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: Omnibus I of 2184
Details
Submitted by[?]: Malivia Democratic Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill asks for an amendement to the Constitution. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 2185
Description[?]:
Several centrist bills here... Reasoning: 1: To prevent flooding of dozens of bills every session, which has been annoying in the past. 8 is reasonable, and I would even be willing to change it to a higher number like 12. 2.Euthanasia-I believe court orders should be required to avoid any chances of scrupulous doctors taking advantage of mentally ill or other patients not in a position to make a reasonable decision for themselves. 3. Self-explanatory. Do we want nations like.. say.. Deltaria buying up Malivian businesses? 4. Health care is very expensive not just for low-income, but middle-income families. 5. I don't believe the sale of hemp should be determined by local policy. It either should be legal nationwide, or illegal nationwide. 6. It is not unreasonable to have immigrants pass a citizenship test, 7. This is to avoid abuses by large telecom companies... as phones are a very common method of communications, its too easy to have a telecom company abuse its rates in different regions and such. 8. This should be turned over to the national government. Many localities don't have the resources, or are unwilling to provide public housing. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The maximum proposal quota a party can accumulate.
Old value:: 20
Current: 50
Proposed: 8
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The right to euthanasia.
Old value:: Euthanasia is allowed with consent from the patient and the treating doctor.
Current: Euthanasia is only allowed with consent from the patient and a court order.
Proposed: Euthanasia is only allowed with consent from the patient and a court order.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change
The government's policy regarding foreign investments.
Old value:: Foreign investors may freely invest in national companies.
Current: Foreign investors may freely invest in national companies.
Proposed: Foreign investors may invest in national companies, but may not get a majority share.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Health care policy.
Old value:: Health care is private, but is paid for by the state for people with low incomes.
Current: There is a public health care system, but private clinics are allowed.
Proposed: 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.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change Policy concerning industrial hemp.
Old value:: Industrial hemp regulations are left up to local governments.
Current: Only regulated agribusinesses may produce industrial hemp.
Proposed: Only regulated agribusinesses may produce industrial hemp.
Article 6
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning granting nationality (national of this state without implication of having citizenship rights).
Old value:: Anyone is able to claim nationality.
Current: Anyone receives nationality but immigrants must pass a test to gain nationality.
Proposed: Anyone receives nationality but immigrants must pass a test to gain nationality.
Article 7
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning phone services.
Old value:: There are no regulations on phone service.
Current: The state subsidizes the phone service of low income families, and regulates the rates providers can charge for phone service.
Proposed: The state subsidizes the phone service of low income families, and regulates the rates providers can charge for phone service.
Article 8
Proposal[?] to change The government policy regarding housing.
Old value:: Housing policy is to be determined by local governments.
Current: The state provides public housing to low-income families.
Proposed: The state provides public housing to low-income families.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 14:27:07, February 11, 2006 CET | From | Meritocratic Progressive Union | To | Debating the Omnibus I of 2184 |
Message | 1: No. 2: No. 3: Yes. 4: Yes. |
Date | 16:27:55, February 11, 2006 CET | From | Social Democrat League | To | Debating the Omnibus I of 2184 |
Message | We can agree to all of them, save Article 2. The court is tedious for a decision such as this. The treating doctor and the patient combined should know what's best. Otherwise families, or other groups, might be able to draw out the proceedings, causing even more suffering to the patient. Of course it must be certain that the patient and the doctor agree. |
Date | 19:48:17, February 11, 2006 CET | From | Imperial Malivian Party | To | Debating the Omnibus I of 2184 |
Message | We can agree to everyone except 4 which we hotly contest. |
Date | 05:28:37, February 12, 2006 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Omnibus I of 2184 |
Message | Against 2: for reasons stated by the SDP, why would a doctor want to kill a patient? against 6: what does testing have to due with being granted the ability to live in Malivia as a national. We should accept all who wish to come. others ok for the most part. |
Date | 06:59:27, February 12, 2006 CET | From | Malivianese Militarist Party | To | Debating the Omnibus I of 2184 |
Message | We can agree to all measures. |
Date | 16:26:42, February 12, 2006 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Omnibus I of 2184 |
Message | Alot of questions on 2: Why would a doctor want to kill a patient? Why do people commit murders to begin with? I can't answer that question, but we all know there are twisted people out there, some of whom get into positions of authority and abuse them. Why? Perhaps a life insurance policy was changed for the beneficiary to be the doctor in question. The PP, as long as I've been here, has seemingly been of the opinion that there is no need to worry about the worst of human nature, or have our laws be changed to protect people from the worst of society. But the reality is that the worst of human nature is out there, and it is our responsibility to pass laws protecting society from the worst. I believe, in this case of court orders, I believe it is only reasonable to have a 3rd check on a doctor who is in a position to make an ultimate decision. I again point out the issue of life insurance beneficiaries. A doctor is in a very strong position to become very 'friendly' to the patient, who is vulnerable to begin with, in order to convince change to a life insurance policy. Therefore, I will not remove Article II, because I strongly believe we need to have a 3rd check on physicians to make sure there is nothing illegal or unethical going on... |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||
yes | Total Seats: 64 | ||||
no |
Total Seats: 235 | ||||
abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: "OOC", "IC" and "IG" are commonly-used acronyms in Particracy. "OOC" refers to comments, discussions and actions which are out-of-character, meaning they are done player-to-player rather than party-to-party. "IC" refers to in-character interactions (ie. party-to-party). Similarly, "IG" means in-game, although this term may also simply refer to what happens in the actual game interface, as opposed to on the forum or elsewhere. "RP" just means "role-play". |
Random quote: "Because democracy is not a spectator sport." - 2004 Democratic campaign slogan |