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: Health Reform Act of October 2173
Details
Submitted by[?]: Proletariat Revolution Party
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 2176
Description[?]:
| INTRODUCTION Given that while Likatonians are healthy people, they can fall ill as a result of exposure to natural elements occurring in this world; it is hereby proposed that the government take steps to help protect the general population's health. PROPOSAL Article i * Currently, the government provides no contraceptives free or at a discounted rate. It is in the interests of those concern if it is provided at a discount. * Let it be known that providing a discount on contraceptives will not encourage lewd and promiscuous behaviour. It will provide those who use it with increased protection. Behaviour is encouraged through one's environment and peer pressure. * Further, the government already recognises Prostitution as a legal profession, and by providing the tools at a discount that help protect the worker. Article ii * Given that the previous law was too broad, it posed a greater danger to our citizens than the current one does. By keeping a workplace free of smoke, except for those which serve liquor. For places that serve liquor but not as a primary means of income, the government can offer special licenses for these places of venue to allow smoking on the premises. * By doing so, we can help relieve healthcare costs related to the job, whether it be for the private citizen or for the employer should the health-related issue occur while the citizen is on the job. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on subsidising contraception.
Old value:: The government does not supply free or discounted contraceptives.
Current: The government does not supply free or discounted contraceptives.
Proposed: The government subsidises a considerable discount for contraceptives.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards smoking.
Old value:: Smoking is legal everywhere, at the discretion of the property owner, but is illegal in government-owned buildings.
Current: Smoking is legal everywhere, at the discretion of the property owner, but is illegal in government-owned buildings.
Proposed: Smoking is legal outdoors and in private homes and clubs, but illegal indoors in places of employment, with the exception of places that primarily serve liquor.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:30:52, January 21, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Health Reform Act of October 2173 |
| Message | Axis Mundi Anakrousite endorse this proposal. |
| Date | 20:35:34, January 21, 2006 CET | From | Likaton Fascist Front | To | Debating the Health Reform Act of October 2173 |
| Message | We oppose. Providing subsidised contraceptive in an incentive for immoral behaviour. |
| Date | 20:36:27, January 21, 2006 CET | From | Likaton Fascist Front | To | Debating the Health Reform Act of October 2173 |
| Message | Let's try that again with coffee: "We oppose. Providing subsidised contraceptives is an incentive for immoral behaviour." |
| Date | 20:37:09, January 21, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Health Reform Act of October 2173 |
| Message | On the contrary. Immoral behaviour already has all of it's own incentives... and they are plenty incentive enough. Subsidised contraceptives just lowers the risks of spreading disease, or causing unwanted pregnancies, from 'immoral behaviour' that is GOING TO HAPPEN, regardless of our legislative attempts. |
| Date | 20:53:04, January 21, 2006 CET | From | Likaton Fascist Front | To | Debating the Health Reform Act of October 2173 |
| Message | In spite of what may be said, we actually favour at least one contraceptive, and it costs nothing except possibly some short term pride. It's called the word 'no', and it's currently being supplied for free. |
| Date | 20:58:22, January 21, 2006 CET | From | Likaton Fascist Front | To | Debating the Health Reform Act of October 2173 |
| Message | In spite of what may be said, we actually favour at least one contraceptive, and it costs nothing except possibly some short term pride. It's called the word 'no', and it's currently being supplied for free. |
| Date | 21:00:19, January 21, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Health Reform Act of October 2173 |
| Message | Axis Mundi Anakrousite appreciates the sentiments expressed by the Army of Loyalists... but it has to be said, the 'abstinence' method offers absolutely no protection to the unwarranted advance. It is also often less than effective when used in conjunction with alcohol. Our genetic makeup makes us WANT to reproduce. A simple 'good intention' to oppose it is an umbrella before a tornado. Not that there is anything WRONG with abstaining... but shouldn't we be strapping on some other armour, than just good intentions? |
| Date | 00:43:01, January 22, 2006 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Health Reform Act of October 2173 |
| Message | ToTAL and others who oppose it, may be surprised to know that one form of contraception, the 'birth control pill' actually protects the egg. When a woman is in her natural cycle and goes without any sexual relations, she then menstrates the egg. With the pill, the woman still menstrates as nature intended, except she doesn't release an egg. |
| Date | 00:44:08, January 22, 2006 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Health Reform Act of October 2173 |
| Message | Further, this would also be available to married couples, and we find it odd to believe that the conservatives would write off any relations as permitted in the bounds of such a union as 'immoral'. |
| Date | 15:04:41, January 23, 2006 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Health Reform Act of October 2173 |
| Message | We oppose on economic grounds. Government funding leads directly to government control; we do not want the government making our economic decisions for us. Article 2 we oppose because the government has no right to determine policy of a private employer. |
| Date | 23:19:49, January 23, 2006 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Health Reform Act of October 2173 |
| Message | It only partly funds it. This means the money goes to the companies which manufacture and produce various forms of contraceptives. The cost then is reduced for the greater majority of the population, which means it then has more money to spend elsewhere. It wouldn't be the government making decisions. It is reducing the cost for the average citizen, and it also helps ensure safety for those in the Sex Trade Industry. Protestution is a legal and recognized profession and by allowing for them to have access to lower-cost supplies for their job, we can help protect them. It also helps the average citizen. The policy on work place smoking isn't proposed to determine the policy of a private employer, it's being proposed with the safety of employees and customers in mind. After all, what happens if an employee is allowed to smoke on the property where there is material that if coming in contact with the smoke or burning ashes of a cigarette could pose a hazard. This would also mean that all health officials, regardless of the policy of their clinic wouldn't be able to smoke. This would help with the preservation of the health of their patients. What would be the point of going to see your health official about that nagging chest pain from smoking and having him or her tell you not to while they themselves are? Yes, it seems silly, but realistically, there are dangers in allowing for 'employer discretion'. There is more at stake by allowing it than if we don't. Do you really want to walk into a clothing store and try and purchase a piece of clothing that smells like a flithy ash tray that hasn't been cleaned for weeks, or anywhere that works directly with customers? Mind you, this doesn't stop carriers and delivery services from smoking as they go about their business because they wouldn't be in a place of business until they actually made a delivery. There are numerous possible accidents related to being able to smoke freely that we want to prevent for health and economic reasons. By ensuring a certain level of safety, we can ensure that companies operate in a manner that isn't dangerous to those involved. It may seem more economical to NOT be involved in prohibiting smoking in the workplace, but, in the long run, it is actually far more profitable if it such policies are in place that do prohibit smoking because it means fewer insurance claims due to fire and smoking-related illnesses (after all, if someone IS permitted to smoke at the place of work and another gets sick while there, there is a certain level of liability that falls unto the employer, et cetera). |
| Date | 15:57:57, January 24, 2006 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Health Reform Act of October 2173 |
| Message | But in the selection of which companies get how much money, we are leaving ourselves open to the appearance, at least, of control by cash. We have increased the opportunity for governmental corruption, and added another group of bureaucracy involved with moving money from the taxpayers who earn it to the companies which want it. The workers in the sex trades industries already receive a subsidy for protection, in so far as it is a business expense which is tax deductable. As to the smoking article, certainly workplace safety regulations, which the government currently imposes, would prohibit smooking next to a high octane gasoline refining plant. This bill, however, goes far beyond that. "Do you really want to walk into a clothing store and try and purchase a piece of clothing that smells like a flithy ash tray that hasn't been cleaned for weeks, or anywhere that works directly with customers?" No, I don't. And therefore, I would go out of my way to purchase from an establishment that decides to ban smooking on the sales floor as is currently allowed at the discretion of the property owner. I would also be more likely to accept employment at such an establishment. I, however, am not everyone. |
| Date | 20:50:28, January 24, 2006 CET | From | Likaton Fascist Front | To | Debating the Health Reform Act of October 2173 |
| Message | Free contraceptives financially subsidize moral decay. We oppose. |
| Date | 03:31:18, January 25, 2006 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Health Reform Act of October 2173 |
| Message | They aren't free. They are subsidised. Moral decay occurs with AND without government assistance. Then again, morality is relevant, it's not absolute. Further, preventive measures are far more productive than ones that rely on 'common sense'. |
| Date | 04:27:09, January 25, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Health Reform Act of October 2173 |
| Message | Since the RLP seems to be claiming the 'bottom line' as the moral justification for opposing a workplace smoking ban - AMA would like to point out that smokers, and those who are AROUND smokers a lot of the time, are more likely to suffer high-risk, even fatal, illness? Thus - the ENTIRE Likatonian business sector has to pay for far more sick leave, and has to cover the premia for MUCH higher medical insurance, BECAUSE so many Likatonians smoke. Okay - a business can't stop you smoking at home, but they should sure as hell be protected against having to pay extra for the fact that a smoker just cannot control himself/herself for their entire work shift. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 257 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 205 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 38 |
| Random fact: Periodically, it is a good idea to go through your nation's Treaties and arrange to withdraw from any that are unwanted. |
| Random quote: "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Vladimir Lenin |