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: Choice in medical care
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: April 2104
Description[?]:
| With a national service choices are limited to what the government thinks is best. At times when budget's are looking to be cut, it only makes sense to allow those who wish to pay extra to be removed from draining our system. |
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 | 03:32:43, August 26, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Choice in medical care |
| Message | Money does not entitle you to better care, period end of story. |
| Date | 07:08:07, August 26, 2005 CET | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the Choice in medical care |
| Message | Why not? I fail to understand this? Surely, after working your hardest in life to create a business and make a better living for your children, then having the government seize all of that work because it was in the 'Commanding Heights'... all that makes me think that they are deserving of better heath care because of all that the government has put them through. |
| Date | 12:49:41, August 26, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Choice in medical care |
| Message | So, by virtue of having more money, one person deserves to have a life saving treatment, while another person, who does not have enough of a personal fortune to afford the treatment, is left to die? The SRP has no right to call themselves socialist anything if they feel that the extent that someone is entitled to a basic human right is dependant upon their ability to pay for it. The SRP has clearly shown they have no interest in serving the interest of those worst off in Malivia. |
| Date | 20:46:13, August 26, 2005 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Choice in medical care |
| Message | Does the LevP mean to imply that we refuse a life saving treatment to those who in need under our national plan. For if so this is an issue that needs resolving. Perhaps we can increase the funds available for such a treatment in some way. Our esteemed Econ Minister says we must cut back spending though. Perhaps removing some individuals from the national plan, but whom shall we remove. The poor is not a choice so how about the wealthy. How do we decide on the cut off point. Why not let the citizens choose their own cut off by permitting private care. |
| Date | 20:47:08, August 26, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Choice in medical care |
| Message | The SRP's use of the word 'socialist' is clearly no more than a sick joke. Even the jaded and cynical members of the LCP are shocked by the SRP's callousness. |
| Date | 23:25:17, August 26, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Choice in medical care |
| Message | It's not so much that our national healthcare denies treatment, but that, if our healthcare system works as well as it seems to do (given that our lowest health rating is 86%, in Washibar) the issue isn't the lack of life saving techniques, but is jumping the line. If a rich person has to wait for an operation in the nationalized system, and then has the option to go to a private clinic and pay extra to have the operation immediately, what does that tell us about our nation? It says that we have two laws, one for those who can afford to pay, one for those who can't. If you can afford to pay, you go to the front of the line. If you can't, you wait. Unacceptable. |
| Date | 04:09:43, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the Choice in medical care |
| Message | Or its people who are harder working get to have a better life. |
| Date | 15:38:19, August 27, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Choice in medical care |
| Message | So the children of a wealthy businessman are harder-working than, say, a cleaner? Seems a little implausible. |
| Date | 18:13:49, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Choice in medical care |
| Message | having a line so long that people die waiting for care is acceptable then? I fail to see how this can be the goal of our national health care. Healthcare should be readily available to those who need it. Since currently this is not the case we have two options, increasing the funding levels so that healthcare rapidly becomes are entire budget, or removing people from the roles. In this case it seems the better option is to remove people as otherwise our nation will have no money for infrastructure, education or defense. Healthcare should continue to be a top priority and as we have stated in the past we should work toward keeping the number of private clinics to a minimum and using them as a method of supplementing our care not replacing it. Why not allow those who wish to spend money to "jump the line" do this. It reduces the wait for others, reduces the strain on our national system, and provides better care for all involved. If one person is willing to spend 10 Py to visit a doctor and another feels that waiting a week and getting it for free, these are decisions that our citizens should be permitted to make. |
| Date | 00:10:24, August 28, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Choice in medical care |
| Message | The reason we cannot allow people to spend money to jump the line is because it creates two laws, one for those who can afford to pay, one for those who can't. It is patently unacceptable that anyone should die while waiting for care, we agree with this, but allowing the rich to get care at their leisure, while the poor must wait, reduces the impetus to provide the best care for all. By allowing wealthy citizens to opt out of the national system, how long will it take for those same citizens to start complaining about double dipping? How long until they want their taxes reduced, want more people to pay for their own healthcare, rather than share that burden? By forcing everyone to use the same service, the same hospital, we ensure that hospital will be the best available. We ensure there are no ghetto clinics, no substandard care. If everyone has to eat from the same pot, we guarantee no one pisses in it. |
| Date | 16:19:33, August 30, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Choice in medical care |
| Message | The ghetto clinics can still exist as health care must be locally available. Rarely is there a large difference in income at a local level. There must not be a tax break for the weathy just because they invest in their own heathcare and we do not feel that any party currently in Malivia will permit such behavior. The end result would be that all citizens will get better care, and that is what we all want. |
| Date | 21:30:56, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the Choice in medical care |
| Message | I cant wait for the FRP to return... |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 42 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 58 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: It is possible for a player to transfer ownership of a character or a royal house to another player. This should be done in a public way, such as on the Character Transfers thread, so that if a dispute arises in the future, Moderation can be pointed towards evidence of the transfer. |
| Random quote: "From my point of view, the killing of another, except in defense of human life, is archistic, authoritarian, and therefore, no anarchist can commit such deeds. It is the very opposite of what anarchism stands for." - Jo Labadie |