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: Government Spending Reform: Contraception
Details
Submitted by[?]: Opinion Poll Vultures
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: May 2053
Description[?]:
| First and foremost, to cut back on government spending we have proposed this contraception reform. We would have proposed complete removal of all government spending on this matter, but we expect that such a proposal would not pass...so instead we have compromised, the government should not have to spend so much money to provide free contraceptives but rather we should subsidize them. This would help to curtail recent epidemics of immorality, though people have the right to do what they wish in the privacy of their own homes, we feel the government should encourage respectable, mature behavior. Providing free contraception does not do this. |
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 | 04:39:16, May 15, 2005 CET | From | Opinion Poll Vultures | To | Debating the Government Spending Reform: Contraception |
| Message | Now that's what you call sweeping reform...too bad i dont think any of them will pass... :P |
| Date | 04:40:20, May 15, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Government Spending Reform: Contraception |
| Message | let's see... we can give out free condoms at a 15 cents each... or we can pay for abortions at 2 thousand dollars apiece... or we can pay for maternity room doctors to deliver babies at fifteen thousand dollars apiece... 'cut back on government spending'? only if you ignore the bills coming down the road |
| Date | 05:11:15, May 15, 2005 CET | From | Opinion Poll Vultures | To | Debating the Government Spending Reform: Contraception |
| Message | If people want to have children, that is their right. Furthermore, the government doesn't pay for the doctors, insurance companies and families pay for them, you will find no legislation which puts maternity doctors in government employment. We're glad to see a party which apparently supports state-controlled doctors and family size caps does not agree with us. If they did, we'd have to question our position... |
| Date | 05:18:01, May 15, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Government Spending Reform: Contraception |
| Message | we never said anything about family size caps. but when the freshman down the street gets pregnant because there were no condoms on hand, who do you think pays for the abortion? show me insurance that covers abortions, and i'll give you a million bucks. oh, and there is no legislation like that only bacause there is no way (gameplay wise) for anyone to propose so. once universal health care becomes a part of the game, you can bet anything it will be proposed here |
| Date | 05:23:56, May 15, 2005 CET | From | Opinion Poll Vultures | To | Debating the Government Spending Reform: Contraception |
| Message | ooc: and im sure it will...but until then you shouldnt make a statement claiming it as fact..better to just ignore it id say..let it be gray \o/ ic: You did not say it verbatim, but you implied it by claiming the state would have to pay 15k for maternity doctors. But what if all of a sudden we have a baby boom? Is that no different. Furthermore, an increase in child births is an investment and no cost is too great, for that makes the nation more prosperous in the future. And, besides that...the state has no right to stop people from having children. |
| Date | 13:40:11, May 15, 2005 CET | From | Seosavists Republican party | To | Debating the Government Spending Reform: Contraception |
| Message | If they want children they won't use condoms! How is allowing them to having them limiting their choice to have children!? It's giving them the choice not to have children! |
| Date | 16:00:18, May 15, 2005 CET | From | Opinion Poll Vultures | To | Debating the Government Spending Reform: Contraception |
| Message | Oi....why don't you ask the NFP? They're the ones who implied that an increase in children would be caused by the increase in contraception costs, and they believe this will cost the government 15k per child because we apparently have to pay for the doctors. |
| Date | 17:23:39, May 15, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Government Spending Reform: Contraception |
| Message | people who have open access to contraceptives (distributed freely at public tiolets and the like) are less likely to get pregnant if they choose not to. no matter how cheap you make them, you are still removing the availability by limiting their locations to drug stores & ect. that limited availability will lead to an increase in unwanted pregnancies, which will cost more. a lot more. and even if you did manage to find some insurance company willing to cover abortions, the cost of them (which had been considerably less before, due to the lesser number of them) will end up raising insurance premiums, because the insurance companies need to make up for the money they are losing. or, if the parents choose to bring the fetus to full term, you are still going to face the raised insurance costs (and the raised healthcare costs, which i fully intend to propose here) from the influx of children being born because their parents couldn't get acces to condoms that night. |
| Date | 02:36:04, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Opinion Poll Vultures | To | Debating the Government Spending Reform: Contraception |
| Message | We have faith in the education system of Luthori, the people are aware of the risks and will practice safe sex, so what if it costs them 1 dollar instead of none? It will make sex more important to them, and discourage one-night stands and the like. |
| Date | 03:55:14, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Government Spending Reform: Contraception |
| Message | We agree with the AELP(if you don't remember, I suggested the same thing the first time this was at vote..) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 336 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 172 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Dorvik is a nation based on Germanic and old Prussian cultures, it is located on the far north of Artania, making it an almost arctic nation. |
| Random quote: "Before all else, be armed." - Niccolo Machiavelli |