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: Healthcare Regulation of 2948
Details
Submitted by[?]: Hutorian 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: December 2948
Description[?]:
| ...... |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Health care policy.
Old value:: There is a public health care system, but private clinics are allowed.
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 | 12:31:28, June 03, 2010 CET | From |  Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Healthcare Regulation of 2948 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, why does the NSC wish to regulate absolutely everything? Private clinics and hospitals have been operating for many, many years now without regulation and the number of incidents have been very low -indeed, unwanted incidents in the public sector have been greater. Madam Speaker, the joy of the private sector is that there is a very clear method of regulation already - that of the consumer. Madam Speaker, if a hospital is believed to not be treating its patients with due care and diligence, or the prices are too high or whatever, the individual can simply choose to take his custom elsewhere, or simply opt back in to the public sector. Madam Speaker, if that were to happen, then a private establishment would close, or would be forced to change its policies. Capitalism regulates itself. Madam Speaker, the NSC simply do not understand the nuances of private enterprise, the enormous power of the individual consumer, and the invisible hand of the market. Madam Speaker, the voice of ten individuals will effect a lot more than statutory regulation. As the party opposite continually reminds us, private enterprise does not like to lose money - it will therefore respond to the concerns of its customers. |
| Date | 12:54:15, June 03, 2010 CET | From | Hutorian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Healthcare Regulation of 2948 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, will the Prime Minister support this Bill? |
| Date | 12:58:40, June 03, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Healthcare Regulation of 2948 |
| Message | Hon Emily Bridges MP, CLP Leader There we have it again, Madam Speaker. The NSC simply ignores the points raised by members of my Party. The Right Honourable Health Secretary was attempting to raise some points that the NSC may not have considered. Instead of responding and engaging in debate, the NSC spokesman has been horrificly rude and snubbed the Health Secretary. Madam Speaker, whilst I would not expect him to agree I would expect some comments given that, not so long ago he claimed that his party does not shy away from policy debate, but only from political point-scoring. The gentleman could not claim that the Health Secretary's statement was a party political point - it was a statement outlining CLP policy and philosophy. The NSC should start having the decency to respond to arguments, or I shall consider requesting, Madam Speaker, that you personally intervene. |
| Date | 13:07:51, June 03, 2010 CET | From | Hutorian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Healthcare Regulation of 2948 |
| Message | Rt Hon Baron Mancini MP, NSC Frontbencher, Madam Speaker, can the gentleman not ask the Prime Minister a question? I mean are the CLP that desperate for attention that they have to stick their nose into a NSC question to a Labour MP? We do debate the issue Madam Speaker and the CLP know our well-documentated status on private institutions like Healthcare and Schools. Since we are prepared to allow private schools and healthcare facilities, they need to be regulated to come into correspondance with national rules. We believe that everyone should be entitled to the same standard of healthcare - regardless of wealth or social background. The poorest areas will now be fully covered when they cannot afford to become a member of private healthcare firms which charge high prices. Is it too much to ask that people put greed aside and show that all people deserve the right to the same treatment? |
| Date | 13:28:59, June 03, 2010 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Healthcare Regulation of 2948 |
| Message | "to ensure they treat their patients well and provide good care." Madam Speaker, for the reason of this clause, and this clause alone, we would support this. We would never support banning any private industry further, however for the welfare of our citizens who choose to go private we would support this. We are not regulating for the sake of regulating, we are regulating the service of these clinics, and not the finances. |
| Date | 14:23:29, June 03, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Healthcare Regulation of 2948 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, the point I raised was entirely reasonable and it was not "sticking my nose" into another question. The fact is that my colleague made a lengthy and thought-out statement that the gentleman chose to completely ignore. That is both rude and unparliamentary and the gentleman should be ashamed of himself. He says that they debate issues and yet there is rarely evidence of any debate happening until the CLP have pressed his party on issues. Yes, eventually they normally relent and debate, but only after several minutes of encouraging them to engage in debate - they should just do so in the first place. His party would be the first to complain if the CLP did not debate issues. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes |
Total Seats: 288 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 103 | ||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: When forming a cabinet, try to include as few parties as possible, while still obtaining a majority of the seats. |
| Random quote: "A democracy that does not allow limits is not a democracy. Just as a limitless freedom is not freedom, but prevarication. Indeed, any theory of freedom worthy of this name is first of all a limit theory. If we extend the unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not willing to defend a tolerant society against the attacks of the intolerants, then the tolerants will be destroyed and the tolerance with them! Because, I ask to myself and ask you, given a certain system that we call democratic, which is today the best possible system to allow everyone to live freely and to be able to express their own thoughts, how can the same system admit attacks against its integrity? How can a system refuse the principle of the self-preservation? For this reason, to suppress the apologetics of thalerrism, it's for this reason that the exaltation of exegetes, principles, facts or methods of Thallerism and its anti-democratic aims does not constitute a violation of the freedom of manifestation of thought, but, on the contrary, the celebration of that freedom. The protection of the first premise on which a modern democratic system is based. And this premise must be safeguarded also and above all against itself and its abuses." ~ Malik Astori, Leadership of Liberty and Progress (Istalia) |