a bureaucracy becomes the more inefficient it becomes, in fact those in the bureaucracy have a vested interest in seeing it being larger and inefficient. That way there is more money being sunk into it. Look at our budget, it rivals our defence costs. That is a huge burden. |
| Date | 10:44:12, February 16, 2007 CET | From | Hobrazia Democrats | To | Debating the Health Care Access and Freedom Act. |
| Message | We will support this bill, let's cut some red tape and cure patients instead of curing quota's |
| Date | 14:55:33, February 16, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Health Care Access and Freedom Act. |
| Message | "Because private health care offers a superior service at a low cost." - No, that's fanciful thinking. There is no such thing as high quality health care at low cost. You get what you pay for. The NHS operates a national system of high quality health services ranging from dentistry to GP's to hospitals. Money being spent correctly allows for improved service and maintains a healthy people. Forcing those people to pay vast sums of money just to cure a relatively simple ailment is not good socially nor is it good economically. "That way there is more money being sunk into it. Look at our budget, it rivals our defence costs." - It's called providing a full service. You think it's too much money, and yet you believe that the private sector would operate on less? You obviously have no knowledge of health care. |
| Date | 14:55:57, February 16, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Health Care Access and Freedom Act. |
| Message | "cure patients instead of curing quota's" - What quota's??? |
| Date | 01:03:14, February 17, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Party | To | Debating the Health Care Access and Freedom Act. |
| Message | "No, that's fanciful thinking. There is no such thing as high quality health care at low cost." Yes there is. Clearly you are not learned in capitalism. Let me take you to school; You see, if you are providing a service for a fee, you must provide a quality service, or you are not going to have any customers. Who would want bad quality service? No one. As a business you must meet the needs of your clients in order to make money. Now if you have a number of competitors (which this bill would allow for), they all have this mindset, so the way they compete is by weighing quality and cost. If it is super high quality but far to expensive it's not going to make any money. If it's super cheap but piss poor quality you aren't going to make any money either, you see? Therefore companies are going to be drivin towards the high quality service at the lowest possible price price. With a gov't monopoly, they throw all that out the window. No competition. No strive towards effeciency. Why? Because as long as things are status quo, there is no need to. Also with our system there is very little inivation on the part of private individuals. There is too much red tape. Clear a lot of that up and we are going to have a lot healthier society. "You get what you pay for." Precisely! Don't like the service you are getting? You can just go someplace else. Not that easy to do with our current laws. "The NHS operates a national system of high quality health services ranging from dentistry to GP's to hospitals. Money being spent correctly allows for improved service and maintains a healthy people. Forcing those people to pay vast sums of money just to cure a relatively simple ailment is not good socially nor is it good economically." Like I have shown, it will be far cheaper to let capitalism work its magic. As with any public system, you wait in line for service. It's called rationing. Have you ever thought of the consequences of this? People will be out of work, have to put up a second mortgage on their home, and get hooked on meds because they have to wait so long. That is bad economics. |
| Date | 17:24:52, February 17, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Health Care Access and Freedom Act. |
| Message | Congratulations on your knowledge of economic *theory*. Now, as you have given us an education in theory, we will now provide you with the more pressing point of economic *fact*. In order for healthcare to be of a given standard it costs money, and lots of it. You see, if you are looking for a service for a fee you will try and find the business that provides the lowest cost. In so doing you will only purchase that which is within your price range. People instinctively look for the lowest price as that gives them the highest return and businesses do the same. Why purchase a more expensive anaesthetic when you can purchase a similar one for a lower price. Admittedly it may have less effect, but if people can't afford the better product, then they must use whatever it is they can. In this way we soon start to see a distinct differentiation between the haves and have nots. The haves can afford to go to a clean and respected medical environment, the have nots can't. As for a business, if they can increase turnover by using cheaper equipment, or by replacing equipment less often, then they will do it. Why change your gloves after each patient, when you can wash them under running water. That money is then saved and so reduces cost to the practice which can then be given to the public. Of course, there is an increased risk of cross infection, but then that doesn't matter because it's cheap. But then, why use gloves which cost money in the first place? What we actually end up with is a situation where the majority of the public has to use poorly equipped health centres because it is in their price range whilst a small number get to be treated in a decent medical environment. As you agreed, you get what you pay for and healthcare is expensive. "With a gov't monopoly, they throw all that out the window. No competition. No strive towards effeciency. Why? Because as long as things are status quo, there is no need to." - You obviously know nothing about health care and the oprations of a National Health Service, so please let us enlighten you. With a government operated sector there is a constant strive toward efficiency. Why, I hear you scream. There is no competition. But what there is is cost, and government incomes are reliant on taxation. People don't like taxes and so any government that increases taxes has to have a damn good reason or else they lose public support. In this way government departments have to be efficient as they do not have infinite resources, but what they do have is a never ending stream of patients. In order to treat those patients those limited resources must be used as efficiently and effectively as possible in order to provide the service. We would also point out that there is, shock, horror, competition in this Country. People who would prefer to use private hospitals can, it's clearly spelled out in the article, so your argument over lack of competition is moot. "Also with our system there is very little inivation on the part of private individuals. There is too much red tape. Clear a lot of that up and we are going to have a lot healthier society." - No, what you're going to get is a lot of hard nosed business people making lots of cash whilst they charge the ordinary citizens vast sums of money to use their treatments. What we will get is a vast underclass that do not utilise health care because they can't afford it and so we will have a small group of potentially healthier people and a larger group of extremely ill people who cost this Country far more in reduced economic productivity then they ever would in healthcare costs. "As with any public system, you wait in line for service. It's called rationing. Have you ever thought of the consequences of this? People will be out of work, have to put up a second mortgage on their home, and get hooked on meds because they have to wait so long. That is bad economics." - Again, your argument does not hold any credence. Within any private system you wait in line for service. It's called smaller organisations unable to cope with demand. Now, you will argue, if they have to wait they can go somewhere else. Good theory, but in practice they probably can't either due to prohibitive costs or their condition makes it impossible. Within the public system these people have their treatment already paid for. They are provided for by the State in both unemployment benefit, so have no requirement to remortgage their homes. The waiting lists are not so long as to get them hooked on medication as the system is well funded so patients can be moved to a neighbouring treatment centre because they are all one large organisation. This is good economics because everything is already planned for and detailed. If it's all private the price for decent treatment is highly expensive, often cripplingly so. What are the consequences of this? People will be out of work and will have to get a second mortage on their home in order to afford the treatment. Whilst they wait, they get addicted to medication, which itself is expensive and could cost them to the point that they are unable to afford the treatment they so desperately require. These people are then destitute and unable for provide for either themselves or their families. That is bad economics. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 38 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 266 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 96 |
| Random fact: The grey space in the east is populated by the forum-based countries, known in-game as the former colonies or the "Third World". These countries are managed by the Third World Coordinator but players can request control of individual countries in the Third World Control Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8302 |
| Random quote: "I'm not a leftist; I'm where the righteous ought to be." - M.M. Coady |