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: National Health Provisions Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: We Say So! 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: February 2474
Description[?]:
| In order to provide the highest possible medical care to the population, whilst also guaranteeing value for money to the tax payer, the health care of the nation will be provided by Government owned and supported utilities (including, but not limited to Hospitals, General Practitioner Medical Centres, Dental Surgeries, Pharmacies et al) under the auspices of the National Health Service (hitherto referred to as the NHS). All agencies directly related to medical care will also be contained within the public sector (e.g. hospital cleaners, food providers etc). Public Health Utilities, provided by the NHS, will provide for basic and essential health care needs, as laid out below, but will not deal with unessential or cosmetic operations. In relation to Hospitals this is to include all major and minor operations required by the patient in order to prolong, or improve, quality of life, as well as the provision of artificial limbs etc. Hospitals will *not* provide for unessential cosmetic modifications and surgeries to any person(s). General Practitioner Medical Centres will provide all basic care to citizens and will provide the primary means for the General Public to access the NHS services. General Practitioner Medical Centres will provide inoculations against harmful diseases as well as one-on-one medical checkups by both General Practitioners and Nurses. NHS Dental Surgeries will provide for all basic and essential dental needs. This includes the provision of retainers for under 18s if required, amalgam fillings when required in all teeth (barring the anteriors which will be filled utilising white shaded composite) and/or Glass Ionomer temporaries, Partial and Full resin dentures, Precious Metal Porcelain coated Crowns, and none surgical Extractions (surgical extractions to be carried out at a registered Hospital). No unessential cosmetic modifications will be carried out within the NHS, though these services can be provided at additional cost by the GDP at the request of the patient. Non-essential cosmetic modifications include, but are not limited to: Plastic surgery that is requested to make modifications to un-damaged body parts (i.e. facial surgery to nose, ears, forehead, eyes etc. that does nothing but change the appearance of the individual but serves no medical purpose); Retainers on persons aged 18+; Posterior white shaded composite fillings; Bleaching of teeth; Provision of non or modified resin Dentures; Provision of non-precious metal porcelain coated Crowns. Private practices will be entitled to operate alongside the National Health Service to provide any and all essential and non-essential services (e.g. non-essential plastic surgery), but will be heavily regulated at all times to maintain maximum quality standards so as to guarantee that services are not operating dangerously or at a risk to public health. Health Care Professionals wishing to operate within the Private sphere must provide a limited amount of time (as agreed with the NHS) to the care of NHS patients and cannot, under any circumstances, provide solely for private patients where doing so would constitute a risk to patients they may be treating in the NHS. Private Health operators will also be required, in times of National Emergency or during periods of intense use, to carry out NHS operations and services at no further expense to those requiring said operations and services. Should the use of these Private operators be required, then they will be reimbursed by the Ministry of Health and Social Services at the same rate as an NHS institution. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Health care policy.
Old value:: Health care is entirely public and free; private clinics are banned.
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 | 18:35:59, October 19, 2007 CET | From |  We Say So! Party | To | Debating the National Health Provisions Act |
| Message | This bill will allow public money to be spent on providing important medical care whilst guaranteeing that unnecessary but possibly "feel good" provisions can be provided for individuals without costing the NHS and the public purse. |
| Date | 03:34:18, October 20, 2007 CET | From | National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the National Health Provisions Act |
| Message | We could accept. |
| Date | 04:48:17, October 20, 2007 CET | From | The Family First Party | To | Debating the National Health Provisions Act |
| Message | This proposal is indeed a step in the right direction, but we would like to see further privatization of the healthcare system in future. We don't see any reason why private hospitals should be regulated to ensure a standard of care, considering that the market is more than efficient at regulating and resolving this kind of issue independantly. Quite simply, if one hospital is not providing a high enough standard of care for its patients, its patients will leave and go to one of its rival hospitals which provides superior service, word of mouth will spread about the hospitals lack of adequate service, and eventually they will have the option either of facing extreme loss due to a lack of patients, or improving their services in order to compete with rival hospitals. This is one of the fundamental rules of economics - social justice through self-interest. If hospitals want to make a decent profit and compete in the market effectively, they will be forced to provide an adequate standard of care for their clientelle. Regulation is unnessicary, and in many cases, counter-productive. Having said that, because this bill is a step in the right direction, we support, albeit with some reservations. |
| Date | 12:45:03, October 20, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the National Health Provisions Act |
| Message | The market is inherently poor at self regulation. History shows that, contrary to the belief of free market economists, markets and businesses when operating within the free market soon begin to ask the government to impose regulations on the industry in order to guarantee the imposition of fair markets within which to compete. It is, sadly, a fallacy that people move between high quality institutions due to the problems inherent in providing the safety equipment and its related costs with people preferring to utilise cheaper alternatives. Because of the risk to public safety regulations have to be imposed on the private sector, just as they are imposed on the public sector, in order to guarantee that quality and safety of service is provided. |
| Date | 04:09:50, October 21, 2007 CET | From | The Family First Party | To | Debating the National Health Provisions Act |
| Message | We respectfully disagree with the statements of the We Say So! Party - public industries are poorly funded and innefficiently operated. Competition is the essence of economic progress - as public firms do not have to compete, they have no need to provide a better service to their customers. In fact, the only driving force for public firms to improve their service is if there is enough pressure from the people for the government to take action. Because of this general efficiency, things such as public hospitals have sluggish waiting ques, and in many cases this can result in prolonged surgery and things of a similar nature. And there is no need for them to change this because public industries are a state-monopoly, and there's nothing anyone can do about it except complain. What a private system has that a public system will never have is incentive and competition - the two most fundamental constituents of a successful economy. The families of this nation cannot afford to wait in ques for months on end. A much more efficient system would be an entirely privatized health system, with hospital fees being subsidized by the government for those who, due to legitimate circumstances, cannot afford to pay their fees. If we are going to allow private firms to exist, why not scrap the grossly innefficient public sector altogether and let the market flourish under its own steem - those who cannot afford it will still be entitled to health care, but they won't have to wait in ques, or put up with poor service from poorly trained doctors (all of the most skillful doctors would inevitably work for a private hospital). The market needs some measure of regulation, we agree - but it certainly does not need heavy regulation, as this legislation proposes. We will support, as we have mentioned, because this legislation is a step in the right direction, but sometime in the near future we may propose further privatization. |
| Date | 12:01:55, October 21, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the National Health Provisions Act |
| Message | We respectfully have to disagree with our right honourable colleagues, although we thank them for their support on this issue. We are sorry to say that their statements about the efficiency of the private sector, though theoretically accurate, has been shown time and time again to be wrong throughout history. In regards medical care, private industry increases prices quite rapidly in order to afford the cost of equipment and staffing. Moreover, these high prices are then subsidised, utilising the system the FFP promotes, due to the government paying for the cost of hospital fees for the poorer of the nation reducing the need for the competition the FFP promotes. We must make our position clear, we have no issue with allowing private industry to exist, either within the health industry or within any other sector of the economy (excepting those areas where monopolies exist or are required to provide integrated services where the private sphere has proven itself time and time again to be inefficient) but the most cost effective and efficient system is to operate a public/private system alongside each other, with the public system limited to essential services allowing all to access them and the private sphere providing any service they deem capable. Long waiting times are kept to a minimum by providing good funding and leaving doctors, not managers, to operate hospitals. We also take issue with the point made by the FPP that "all of the most skillful doctors would inevitably work for a private hospital" as this is a misnomer with no evidence to support it. We once again thank our right honourable colleagues for their support on this legislation, however we must respectfully point out that their entire premise for further privatisation is flawed with no evidence, only disproved economic theory, to support their argument. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 186 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 88 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 107 |
| Random fact: Submitting a bill without any proposals in it will not attract or detract voters. It will not raise your visibility or change your political position. |
| Random quote: "I envy you. You North Americans are very lucky. You are fighting the most important fight of all, you live in the heart of the beast." - Che Guevara |