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: Efficient Services Act 3478
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Party of Ikradon
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 3478
Description[?]:
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Charter school policy (free, privately run, publicly funded schools).
Old value:: Only non-profit organizations may establish charter schools.
Current: Charter schools must have a specific focus.
Proposed: Charter schools must have a specific focus.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Health care policy.
Old value:: 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.
Current: 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.
Proposed: Health care is private, but the government subsidises the cost of it for all citizens.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The regulation of higher education.
Old value:: The government allows private higher education but regulates it to meet nationally set standards.
Current: The government allows public and private higher education institutions to coexist with self-regulation for those that are private.
Proposed: The government does not fund any public higher education institutions, permitting only private higher education institutions to exist.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Pre-school education.
Old value:: The government maintains a system of free publically owned nurseries alongside heavily regulated private establishments.
Current: The government maintains a system of free publically owned nurseries alongside heavily regulated private establishments.
Proposed: Pre-school education is private, but the government covers the schoolcosts of poor families.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change The education system.
Old value:: There is a free public education system and a small number of private schools, which are heavily regulated to ensure they teach adequate skills and information.
Current: Education is entirely public and free; private schools are banned.
Proposed: Education is private, but the government subsidises the cost of it for everyone
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:14:39, April 30, 2013 CET | From |  Conservative Party of Ikradon | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | We've proposed this so we can have a country that provides free health and education for its citizens just in a much cheaper way. It will enable us to relieve them of the massive tax burden citizens have on their shoulders. |
| Date | 21:43:22, April 30, 2013 CET | From | Green-Left Communalist Collective | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | Unfortunately, we strongly oppose this legislation and anything that seeks to undermine the socio-economic independence and empowerment of the working class, and that will bring about a profit-hungry, materialistic private elite. |
| Date | 21:56:34, April 30, 2013 CET | From | Democratic Communist Party (DCP) (LL) | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | haha no. This proposal is crazy and takes Ikradon bake about two thousand years. |
| Date | 22:35:33, April 30, 2013 CET | From | Conservative Party of Ikradon | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | See, we have parties claiming to be libertarian that actually aren't. Implementing reforms that aim to cut income tax isn't a backwards idea. |
| Date | 22:57:10, April 30, 2013 CET | From | Green-Left Communalist Collective | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | Our organisation is libertarian socialist in it's policy (OOC: in the traditional European sense of libertarian, not the modern American use of the word). We believe that a highly devolved, directly democratic government has ownership of vital public services such as the ones which the Conservative Party proposes to privatise. Of course, we wouldn't be counter-libertarian or supporting capitalism if we supported or proposed the government no longer have control over schools and hospitals, as these organisations would be regulated by government, and most importantly, would be run by their workers and members as co-operatives and mutuals. However, we believe that the directly democratic confederated councils of Ikradon (otherwise known as 'the government') should have direct, albeit devolved, control over these vital public services, as private co-op enterprises can be economically volatile and act solely in the interest of economic growth instead of the common good, not suitable for vital public services such as schools. Quite simply, we believe that the handing education over to private enterprises would result in social division and elitism. As to healthcare; this, in our opinion simply cannot be in the hands of private enterprise. Healthcare must be completely standardised and to the best standard for every patient. This is best achieved in a system based on government sponsored regional trusts. |
| Date | 23:16:08, April 30, 2013 CET | From | Democratic Communist Party (DCP) (LL) | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | CPI for most of history libertarian really only refered to social policy, and most people who identified with the word were anarchists. In the 80's Freedman jacked it and now in the US it means classical liberal. |
| Date | 00:33:19, May 01, 2013 CET | From | Conservative Party of Ikradon | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | Again, I still don't see why parties would oppose having free healthcare and education for all, just in a much cheaper way. A way in which would also result in tax cuts which would increase peoples' wealth. |
| Date | 01:35:03, May 01, 2013 CET | From | Democratic Communist Party (DCP) (LL) | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | Because this would not be cheaper and not all would have access. Why in god's name do you think this would be cheaper? |
| Date | 01:36:17, May 01, 2013 CET | From | Democratic Communist Party (DCP) (LL) | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | And how can you guarantee that private orgs. are going to be able to make this available for everyone when they run off of a profit motive. |
| Date | 11:57:45, May 01, 2013 CET | From | Conservative Party of Ikradon | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | It would be cheaper; the private sector would pick up a considerable burden of the operating costs. Read the actual proposals: 'but the government subsidises the cost of it for all citizens'. It would be free and accessible for all, just like the current system. |
| Date | 12:16:57, May 01, 2013 CET | From | SCI Libertarian-Socialist Syndicate (LL) | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | BTW, the phrase "subsidizes the cost" means that they *partially* pay for the costs. They don't fully cover the costs. Contrast that with the phrasing in another option in this issue: "Health care is private, but is paid for by the state for people with low incomes." Paid for VS. subsidized.... Subsidized means that it does not make it free. Healthcare is a human right. It should be free, and the cheapest way to keep costs down is to pool all risk by having all taxpayers paying for universal coverage. Otherwise, the ill, disabled, and elderly will bear the brunt of the costs. That is unacceptable. |
| Date | 14:32:50, May 01, 2013 CET | From | Democratic Communist Party (DCP) (LL) | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | Furthermore, it is IMPOSSIBLE for something to be cheaper while still providing the same level of care when kicked to the private market. Impossible because whilst part of the private market you have to add profit on to the operating cost. And no, as SCI pointed out, this would not cover the whole costs, and even if it did I would not support doing to the fact that it would be more expensive for both the state and society. |
| Date | 17:03:48, May 01, 2013 CET | From | Conservative Party of Ikradon | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | Actually, I think you're wrong, SCI. In the other countries I've played in we have assumed that it means fully subsidised. I you'd look at the other option 'health care is private, *but is paid for by the state for people with low incomes.*' it suggests its completely paid for. That is our intention anyway. WDCP, why do you think it would be more expensive when the cost of operating healthcare would be covered by private organisations? The only thing that would be paid for by the state would be the cost of using the service, which would be less than having to pay for operating healthcare and paying to make it free. |
| Date | 17:26:01, May 01, 2013 CET | From | Democratic Communist Party (DCP) (LL) | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | You can either fully subsidize somthing, making it free for the public but more expensive for the government. Or you can partially. which could make it cheaper for the government, but suddenly the public has to pay. And the total cost is almost always more expensive. For a real life example, look at how much the US spends on health care per capita compared to the amount France does. And France still has better care judged by outcome. |
| Date | 19:46:51, May 01, 2013 CET | From | Conservative Party of Ikradon | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | It wont be more expensive because they will be ran by private organisations. I am having to repeat myself for some reason. |
| Date | 20:54:43, May 01, 2013 CET | From | Democratic Communist Party (DCP) (LL) | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | How would it be less expensive? And I mean in total, when you take into account both what the government and the citizens will have to pay. You made the proposal, you hold the burden of proof. Prove to me that this will be less expensive. |
| Date | 00:14:37, May 02, 2013 CET | From | Conservative Party of Ikradon | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | I've explained numerous times. The cost of operating education healthcare would be covered by private organisations. The only thing the state would have to pay for is the cost to use the service, fully subsidised by the government. It will be cheaper because privatisation will drive down costs. It will also be cheaper because the government will no longer have to pay to operate or maintain the system, it will only have to subsidise the cost of people using it. The current law is that the government pays to operate them, maintain them, and covers the cost of making them free to use. |
| Date | 03:59:58, May 02, 2013 CET | From | Democratic Communist Party (DCP) (LL) | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | If the cost is fully subsidized by the government, won't the costs you mentioned also be incurred by the government? Otherwise I see this in no way being economically feasible for private interests. You can not just say privatization brings down costs and act like that is a logical argument. I gave you several examples of how it does not. You haven't given me a single one. And are you really saying that just because it will be private money will suddenly fall out of the sky in school yards and pay the private officials? Otherwise there is no possible way; without a decrease in educational quality, using the kids for slave labor, or turning schools into giant NASCAR's of advertisement that you could net cost for both the state and the individual under your proposed model. |
| Date | 05:17:04, May 02, 2013 CET | From | SCI Libertarian-Socialist Syndicate (LL) | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | @CPI: I'll refer you to definition 2 at this link. https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&q=subsidize&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=HdqBUZC6NcnFqQHwn4DwBg&ved=0CDIQkQ4&biw=1680&bih=935 "Pay part of the cost of producing (something) to reduce prices for the buyer" |
| Date | 05:17:21, May 02, 2013 CET | From | SCI Libertarian-Socialist Syndicate (LL) | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | "It will be cheaper because privatisation will drive down costs." Ah, because that system has worked so well in the USA? |
| Date | 05:20:55, May 02, 2013 CET | From | SCI Libertarian-Socialist Syndicate (LL) | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | "It will also be cheaper because the government will no longer have to pay to operate or maintain the system, it will only have to subsidise the cost of people using it." The government privatizes healthcare. The government no longer pays for overhead. The government pays for the cost of healthcare for all citizens. The private businesses pass on the overhead costs to citizens to make up the loss. The government then pays for that additional overhead as well. So, basically, you privatize the industry and then all the previous costs are then still paid by the government. But this time, there is an additional layer where profit could accrue to a private business. Thus, privatizing the industry while still paying for all the final costs will actually be MORE EXPENSIVE!!!! |
| Date | 05:23:59, May 02, 2013 CET | From | SCI Libertarian-Socialist Syndicate (LL) | To | Debating the Efficient Services Act 3478 |
| Message | @WDCP: I'm not sure why, but for conservatives, the word "privatize" must carry some magical connotation that will automatically fix everything. It's very handy because then they don't have to actually analyze the economics of the new system. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 182 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 396 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 172 |
| Random fact: The influence a bill has on elections decreases over time, until it eventually is no longer relevant. This can explain shifts in your party's position to the electorate and your visibility. |
| Random quote: "Politics have no relation to morals." - Niccolo Machiavelli |