Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: December 5460
Next month in: 02:02:59
Server time: 13:57:00, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (1): Brazil25 | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: The User Pays Health System

Details

Submitted by[?]: Aldegar Freedom Party

Status[?]: passed

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: July 2403

Description[?]:

Family First believe that every individual in this nation has a duty and an obligation to work and pay for what they use. It is responsible that each individual pays for himself and his family. It should not be any responsibilty of the tax-payers to fund health-care and pharmaceutical drugs for other people.

Aldegar's current health system allows many people to simply get an easy ride, at the expense of the tax-payers, and at the expense of funds better spent on much more sensible, important and efficient avenues of our budget. The tax-payers have an intrinsic right to benefit on the whole from what their taxes are going towards; taxes, whilst they should be kept to an absolute minimum, must go towards things that benefit everybody who pays them. This does not mean an easy ride for certain groups of people who would rather not pay for their own health-care, and are quite content to have tax-payers fund it for them. This does not mean free pharmaceutical drugs for everybody, particularly because a large portion of the populace never so much as lay a finger on pharmaceutical drugs of any description, and yet their taxes pay for other people's drugs.

In regards to pharmaceutical drugs, which are hardly unreasonably priced to begin with, it should not be too much to expect that the user can pay for what he needs. And again, if the user pays for his own drugs and makes informed decisions as to which drugs he prefers, competition between the various pharmaceutical manafacturers will increase, pushing standards higher. Prices should not become too high because the market itself will force the prices down eventually - if the prices are too high and too many people boycott the product because of this, the business will not be making a substantial revenue and they will be forced by competition to provide a much more reasonable price.
However, Family First understands that certain market trends may enable some businesses to price their product at a cost unaffordable by the vast majority of people, and still make a good profit. This is unfair - Family First wants every citizen of Aldegar to be able to afford the pharmaceutical drugs they need for themselves and their families. Therefore, the government will keep close watch over pharmaceutical manufacturers to make sure that their prices never drift out of a certain price range that will be affordable enough for every citizen to purchase without too much financial difficulty, regardless of their income. Pharmaceutical manufacturers who drift dramatically outside of this affordable price bracket will be punished, and made to adjust their prices accordingly.

In regards to health care, Family First does understand, that there are people in the community who literally cannot pay for their own health-care, due to legitimate circumstances. These people, under the proposed scheme, will still be paid for by the state, if their circumstances are found to be financially dire for legitimate reasons.

This new scheme will ease the squeeze on tax-payers, eliminate the 'easy ride' mentality that many of the welfare-using population have adopted out of sheer convenience, and allow the government to make informed decisions on which members of society actually do need free healthcare for legitimate reasons.

Furthermore, the new entirely private health system will root out the inefficiencies of the current sluggish public health system - currently, Aldegarians on a public health fund join waiting ques of up to a year long, just for a routine operation. Meanwhile, people on the private system walk straight through the door. The private system allows healthcare organizations to compete against one another, constantly attempting to best each other in the standards of care provided to their patients, and the prices they can offer them. No more waiting lists, no more poorly trained doctors, no more substandard care. Any private healthcare fund that provides substandard treatment will simply be destroyed by competition, where currently, any public health fund is ensured a constant flow of patients, and they do not run on a for-profit basis, and are not threatened by competition, therefore leaving no incentive for them to provide improved standards of care - it does not matter to them either way.

It's time that we build a better, brighter health system for Aldegarians. Let the user pay for what he uses, and not for anyone else - let the burden on tax-payer's shoulders be lifted.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date18:37:06, May 10, 2007 CET
FromAldegar
ToDebating the The User Pays Health System
MessageWe support.

Date05:20:20, May 11, 2007 CET
FromAldegar Liberty Party
ToDebating the The User Pays Health System
MessageSupport.

Date00:22:23, May 12, 2007 CET
FromParty of Moderates
ToDebating the The User Pays Health System
MessageWe have some reservations, but eventually, we can support. First, in order for us to support article 1, we would like a resolution in the legislation's description saying that the pharmaceutical industry will be monitored severely for price gouging.

As for article 2, we are against it. The explanation for this is that article 2 would end up costing the healthcare system much more money than it would save the taxpayers, and many people would suffer because of it. Contraceptives are a great source of prevention for STDs and undesired pregnancies that often lead to abortions, something that the FF is very much against, correct? Unfortunately, many of the people that would get these things are young people who often don't plan ahead to get something like a contraceptive unless it's shoved in their face and free. Some others who are older will also become victims of STDs and undesired pregnancies if the policy were to be changed. The increase of STDs alone will create many problems. For starters, it will crowd the resources of the healthcare system, at the very least, forcing higher costs for everyone else and possibly leading to substandard care, even for private systems. The increased problem of STDs will also likely cost the taxpayers more than the current policy, not only because of the inflation in the healthcare system, but also because of the proposed policy for public healthcare where the taxpayers would be paying for those that have low incomes and do have these STDs. That is likely to increase the need for taxes far higher than the contraceptive policy lowered it, especially since those with low incomes are in the greatest risk area for gaining these STDs. The nation would also pay for the contraceptive policy with the unplanned pregnancies. Unplanned pregnancies force couples to make tough choices which include abortion. If they do decide to neither put the baby up for adoption or abort it, then it is likely that the couple that will get married due to the pregnancy will live in poverty and drop out of school, according to statistics. This ruins the potential for these young people who could have just as easily have become great, masively productive systems and who are now being forced to rely at least partially on the welfare system.

Considering these reasons, we hope the FF will not only see our reasons for being against the proposed contraceptive policy, but join us in our position.

Date00:23:47, May 12, 2007 CET
FromParty of Moderates
ToDebating the The User Pays Health System
MessageBy the way, we just noticed a slight typo in our response. In the second to last sentence, please replace the word "systems" with "people."

Date04:28:41, May 12, 2007 CET
FromAldegar Freedom Party
ToDebating the The User Pays Health System
MessageWe certainly respect the concerns of the PM and we will be happy to alter this legislation accordingly.

We will first of all include in this legislation's description, in relation to Article 1, that all pharmaceutical manufacturers will be monitored closely by the government to make sure that their prices will not be unfair to the people of Aldegar, and that they will be at a price allowing any Aldegarian to purchase them without too much financial difficulty. We understand that these drugs may be vital to some people, and exploitation will not be allowed. We do feel, however, that the pharmaceutical industry should be proficient in regulating itself - for example, if they set their prices too high, not enough people will buy their product, and they will therefore be forced to reduce the price accordingly by the market itself. But we certainly do not want Aldegar's people to be exploited, and pharmaceutical manufacturers, whilst they should not be regulated per se, will be under close watch from the government to make sure that their prices remain within a reasonable and affordable bracket.

As for Article 2, we respect the wishes of the PM, and will of course be happy to oblige for our allies.

Unfortunately, whilst the PM's points were very valid and logical, Family First is a party that believes not only that abortion is wrong, but also that contraceptives are unnatural and that they encourage sexual intercourse, as opposed to preventing abortion. We view it this way: whilst the use of contraceptives prevents abortion from being nessicary, it also encourages young teenagers to have pre-marital relations much more flippantly than they would if they took sexual intercourse seriously, and if contraceptives were not as readily available for them. We want to prevent abortions, but we don't want to do it in a way that consequently encourages promiscuous sex.
We do understand, of course, that a married husband and wife should have the right to engage in sexual relations without wanting to reproduce, per se - sex should be enjoyable for a married man and his wife when they are not looking to reproduce, as well as an act of creation when they are. In this circumstance, we do favour the withdrawl method, but we understand that contraceptives should be available for these adults - it would be irrational of us to expect couples not to use contraceptives and to not become pregnant without wanting to.
But our reasons for suggesting that contraceptives no longer be free is not just to relieve the burden on tax-payers, but also to encourage responsible intercourse. We don't want the next generation of children sleeping with each other and not fully understanding the meaning and sanctity of sex. We want to encourage sex as an act between a man and woman who love each other, and one way of encouraging this is to make the contraceptives less readily available.

Having said this, we do respect the wishes of our allies, and we will alter this legislation accordingly. As we have said before, we are a party of comprimise and of rationality.

Date04:38:17, May 12, 2007 CET
FromAldegar Freedom Party
ToDebating the The User Pays Health System
MessageWe feel that enough debate has taken place to allow this bill to go to a vote.

Date04:48:26, May 13, 2007 CET
FromParty of Moderates
ToDebating the The User Pays Health System
MessageWe are happy for being able to debate and compromise like this, and we give our full support for this bill..

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
    

Total Seats: 366

no
    

Total Seats: 243

abstain
 

Total Seats: 41


Random fact: Players are expected to behave in a courteous, co-operative manner and make a reasonable effort to act with the consent of all players involved, even where the rules do not make consent strictly necessary. In particular, players have a responsibility to take reasonable care that other players are not misinformed either about the role-play or the Game Rules.

Random quote: "Colonialism or imperialism, as the slave system of the West is called, is not something that is just confined to England or France or the United States. The interests in this country are in cahoots with the interests in France and the interests in Britain. It's one huge complex or combine, and it creates what's known not as the American power structure or the French power structure, but an international power structure. This international power structure is used to suppress the masses of dark-skinned people all over the world and exploit them of their natural resources." Malcolm X

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 68