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: Public Health Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Free People's Movement
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: February 2372
Description[?]:
| This would allow people to recieve quality healthcare regardless of their financial status and encourage overall development as no one would recieve special benefits for their health. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Health care policy.
Old value:: There is a public health care system, but private clinics are allowed.
Current: There is a public health care system, but private clinics are allowed.
Proposed: 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.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:53:26, March 08, 2007 CET | From |  Liberal Tukarali Democratic Party | To | Debating the Public Health Act |
| Message | Opposed. |
| Date | 03:11:39, March 08, 2007 CET | From | Free People's Movement | To | Debating the Public Health Act |
| Message | Why? Also what do you think of the following option? 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. |
| Date | 21:39:20, March 08, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Tukarali Democratic Party | To | Debating the Public Health Act |
| Message | We thinl there should be private health clinics. We could go with the second one though. |
| Date | 22:24:34, March 08, 2007 CET | From | Free People's Movement | To | Debating the Public Health Act |
| Message | The second one would be an improvement. Although right now I guess it doesn't really matter what either of us thinks huh? What do you think Mr Greenish? |
| Date | 22:28:33, March 09, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Tukarali Democratic Party | To | Debating the Public Health Act |
| Message | That is true. |
| Date | 11:40:48, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Public Health Act |
| Message | We will vote against. Let me explain why. We stand by the current legislation because we think allowing both private as public initiative is a better option than only private (which might care more about money than about sick people), or only public (which might not be as efficient). First of all, while we think free health care is a noble goal, we don't think it is realistically sustainable on long term, budgetairy speaking. Furthermore, we think the proposed law will create a more extreme division between rich people who can pay to be treated in exclusive hospitals by the best doctors there are, while poor people will need to line up to get an appointment at a public hospital.. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 201 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 298 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In cases where a party has no seat, the default presumption should be that the party is able to contribute to debates in the legislature due to one of its members winning a seat at a by-election. However, players may collectively improvise arrangements of their own to provide a satisfying explanation for how parties with no seats in the legislature can speak and vote there. |
| Random quote: "The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda against democracy." - Alex Carey |