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: Conservative Act of 2128
Details
Submitted by[?]: Jakanian Conservative 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: October 2133
Description[?]:
| ... |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Health care policy.
Old value:: Health care is private, but is paid for by the state for people with low incomes.
Current: There is a public health care system, but private clinics are allowed.
Proposed: Health care is entirely private.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:13:12, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Nudist Party of United Jakania | To | Debating the Conservative Act of 2128 |
| Message | This is VERY conservative! No description or proposal! |
| Date | 12:25:50, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Labour Union | To | Debating the Conservative Act of 2128 |
| Message | **For once the DLU spokesperson was lost for words** |
| Date | 16:01:17, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Jakanian Liberal Socialists | To | Debating the Conservative Act of 2128 |
| Message | Out of interest, what does 'conservative' refer to in america? I'd thought the literal meaning was to cherish traditional values, but i'm unsure how that's relevant here. |
| Date | 16:01:35, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Jakanian Liberal Socialists | To | Debating the Conservative Act of 2128 |
| Message | (that last one was OOC, but i skipped on parenthesis, gasp!) |
| Date | 16:27:55, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Labour Union | To | Debating the Conservative Act of 2128 |
| Message | While the DLU may possibly be convinced with regards to Article 3, we respectfully can’t support any of the other Articles. Furthermore as we have stated before, we feel it is inappropriate to address such varying types of legislation in one bill. This legislation aims to cover healthcare, immigration, space exploration and malpractice with little or no relation to each other. These areas should each be debated on their own merit. |
| Date | 19:54:49, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Jakanian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Conservative Act of 2128 |
| Message | (it does, but Conservatives in America are a blend of moderate authoritarians, socially, and economic libertarians. An American Conservative is probably ProLife and is for traditional things such as families, heterosexualism, antidrug, etc. they also are fans of supply side econ. My party is predominantly ProLife, moderately opposed to homosexualism, ProDrug, Militarist, and favors anarchocapitalism.) |
| Date | 01:55:20, October 21, 2005 CET | From |  Islamic Nationalist Front | To | Debating the Conservative Act of 2128 |
| Message | OOC: Anarchocapitalism entails the total abolishment of government... including the courts, the police and the army. Something tells me you wouldn't be totally for that :P |
| Date | 03:32:20, October 21, 2005 CET | From | Jakanian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Conservative Act of 2128 |
| Message | (no, but I am leaning towards that direction.) |
| Date | 12:58:16, October 21, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Labour Union | To | Debating the Conservative Act of 2128 |
| Message | We thank the JCP for their revision, though regrettably we can still not offer our support. The private sector cannot be trusted to offer adequate support for those on low incomes and thus healthcare will become the privilege of the wealthy. This is something the DLU simply could not support. |
| Date | 16:39:11, October 22, 2005 CET | From | Nudist Party of United Jakania | To | Debating the Conservative Act of 2128 |
| Message | The moderately conservative NP would not be able to support such legislation, as private healthcare eliminates healthcare assistance to the poor. |
| Date | 00:25:28, October 25, 2005 CET | From | Ogden Sinclair Party | To | Debating the Conservative Act of 2128 |
| Message | Healthcare is a right of the people not a privilege of the rich and bloated! |
| Date | 04:29:34, October 30, 2005 CET | From | Jakanian Liberal Socialists | To | Debating the Conservative Act of 2128 |
| Message | I'd be interested to hear from th NLP or the JCP how exactly this bill benefits anybody. |
| Date | 14:28:46, October 30, 2005 CET | From | Jakanian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Conservative Act of 2128 |
| Message | heh. Has the LS noticed our conservative econ policy yet? |
| Date | 18:19:10, October 30, 2005 CET | From | Islamic Nationalist Front | To | Debating the Conservative Act of 2128 |
| Message | "I'd be interested to hear from th NLP or the JCP how exactly this bill benefits anybody." There's no such thing as a free lunch. Government interference in any market, be it goods, services or labor, typically results in unintended consequences. In the case of subsidized health care, there are a number of potential, adverse effects: - It encourages dependency. Health care subsidies for the poor are means-tested, meaning that above a certain income, an individual will stop receiving them. Thus recipients may not climb out of poverty if it would mean losing their benefits. For example, let's say the maximum allowed income is 10000 JAK and health care benefits are covering all the expenses (1000 JAK). An increase in the person's income of up to 10% will result in a net decrease in disposable income. The situation is that much worse for severely sick recipients, whose health care expenses would take an even larger chunk of their income, requiring a subsequently larger increase in income in order to make up for the lost benefits. This scenario also works in reverse: individuals may leave a higher-paying job in order to receive benefits. - It crowds-out other means of paying for medical expenses. Most notably, like most welfare policies, it reduces the amount of private charity (which is generally more fair and efficient) by both reducing the amount of income available for donations and encouraging the perception that the problem has been "taken care of" by the government, making individuals feel less obligated to make donations. - It can lead to overconsumption of medical care. If someone else is footing your bill, you won't care how large that bill gets. That translates into unnecessary trips to the doctor as well as less precaution -- if you don't have to pay for being sick, you won't be as careful not to get sick in the first place. - It reduces competition. Again, if an individual does not have to pay for his own health care, he won't care about the cost of the services he is receiving. Recipients are not likely to "shop around" for the lowest prices, which is the drive behind competition. In fact, they might pick medical providers that offer the best quality (not necessarily in terms of health care, but other goods and services offered to lure in new customers like really nice waiting rooms) and therefore the highest price. - Overconsumption (higher demand) and reduced competition both increase the prices of health care. Not only is this obviously an inefficient use of resources, but it also hurts non-recipients directly through higher prices and indirectly by higher taxes needed to finance the increased costs to government. These increased expenses, consequently, can cause some non-recipients to take lower-paying jobs in order to get benefits and therefore pay less on net. (See a trend here?) Additionally, there is nothing to suggest that health care costs are too high for low-income individuals. If we ever start to licensing physicians, then you can worry. There are also other, more effective ways of helping people pay for health care, like health savings accounts (HSAs). OOC: LS, I find it interesting that you ask me to justify myself when you yourself failed to address my comments during the corporate tax debate |
| Date | 20:44:48, October 30, 2005 CET | From | Ogden Sinclair Party | To | Debating the Conservative Act of 2128 |
| Message | With general increaes in wages the bracket for free healthcare will rise. You have an economic point but your opinion of humans and your idas on what can drive them leaves alot to be desired. W in the OSP are Maslow kinda guys |
| Date | 21:57:24, October 30, 2005 CET | From | Jakanian Liberal Socialists | To | Debating the Conservative Act of 2128 |
| Message | Agreed with the OSP here, but the assumptions here on human drive and ability (which we don't believe are valid in any way, except perhaps to a small minority of people) seem to be the basis of any free market argument given. We concede most of the points made to the NLP, but once again you're arguing as though the economics are the end and not the means. Your first point there is particularly striking. What happens to the severely sick recipients of welfare? I don't think they're going to be working extra hours to cover excessive medical costs, nor do we believe such people will be covered by 'private charity'. I mean, your own arguements seem to suggest that most anyone that succeeds in this capitalistic system are motivated by their own greed alone. I don't think that assumption mixes well with the belief that needing people can be supported by private charity. |
| Date | 02:25:11, October 31, 2005 CET | From | Islamic Nationalist Front | To | Debating the Conservative Act of 2128 |
| Message | "With general increaes in wages the bracket for free healthcare will rise." I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. The increases in wages did not refer to inflation, but that specific individual getting a better job. It's the same issue that exists with tax brackets: there's a range of values where it's better to earn less money because you get to keep more of it on net. "...but the assumptions here on human drive and ability (which we don't believe are valid in any way, except perhaps to a small minority of people) seem to be the basis of any free market argument given" Which assumptions would these be? That people generally act according to incentives? "We concede most of the points made to the NLP, but once again you're arguing as though the economics are the end and not the means." You've made that point before and I countered it before and, once again, you failed to respond. If I viewed economic growth as an end, not a means, I would have simply said that I oppose subsidies because government should not interfere in the free market. Period. But, no, I explained why it's an ineffective program. I also suggested a better program that our government could enact with the aim of helping the poor. I'd appreciate it if you stopped framing me in this stereotype of the evil capitalist that only cares about money, not people. "What happens to the severely sick recipients of welfare? I don't think they're going to be working extra hours to cover excessive medical costs, nor do we believe such people will be covered by 'private charity'." Just because we don't subsidize health care doesn't mean we leave them to the dogs. That's why I suggested HSAs. "I mean, your own arguements seem to suggest that most anyone that succeeds in this capitalistic system are motivated by their own greed alone. I don't think that assumption mixes well with the belief that needing people can be supported by private charity." If I had a dime for every time I heard this argument... Economics is not based on an assumption of greed, but "rationality" through utility-maximization. Utility is simply happiness or satisfaction. That encompasses not only material desires, but also moral values, social pressures, etc. Thus, buying a piece of cake when you're full is still a rational choice so long as the cost (including opportunity cost) of doing so does not outweigh the utility you perceive you'll get by eating it (i.e. the yumminess). Similarly, making a donation might put a dent in your wallet, but it may still be a "rational" choice if you get satisfaction out of it, fulfill a moral obligation by doing so or simply avoid criticism from others. So, no it's not contradictory. It's also not unrealistic, in my opinion. After all, at LEAST 34.4% of our population feels an obligation to help the poor through welfare -- they elected you and OSP after all. It would be hypocritical and, quite frankly, greedy for those same people to refuse to help the poor if it was entirely coming out of their own pockets. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 116 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 86 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 48 |
| Random fact: When your party holds the foreign affairs department, you can create new treaties. However, before writing anything new, it is a good idea to search for existing treaties which already accomplish what you desire. |
| Random quote: "Blah blah blah- I'm more of a Leftist than all you puppets... You support cops beating people down and kicking out all the foreigners..." - Omar al-Khali, former Kalistani politician |