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: Medical Reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: Jakanian Democratic Socialist Party
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: January 2167
Description[?]:
| A BILL to scale back some of the actions that were put through government durring the last government. Will keep healthcare completely public , but allow the private sector to opporate clinics aswell. Also, take most funding for sports clubs out of the picture, however a few are still government sponsored to give those with low incomes a means of attending a sports club. Personaly, DSF wouldnt mind not sponsoring any sports clubs, however we feel that this could be a cost efficient compromise between MDP, CMAG, MLP, DSF aswell as the further left parties such as PDSS and LCP that would benifit the poor while the more fortunate get to go to private sports clubs. Also... The DSF prides itself on its ability to compromise and work with all parties in the nation with maturity, class and dignity. We respect all other parties in Jakania, and kindly ask to also be respected in turn. Thank you very much |
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: Health care is private, but is paid for by the state for people with low incomes.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The funding of sports clubs.
Old value:: All sports clubs are government owned and run.
Current: The government does not fund sports clubs; only private ones are allowed.
Proposed: The government does not fund sports clubs; only private ones are allowed.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:19:32, January 02, 2006 CET | From | Moderate Democratic Party | To | Debating the Medical Reform |
| Message | Opposed |
| Date | 00:25:33, January 03, 2006 CET | From | Jakanian Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Medical Reform |
| Message | Again, why does the MDP oppose this, can you give a reason so i can attempt to make a compromise with you? Or is it just a grudge against the beliefs of the DSF? |
| Date | 01:13:11, January 03, 2006 CET | From | CMAG | To | Debating the Medical Reform |
| Message | I would support this bill only in the complete absense of further cuts to both. Especially the sports clubs, but especially "public health". When I was a child I played sports in a field with other children, I don't recall recieving a government subsidy for our football. Furthermore the CMAG does not support the idea of the state having the power to decide who lives and who dies, as it does with a public health system. Additionally we stand opposed to the concept of taking a man's money and then telling him whether or not he will get anything for it. This is especially true when it is a matter of health and safety. "allowing" private practice is a mirage. Since the government can always lower its prices to below what is sustainable in the market place, private practice would be artifically expensive, which defeats the purpose. |
| Date | 02:20:04, January 03, 2006 CET | From | Jakanian Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Medical Reform |
| Message | I'll make a compromise with CMAG and change the bill to only pay for the poor workers and give private clinics a good chance in the market. Aswell as taking sports club off the government bill, If a person wants exercize he or she doesnt have to go to a sports club but to a local park, pool, beach or etc and swim, run and etc again... |
| Date | 03:54:36, January 03, 2006 CET | From | Moderate Democratic Party | To | Debating the Medical Reform |
| Message | Well this bill should be 2 differents bills, the thing is that I stick to my 'program'. And I can make an exception here but you should delete the proposal of the National Health Care. I should make some changes in the national budget and that's a lil bit 2 much of work now that some parties did juss made the revenue a mess. So I opppose the proposal of Sport Club and the one of National Health Care should stay on stand by. |
| Date | 18:39:06, January 04, 2006 CET | From | Party for a Democratic Socialist Society | To | Debating the Medical Reform |
| Message | It is clear that the bourgeois parties are not willing to accept compromises. We do not think we should propose ourselves rechanging former laws. Let them do it, if they have the courage, and we will discuss on compromises afterwards |
| Date | 01:14:14, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Communist Party of Jakania | To | Debating the Medical Reform |
| Message | There is no compromising with Totalitarians. Your power-graspings have been halted, and now you are being cornered. Your time here, falsely advertising your 'freedom' is over! The People have chosen, now pack your bags and go bother a nation that can AFFORD to have you here. |
| Date | 02:51:18, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Libertarian-Socialist Coalition | To | Debating the Medical Reform |
| Message | The LSP is confused as to why such divergent issues have been placed in the same bill. Nevertheless, the LSP votes a tentative YES to the proposal. We at LSP believe that free, public health care is a cornerstone of our social welfare system. Nevertheless, we applaud Article I for three reasons: 1) The proposal encourages free market competition between doctors, which will encourage more efficient, cheaper, and better health care. 2) It also does not penalize the poor. We believe that private practices, by themselves, only support the notion that the rich deserve better health care than the poor, which is absurd and unjust. By paying for the poor to receive health care, the unjust nature of private health care is stemmed. 3) By requiring those who can afford health care to pay, the taxpayer needs only to provide for those who need it the most, rather than everybody regardless of need. This will save the taxpayer valuable money. And, while we support sports programs for children, we believe that government involvement in this area is needlessly making government too large. Also, we believe that the private sector can provide more novel, efficient services than the government can while also creating business opportunities. For the sake of making government more efficient, and to provide our citizens business opportunities and better sports clubs, we spuuort Article II. FSP: Supporting the free market as long as the poor don't get screwed over. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 118 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 132 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Large scale RP planning (such as wars, regional/continental conflicts, economic collapse, etc.) should be planned (as best as it can be) and should have consent of a majority of players involved. |
| Random quote: "Democracy is in peril." - Ralph Nader (referring to turnout in the 1996 US presidential election) |