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 Reforms
Details
Submitted by[?]: Wantuni Unitary Capitalist 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 2409
Description[?]:
| In order to create a more complete and free society, the Unitary Capitalist Party proposes the following measures. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The right to euthanasia.
Old value:: Euthanasia is allowed with consent from the patient and the treating doctor.
Current: Euthanasia is illegal but not considered murder.
Proposed: Euthanasia is only allowed with consent from the patient and a court order.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Health care policy.
Old value:: There is a public health care system, but private clinics are allowed.
Current: Health care is private, but is paid for by the state for people with low incomes.
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 | 11:08:27, May 22, 2007 CET | From | Social Conservative Party | To | Debating the Health Reforms |
| Message | We are in favour of article 1. Euthanasia is a difficult subject to adress, and should not be taken lightly. We might even consider going even further and outlawing it all together. However, on article 2. We must ask you in what way does this create a free and better society. If healthcare is entirly private whom sets the prices, the companies whom own the hospitals naturally. And in such a scenario, if they know that they need not to bother to offer cheap good healthcare it would put the prices high. It is common sense, and logic. It is heaven for any company to be in a position where you do not need to bother about having a price people can afford. And in effect extremely expensive for hte state to maintain. The current system is both fair and cost-efficient. |
| Date | 17:26:22, May 22, 2007 CET | From | Federalists Party | To | Debating the Health Reforms |
| Message | We strongly support article 2. To address the SCP's opposition, health care companies are not in heaven when people cannot afford their services. That is called bankruptcy. To say that only government price controls can keep hospitals honest is a farce. |
| Date | 17:35:12, May 22, 2007 CET | From | Social Conservative Party | To | Debating the Health Reforms |
| Message | Can the Federalist party please explain to me the reason companies would have to do cheap, effective and good treatment to the sick when they know that the government will pay for it, whatever the cost. it is very simple national economy. NORMAL companies needs to find a quilibrium, the lvl where enough people can afford things and the price is in a lvl of maximum profit. In the system proposed they do not need to bother about the equilibrium, all they need to care about is what the rich can afford. |
| Date | 20:29:32, May 22, 2007 CET | From | Wantuni Unitary Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Health Reforms |
| Message | Unfortunately, the SCP is mistaken. For a private corporation of any kind, whether it be in the healthcare industry or manufacturing industry, it must produce its goods or service at a rate affordable to its "normal" customer. In the case of healthcare, this means that the service provider must be able to supply a semblance of quality healthcare to those who are in the middle of society, those who are not rich but also not poor. The Federal Government will take up the slack in the instance of those who have no way to pay for it, and the rich will pay, just as they always do. This is a very simple economic procedure and it has worked in the past. It shall work here as well. |
| Date | 21:00:22, May 22, 2007 CET | From | Social Conservative Party | To | Debating the Health Reforms |
| Message | Whatever you produce can be sold, crap are sold for cheap, very luxarious things that might have the same function as the cheap is sold for high prices for those whom want to pay that for htat little extra. You do not see Mclaren F1 being made affordable for the "normal customer" now do you ? The former and current system has a public healtchare system bound by government decisions and the pricing that exists there that acts as a neutral competition to the private market. And as they can compete in prices they drive the other private alternatives into a position where they have to offer cheap prices as well. But if we set the market free what we will see is large corporations nationwide, oligarchy and profiteering in a scale we have never seen before. We appreciate the intention, and allthough the proposal may sound good but it is not. The Poor are those whom cannot afford healthcare on their own, and with this law we leave it to the hospitals to set the line between whom is rich and who is poor. That should be in the hands of the government to decide, not the hospitals. |
| Date | 21:10:08, May 22, 2007 CET | From | Wantuni Unitary Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Health Reforms |
| Message | The Government will still be deciding who is above and below the poverty line, that distinction has not been lost. The State will still subsidize low income healthcare, for those that are below the poverty line. This has not change and it will not change. The only thing Article 2 does is establish the fact that the free market can better serve the interests of the majority of the people, providing better and cheaper healthcare through a competitive system. Surely you do not want to subject the people of Wantuni to higher taxes and less money to spend on other goods? |
| Date | 07:48:35, May 23, 2007 CET | From | Social Conservative Party | To | Debating the Health Reforms |
| Message | WUCP, what exactly defines low-income families ? What is the poverty line. Either the state sets the poverty line, and then we do have price regulations still for those above the lien that hte Government sets must be able to, in the hospitals, afford all healthcare. The free market is not a geenie in the bottel whom solves all our problems. The Free market is often just a tool to avoid taking responsibility by parties. As it is now we have competition between the private and national hospitals. The national hospitals give good care at a low price, and the private hospitals has to compete with that. The free market works best in what is called "non-essential services and goods" for there you can have the choise of give the service or goods amiss due to price, quality and so forth. But when it comes to hospitals you cannot give a open heart surgery amiss due to the pricing or quality of the service. The other facto f the matter is that our nation is very large, and our infrastructure has not yet been recovered, and most people are confined with a limited area of transport and there is not much competition to begin with between private hospitals due to this restraint. But as it is now each of theese sectors supplies a national alternative whom compete with prices and quality. In a society with good infrastructure, good means of transportation so that the people with ease can choose which alternative they choose there your theory works. But that is sadly not the case for Wantuni. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 3 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 440 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 57 |
| Random fact: In your Message Centre there is a really useful feature which allows you to subscribe to all of the bill debates in your nation. If you use that, then the "Watched Discussions" section will show you every time a new message has been posted on a bill. You can also subscribe to other pages you want to follow, such as your nation message-board, party organisations or bills outside your nation which you are interested in. |
| Random quote: "Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them." - Bill Vaughn |