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: Devolution of Healthcare Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM)
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: June 2955
Description[?]:
| This Act will devolve healthcare to local governments. |
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: Local governments decide about healthcare policies
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:51:11, June 16, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Devolution of Healthcare Act |
| Message | Hon Lucinda Gregory, CLP Health Spokesman: Madam Speaker, since Duchess Thompson became leader of the Conservative-Libertarian Party, we have supported mixed provision of healthcare, with both public and private sector involvement. For the majority of the period since then, this is the system that has been in operation and it has always worked extremely well. Complete nationalisation of the service is based on misguided ideology and against the wishes of the people. Madam Speaker, not only does a completely public system impose a great burden on the state and the taxpayer, but it also takes away the individual's right to choose. Madam Speaker, many individuals would rather use private healthcare. The arguments for this are well-rehearsed and we have been over them before. Madam Speaker, in line with our new federalist agenda, we would like to propose that healthcare be devolved. Even under the old system of public-private partnerships, the public sector was highly centralised, with services being dictated from Bekenial. Under this system, local councils would be able to decide what system works best for their local people. This may mean, Madam Speaker, that some councils will take the decision not to allow any private sector involvement in healthcare at all. Others may decide that they will not provide any public services at all. Madam Speaker, this will allow local people to devise the system that works best for them. I am sure that, eventually, most local councils will respond to the pressure of neighbouring systems and ensure that a moderate system is provided, allowing for both public and private. Most importantly, Madam Speaker, it will provide the people with choice. Not only would they be able to choose between public and private, but they will also be able to choose which public system they like. They could opt for the Bekenial public system, or the Haddock Coast system; the Little Falristan system or the Sycamore Hall system. Madam Speaker, this therefore provides a great deal of opportunity of choice for individuals and will encourage a competitive health system that would inevitably lead to progress and development. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 30 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 361 | ||||
| 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: "If you cannot convince a fascist, acquaint his head with the pavement." - Leon Trotsky |