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
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Party for Equality
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 2057
Description[?]:
| Having noticed that there is no legislation allowing us to decide how healthcare is funded and run in Likaton, we would like to propose the introduction of a state funded health service, giving free treatment to all citizens where it is medically necessary. Running alongside it would be feasible to also have a private system, which could be used for cosmetic treatments. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:46:59, May 20, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Healthcare |
| Message | We realise there is likely to be quite strong oppostion to this one, and I'd like to hear any alternatives you want to suggest. |
| Date | 20:45:24, May 20, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Healthcare |
| Message | While we agree that there should be a limited public sector, it should be regulated tightly to prevent abuse. For instance: Those who wish to use the public sector should be required to submit to preventative treatments such as vaccines. If they refuse a vaccine and subsequently develop the disease that they were supposed to be vaccinated for, they should be refused treatment. Furthermore, any disease that will not cause death or crippling if left untreated cannot be publically treated. Lastly, under no circumstances will cosmetic surguries be undertaken for anything less than total reconstruction after accidents. On the private sector: No subsidies will be given to drug companies or hospitals. Research subsidies should only be granted to non-profit groups that pass minimal inspections (Ie: to prove that the money isn't going to some foreign bank account to enrich the group's leader). |
| Date | 12:45:25, May 21, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Healthcare |
| Message | We will never support a public system..government vouchers I think are a better idea. Needless to say, I don't think I know enough about healthcare to talk about a specific position. We shall therfore come down on the side of laissez -faire |
| Date | 19:33:57, May 21, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Healthcare |
| Message | Vouchers are an idea that hadn't crossed my mind. Just apply the regulations that I had for the public sector to the vouchers, and that'll be how we ensure the health of the poor. One thing, though: How would people secure these vouchers? How would they be distributed? |
| Date | 03:10:00, May 22, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Healthcare |
| Message | I know from the little reading that I have done, that systems that encourage continous checking and examination tend to be more cost-effective than those that actually treat the diseaese only when it has become a full-blown disorder. This would suggest that we need to make the costs of clinical visits as low as possible..and as easy as possible. Vouchers will therfore have to cover a certain number of visits/year, be easily transferable, and be available to only low income families. Like insurance, they will have a certain amount to pay before the free part kicks in. Ideally, the process will be entirely computerised, so that your vocher exists on a card you can carry around and swipe at the hospital. |
| Date | 03:14:30, May 22, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Healthcare |
| Message | The problem is that a card that accessible can also be misused- a doctor can swipe it it for any number of operations, but unless they are really obvious, you'll never be able to contest his experience. If charities took this up, then thye could always have a representative on the spot to contest additional charges to their account, but government officials have little incentive to do this. |
| Date | 04:09:46, May 22, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Healthcare |
| Message | One: That's what I was suggesting, really. Make full-blown disorders only treatable if the person has already made every attempt at preventative medicine. People who take no initiative for their own health when doing so would cost them nothing... Their position is indefensible, to say the least. As for fraud: We'd end up creating an anti-fraud registry that tracked every medical expense... Administrating it would be very expensive. Perhaps it shouldn't be -that- accessible. |
| Date | 19:17:26, May 22, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Healthcare |
| Message | this is getting so complex that you may as well just have a free healthcare system. means testing can go so wrong - the vouchers would have to be treatment specific otherwise patients could claim to have a difficult to diagnose, expensive to treat illness just to get extra credit on the card. Besides healthcare is, in my opinion, a basic human right, and therefore should be available free to everybody. |
| Date | 19:20:35, May 22, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Healthcare |
| Message | plus there are many diseases which are not crippling or life threatening which are none the less very painful, or disfiguring if left untreated, and mild illnesses which cause suffering in the short term which can be relieved by drugs until the ilness passes. these should all be treated publically. |
| Date | 01:23:35, May 23, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Healthcare |
| Message | I agree that vouchers are unwieldy, but a fully free healthcare system results in no private clinics at all. There's an economic advantage to helping the common man; because sick people can't work. When you offer to treat everything, though, you run government spending through the roof and scare off all private spending entirely. Just remember: We want to improve people's quality of life, but if government spending drives taxes through the roof, the average person's QoL plummets. |
| Date | 01:26:10, May 23, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Healthcare |
| Message | On mild illnesses, those are so common that we'd run into drug shortages, expenses would balloon, and the private medicine would lose a large chunk of business. Do we put someone in a hospital bed because they have a cold or the flu? No. Let them buy cheap over-the-counter medicines to treat such - you can't tell me those break anyone's budget. Two, disfiguring - acne can be disfiguring, do we offer free dermatology to every teenager in Likaton? Forgive me for being fascetious. Please define disfiguring. Perhaps the vouchers should be limited to already diagnosed conditions, and given out by doctors following diagnosis. This, instead of a simple patient claim. |
| Date | 22:09:32, May 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Healthcare |
| Message | well, you shouldn't be able to buy antibiotics over the counter, as that leads to immunity. also, contrary to what you are saying, private practice is not driven off completely - there is always demand for more care intensive medical treatment, better food etc, so private hospitals exist in abundance (I am trying not to use RL examples, but there are many) |
| Date | 03:58:43, May 24, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Healthcare |
| Message | I didn't mean antibiotics. I meant medicines to counter the symptoms. Ie: Painkillers, medicines that settle the stomach, and the like. Many of the milder illnesses still can't be treated with antibiotics, and doctor overprescription causes immunity the same way that overusing over the counter drugs does. |
| Date | 19:32:18, May 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Healthcare |
| Message | I wouldnt call an ear infection fatal, yet i would still treat it, with antibiotics, publically. |
| Date | 19:33:33, May 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Healthcare |
| Message | right, we will hold a vote on this, staying with the proposal in the description. if it doesnt pass, we will have to start arguing about how a voucher system would work. |
| Date | 16:10:24, May 25, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Healthcare |
| Message | We've been arguing mostly for the sake of argument; disputes are healthy and have the potential to point out flaws. We were playing devil's advocate, however, public health care is a good investment and will give returns in the form of worker productivity. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 139 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 16 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 22 |
| Random fact: Google Translate can help you with those language translations: https://translate.google.com/ |
| Random quote: "I swear to the Lord I still can't see Why Democracy means Everybody but me." - Langston Hughes, The Black Man Speaks |