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: Protection of Contraception
Details
Submitted by[?]: Free Reform Coalition (FRP)
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: November 2042
Description[?]:
| This bill will protect our contraceptive industry by ensuring that it can earn enough money from sales. The bill will consequently ensure that reliable, quality contraception exists. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on subsidising contraception.
Old value:: The government offers free contraceptives in pharmacies and public toilets.
Current: The government subsidises a considerable discount for contraceptives.
Proposed: The government subsidises a considerable discount for contraceptives.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | not recorded | From |  Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Protection of Contraception |
| Message | The goal of the bill is to improve the reliability of contraception by creating a stimulus for industries to create better quality contraceptives. This will have the added effect of increasing economic growth. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the Protection of Contraception |
| Message | I agree. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Protection of Contraception |
| Message | That analysis is completely faulty; the total demand for contraception doesn't drop just because the government is footing the bill. In fact, a 100% subsidy ensures more business for said industries since something being free always increases total consumption. There is also the access issue; speaking realistically, there are many people who are not responsible enough to purchase contraception beforehand. The extra cost incurred by the government is well worth ensuring protection is available to everyone, regardless of cost or impulse. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Protection of Contraception |
| Message | I'm not discussing demand, I'm discussing the quality of the contraception. You are right that demand will remain relatively constant, however that is external to my argument. My argument is not flawed. WIth the current situation, a contraceptive company that offers contraceptives that are higher quality and can ensure greater protection are going to cost more. People are not going to pay for those, especially the irresponsible people you are talking about, if they can acquire free products. We want contraception to be accessible, we also want the quality to be high. By adding an incentive for companies to produce higher quality products, we can achieve both. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Protection of Contraception |
| Message | With the current situation, the only purchaser of contraception is the government, which then "sells" it off at a loss (i.e. free), this ensures that the only buyer is the government. Follow this logic and then you will find that the government will be the sole determiner of the price of the contraceptive, since it dominates to consumer base. In order for a company to keep prices low enough for the government, they are going to have to lower costs and that will affect quality. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Protection of Contraception |
| Message | Preferably, it would be best if we had the option to both subsidize and aid in the distribution of the contraceptives. Here it is not stated clearly. Nonetheless, one could argue that "subsidize" could also involve distribution costs. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Protection of Contraception |
| Message | Also, with the current situation, higher quality and more expensive contraceptives may be too expensive for some people. Subsidization strikes a balance between higher quality and lower cost to the less wealthy citizen. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Protection of Contraception |
| Message | Your argument is utter fallacy; there is no reason to think that if the government is the only purchaser, quality will fall. As the sole purchaser, the government should only buy the best product, since it shoots the program in the foot to purchase shoddy contraceptives. This is, in effect, the ultimate competition: only companies that meet both our quality and price requirements will sell their products. Doesn't get more cutthroat than that. It is also disipicable to admit you want to offer lower quality contraception to lower class citizens. Equality clearly means something different to the FRP. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Protection of Contraception |
| Message | The FRP has noted a marked attitude of condescension in the LP. If the LP does not think we are knowledgeable enough to have a debate it should consider moving to country where a one party system is considered appropriate. Clarification: The FRP does not want to offer low quality products to anyone. When someone can purchase a product for a free or pay for it at certain price (assuming quality is equal) that person will rationally get the free product. Thus, the government will be the only purchaser of contraceptives, because it then distributes them for free. If the government is also the group that sets and checks the requirements for contraception, it could lead to corruption. The only time that a person would consider purchasing contraceptives at a cost that is more than free is if those products were of higher quality. There is currently minimal incentive to produce higher quality contraceptives. Also, consider the disparity that between free contraception and higher quality contraception that costs money to the individual. This bill will reduce that disparity. As it is, contraceptives are not terribly expensive. I would also like "subsidize" in this bill to be taken in its widest context; we can still offer free contraception to poorest of people-those who often need it the most- while not paying for all of the contraceptives across the board. This will maintain an incentive to develop contraceptive technology and higher quality products. Having these products at least partially affected by the open market will offset the potential for corruption or lack of regulatory enforcement of contraceptive quality. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Protection of Contraception |
| Message | Any talking down too is entirely accidental, though if the FRP could read or reason, they would have noticed that, as written above: 'As the sole purchaser, the government should only buy the best product, since it shoots the program in the foot to purchase shoddy contraceptives.' Which should endthat concern entirely. The rest is simple pro-market ideology, which we certainly have no taste for. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the Protection of Contraception |
| Message | We now are convinced by the Levithan Party. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Protection of Contraception |
| Message | As another problem with totally free contraception, there exists the possibility of abuse. http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/04/042405india.htm This site describes how 75% percent of India's condoms are not being used for contraceptive purposes. And they offer free condoms. The condoms are being used by construction companies in road building. By changing the law so that condoms are subsidized, we can prevent this abuse by making it difficult for companies in our country to do the same thing. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Protection of Contraception |
| Message | Here is another report on the misuse of free condoms: http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/08/080904indiaCondoms.htm Our aim is not to prevent the distribution of contraceptives to people who need them. The FRP would like to ensure that the poorest people are still able to obtain free contraceptives, and that can be done using census results on the poorest regions and targeting them. After that, contraception can be partially subsidized in other regions. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Protection of Contraception |
| Message | We are moving this to a vote. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Protection of Contraception |
| Message | Well I thought water balloons at first, but whatever the purpose if you hand out saomething for free it will be misused, wasted and/or not achieve your aim. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 28 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 72 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The forum contains a lot of useful information, it has updates to the game, role playing between nations, news and discussion. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "Don't listen to what the Communists say, but look at what they do." - Nguyen Van Thieu |