Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: March 5461
Next month in: 00:28:58
Server time: 03:31:01, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (1): Caoimhean | 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: Lessen The Load on our HealthCare

Details

Submitted by[?]: Protectorate 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: February 2092

Description[?]:

To help lower the demand on our health care system we recommend private clinics who can aid those wishing the higher level of service they can provide. Of course these will be regulated to keep the level of care high.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date06:00:31, August 02, 2005 CET
FromSocial Republican Party
ToDebating the Lessen The Load on our HealthCare
MessageOkay

Date08:08:30, August 02, 2005 CET
FromLeviathan Party
ToDebating the Lessen The Load on our HealthCare
MessageWe're not sure how the rhetoric of 'lessening the load' on the various social services is always used to introduce private services, rather than expand the public services. If our health care system is, in fact, taxed, this is a sign that we need to invest in expanding our services, a taks the private sector is poorly equipped to do. Private industries work on a for provit basis, which means these private clinics will expand into the sectors that cater to those capable of paying for the extra services instead of the sectors that have the greatest need. Is this how we want to run our social services?

'The rich pay through taxes' has become a common refrain in Malivia when arguing for social programs, and it is just as relevant now as ever. We must not create two standards of care, one for those who can't afford the best, one for those who can; if we do, what are we telling the world? That money, not humanity, determines if someone lives or dies? We are not inclined to take that position.

If we need a higher standard of care, and if the rich of Malivia want access to those services, let them share with every other person in the country. If they are willing to pay for private service, let them pay that money in taxes so that we can invest it in technology for the good of all, not just the good of those who can afford it.

Date17:53:35, August 02, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Lessen The Load on our HealthCare
MessageBy allowing those wishing to spend the money to purchase private care has two effects which are desirable.
First, it gives the citizens the ability to prioritize. Those who wish to get little perks in their health care system can spend the money on this without any anomosity toward the government for increasing their taxes. To think that a single government program can produce a fit all system keeping everyone happy is not practical. Why shouldn't those wishing to spend more gain access to private rooms in hospitals and smaller clinics with a shorter wait be permitted to spend some of their own Py toward this end.
Secondly, it provides another avenue of research to increase our healthcare practices. Private clinics will compete with each other and the national service in order to gain patients. This means they must find new and better ways of care. These ideas can then be adapted by our national service where practical to increase everyones level of care.
The LevP has often spoken of the evils of monopolies in the case of copyrights and patents. Stagnation occurs as companies gain income from the same tired material. We are suggesting that the same practice can be applied to healthcare. Should we permit our heath services to stagnate due to lack of another point of view.
We have no interest in reducing the budget of our healthcare system. We feel it is one of the cornerstones of services that government should provide for its citizens. We are instead looking at ways to reduce the costs associated with the care, thus increasing the care per Py and developing an driving force to keep the system progressing and expanding.
As the LevP points out private care will start in markets where there is a profit. These will include (in addition to areas of high income) areas of dense population where are system is performing poorly. We are confident in the ability of our Heath minister to use this information toward improving our care in these areas.

Date01:02:48, August 03, 2005 CET
FromLeviathan Party
ToDebating the Lessen The Load on our HealthCare
MessageAgain, the PP fails to show why the only way to improve healthcare in or nation is to allow private clinics. If we accept in arguendo the assertions of the PP regarding the healthcare system, it still doesn't require a private system to fix, as we will show.

Is the problem that there is only one health program? Develop more; as we have noted when proposing our program for running socially owned industry, we don't need private ownership to benefit from private management. There is no reason that our healthcare system cannot have competition for funding between privately managed, but still free, clinics. If the problem facing our healthcare system is a lack of personalization of service, we can adapt a free system to meet those needs without phasing in private healthcare.

Is the problem lack of research? Offer funding incentives for hospitals and clinics that develop new treatments, problem solved.

Is the problem stagnation? Private corporations can become stagnant just as easily as government institutions, and the solution is the same. If we need an organizational shake up to knock our healthcare program out of a rut then let's address the problem directly, rather than passing the buck to private corporations.

Most importantly, though, the PP is simply wrong that private companies will expand into densely populated areas where, in arguendo, the system is not performing well. This is because densely populated areas have historically had lower income than low densitiy areas because the high density lifestyle (apartments, limited car use, etc) is cheaper than the low density lifestyle (homes, frequent driving required, etc). The markets where the most profit can be made will not be the poor areas, clearly it will be where the rich reside, because the poor cannot afford to pay for private healthcare.

We too are confident Minister Meltzer will be able to use this information to improve service, which is exactly why we don't need private healthcare at this time.

Date16:19:26, August 03, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Lessen The Load on our HealthCare
MessageWe never stated or intended to imply that this is the only method of improving our healthcare we instead argue that this will provide a measure of where our system is failing and lead to methods of improving it.

Research Phiny are limited in the governement and providing a seperate avenue for progress can only speed progress. Our current laws prevent long term monopolies on drugs or other measures of care.

Companies both private and government are notoriously poor at correcting stagnation on their own. Outside forces provide the best driving force toward improvement. This is what we aim to deliver.

Though the profit per person would be most likely be lower in densly populated areas for private care since incomes tend to be lower and therefore the private companies can not charge as much. The companies can make profits in volume. This is in cases where our system is not working thus people would be willing to pay a small fee for some better care. If their is not this demand then the majority of people are happy with our system. The key fact is that the number of private clinics that develop will indicate how are system is performing. Our goal should be to drive the private clinics out of buisness, not through legislation, rather through the market by providing better care.

Private clinics forming in low density areas also allow us to lower the number of clinics in these areas. These are also those which will cost the government the most. They are serving fewer people, the land costs more, leading to a much higher cost per citizen. Shifting this cost to the citizens who wish to pay it is a win win situation. Of course we do not recommend removing care from these areas as there are others who are happy with the national service. We can therefore reduce our costs per citizen and use this savings to increase the level of care for those still in the system.

We must stress that we in no way want to reduce the level of care for anyone nor are we trying to reduce the budget for our healthcare system. We rather would use the money more wisely to provide a greater level of care for all citizens.



Date23:52:55, August 03, 2005 CET
FromLeviathan Party
ToDebating the Lessen The Load on our HealthCare
MessageAgain, the PP fails to show how that, if we accept that change is needed (which we have not been convinced off; there is a history of crying wolf regarding nationalized industries in order to privatize parts of the economy), that the needed reforms cannot be achieved through the current, totally free, system.

Let us examine, first, the necessary corrolaries of the PP's proposal. If our healthcare system is failing to provide the required care for some patients, and private hospitals and clinics are legalized specifically to pick up the slack, who will get that improved care? The poor or the rich? And if our healthcare system is failing to provide the people with the care they need, who will have to accept the still inadaquate level of care? The poor or the rich?

And so the PP is asserting that our healthcare system is not providing the needed care, and proposes private clinics to measure whether our not our system is failing? If we already know our system has holes in it, why do we need a weathervane? And why is this weathervane private clinics, where only those who can afford the price can get the care they need?

Though we believe the PP is not intentionally trying to lower the level of care, they have failed to consider the two natural consequences of their proposal. First, the fact that we will be turning people away from the care they need just because they cannot afford it; this kind of classism is unacceptable in the Assembly. Second, if the rich now are being double dipped for healthcare, as they pay for both the socialized system through their taxes and then private clinics with their own money, a rollback of those taxes is not far behind.

Socialized healthcare, in addition to producing more value per Py spent, has the added benefit of putting everyone in the same boat. If the richest citizen has to through the same system that the poorest citizen goes to, there is no incentive for the rich to attempt to roll back protections and access to the best care for the working classes. This de facto solidarity is key to protecting our must vulnerable ctiizens; if they only way people can get the best care for everyone is to make that care available to everyone, then the common good because in everyone's self interest. Private clinics will end the same boat effect, and that can only end badly.

Again, the PP has failed to show how or why private clinics are needed, and if they are concerned with improving healthcare in Malivia let us exhaust our options through a socialized system before we begin sabotaging it with privatized medicine.

Date02:02:34, August 05, 2005 CET
FromVast Right Wing Conspiracy Party
ToDebating the Lessen The Load on our HealthCare
MessageThe best way to lessen the load on our healthcare system is to execute people who have been diagnosed with a catastrophic illness. Sure, they might recover, but at what cost to the country? The needs of the many must outweigh the needs of the few.

Date06:54:39, August 05, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Lessen The Load on our HealthCare
MessageWe feel the LevP is misinterpeting the effects of this legistlation. Who are we recommending are turned away from health care? Who is suggesting to reduce the tax that pays for this care?
The wealthy may indeed turn to private care but we must realize that they are doing this willingly and therefore we are justified in not reducing their contribution to the state program. We feel that the majority of the Assembly wish to maintain a high level of care and would be able to resist the call of the weathy for tax breaks.
We also have not recommended the closing of any facilities let alone enough to leave our citizens without access. Rather those who wish another option should have the option of pursuing it.
The LevP suggests that the health care program be managed by privately competing companies. Different companies will provide different levels of care, thus we introduce the problem of inequality. Now what happens when one fails to have their contract with the state renewed. Their employees are jobless, their buildings put up for auction. Now there one less provider. Continue to the logical end where there is only one provider for an area. Now for a new provider to enter the area they must build back up their services so they may compete. This will take some time or large sums of money. Private companies will not want to invest when they are unsure of gaining a contract from the state, in the mean time the sole provider has a monopoly.

Date17:14:24, August 06, 2005 CET
FromLeviathan Party
ToDebating the Lessen The Load on our HealthCare
MessageThe fact is that the PP's proposal would still give the rich better healtcare than the poor, and the PP doesn't seem bothered by this. Setting two standards is not acceptable; if we want to raise the quality of healthcare, we raise it for all.

Date21:46:20, August 06, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Lessen The Load on our HealthCare
MessageWe will never make everyone happy with a state run healthcare. We recommend those who are unhappy having the option to pay more for private care. We are not bothered by this, as we have every faith in our government's ability to provide good healthcare at the state level. This can then be improved by looking at why people are moving to the private care and if it provides something we feel is better we can then adapt it into the state plan.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
    

Total Seats: 45

no
   

Total Seats: 46

abstain
 

Total Seats: 9


Random fact: "OOC", "IC" and "IG" are commonly-used acronyms in Particracy. "OOC" refers to comments, discussions and actions which are out-of-character, meaning they are done player-to-player rather than party-to-party. "IC" refers to in-character interactions (ie. party-to-party). Similarly, "IG" means in-game, although this term may also simply refer to what happens in the actual game interface, as opposed to on the forum or elsewhere. "RP" just means "role-play".

Random quote: "When there's a single thief, it's robbery. When there are a thousand thieves, it's taxation. " -Vanya Cohen

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 66