Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: June 5461
Next month in: 01:26:05
Server time: 14:33:54, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (3): Autokrator30 | HopesFor | Liu Che | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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 (HRA) of 2192

Details

Submitted by[?]: Malivianese Militarist 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: March 2198

Description[?]:

It is agreed by the Assembly and ordered that:

1) Food safety standards are determined by local governments.
2) Healthcare is entirely free and owned by the people.
3) The government pays for all pharmaceutical drugs prescribed to the people.
4) Local governments determine the legality of cannabis.

~For the Federation people!~

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date23:44:19, February 28, 2006 CET
FromSocial Democrat League
ToDebating the Health Reform Act (HRA) of 2192
MessageArticle 1: The consumer needs to be sure what he is eating is safe. The current law ensures that everyone, everywhere in Malivia has the same quality of food. Keeping this under the control of the government is the only way to really ensure the health and safety of our citizens. Against.

Article 2: We don't really oppose this article, but feel it is wise to let private clinics exist. They are very expensive, but we should be realistic enough to realise that our public health care system isn't perfect. This way the rich can choose to take specialist care, at the cost of their wallets. Obviously these private clinics are also taxed, so some of that money gets funneled back to the government, allowing us to provide better, free health care.

Article 3: No real opinion on this matter, but we feel the current law is best.

Article 4: Acceptable, medicine is expensive for everyone.

All in all, we will not support this, as we don't really agree with the first 3 articles.

Date23:52:48, February 28, 2006 CET
FromMalivianese Militarist Party
ToDebating the Health Reform Act (HRA) of 2192
MessageArticle 1: Why would local governments seek to poison their own people?
Article 2: We realize your liking for private clinics, yet why go through all the trouble of allowing private clinics simply for the tax revenue? Let everyone get the best healthcare as the doctors will come to the public hospitals and specialty clinics while the rich people can donate their savings to the healthcare system if they wish (and if they want a hospital/clinic named after them).
Article 3: You say you don't have an opinion on the matter, yet later you say you are against it?
Article 4: We thank you for your support.

Date00:04:36, March 01, 2006 CET
FromSocial Democrat League
ToDebating the Health Reform Act (HRA) of 2192
MessageArticle 1: While we realise that local governments wouldn't poison their own people, powerful corporate lobbyists sometimes have too much influence. And while we would like to believe in the kind-heartedness of all Malivians, in reality, this is not the case.

Article 2: Investers are far more likely to invest in a private clinic, where they can be sure they will benifit from it. A public health care system has to guarantee equal care for everyone (which is, of course, the right way), so investers will feel their money isn't being spent on them, but the hobo from around the corner. Unfortunately, that is how society works, so why not let the rich spend their money on their own private clinics?

Article 3: Because we feel the law currently in place is the best.

Date03:55:49, March 01, 2006 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Health Reform Act (HRA) of 2192
Messageonly issue we have is with #2. We feel the private clinics can add a dimension to a public care by pushing medical knowledge limits and by letting those who wish to spend their money for private care. Thus our public system has a few less people who volunarily sought other means for their care, and some new methods can be tried and perfected in private clinics which the government would not have pursued.

Date00:53:18, March 02, 2006 CET
FromMalivianese Militarist Party
ToDebating the Health Reform Act (HRA) of 2192
MessageArticle 1: Why would big corporations seek to kill their customers?
Article 2: We thought the Social Democrat League was progressive to ensure equal treatment for everyone, not the elitist clinics and then the poor clinics? We do understand the Protectorates concerns; however, medical research can still be a private venture and we don't want the government to not use any new procedures. We can stipulate to such if desired.

We thank the support of the Protectorates on the other three articles.

Date04:11:08, March 02, 2006 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Health Reform Act (HRA) of 2192
MessageWhile medical research will still continue, we feel that its progress will be slowed by the removal of private clinics as a driving force. Private clinics provide doctors with more free time then public clinics and thus more time to engage in research as well as people willing to try new methods.
In a public clinic we must be more cautious since we are sponsoring such methods and therefore for the well being of the citizens as well as our treasury we must limit the scope of the research.

Date05:55:52, March 02, 2006 CET
FromMalivianese Militarist Party
ToDebating the Health Reform Act (HRA) of 2192
MessageHowever, we won't be limiting the scope of research considering this bill only gives hospitals to the people.

While we can see your point considering the drive for research, such is the price to pay for equality.

Date12:35:25, March 02, 2006 CET
FromSocial Democrat League
ToDebating the Health Reform Act (HRA) of 2192
Message1) They wouldn't want to kill their customers, but they would like to make their products cheaper, even if it means some people falling ill.

2) We do WANT equal treatment for everyone, but realistically it's not the case. Health care is expensive and while our public system is definitely very good, it's not perfect. Specialised, private clinics can still provide better care in some specialised cases, but they are just so expensive.

Date22:46:17, March 02, 2006 CET
FromMalivianese Militarist Party
ToDebating the Health Reform Act (HRA) of 2192
Message1. Wouldn't this be followed up through the legal system then?

Date23:09:49, March 02, 2006 CET
FromSocial Democrat League
ToDebating the Health Reform Act (HRA) of 2192
Message1) No ... because you'd have just changed the law, so it allows them to do that ...

Date05:32:23, March 03, 2006 CET
FromMalivianese Militarist Party
ToDebating the Health Reform Act (HRA) of 2192
Message1) Please recall that local government law still is subordinate to federal law. Hence, if someone sued the local government for negligible food safety standards and it reached a federal court, then the law would be deemed unconstitutional or the local government would be heavily fined etc.

Just because the local government has control does not mean the national government also doesn't have a say.

Remember, checks and balances.

Date11:57:58, March 03, 2006 CET
FromSocial Democrat League
ToDebating the Health Reform Act (HRA) of 2192
Message1) You can't sue someone for breaking a law that doesn't exist anymore. Please show me a law that would allow consumers to sue the local government, or the corporation, in the event of low food standards.

Date18:31:23, March 03, 2006 CET
FromMalivianese Militarist Party
ToDebating the Health Reform Act (HRA) of 2192
Message1) You can sue people for anything. You may not be successful; however, you can still do it. This isn't regarding a law that didn't exist anymore, it is about the safety of the people.

Is the SDL now arguing that the government should not take care of the people? If a local government, or even federal government, law is negligent in the protection of people then citizens can sue.

These are inherent rights that we have as Malivianese people.

Now the SDL can be quite centralist regarding the safety of our people regarding food standards; however, we'd like to let the local government control these standards as the Federation is quite expansive and some of the native foods are known best by the locals.

Date21:41:00, March 03, 2006 CET
FromSocial Democrat League
ToDebating the Health Reform Act (HRA) of 2192
MessageGood point, and as local governments are elected directly by the people, they will want to make them happy.

Date07:53:35, March 10, 2006 CET
FromMalivia Democratic Party
ToDebating the Health Reform Act (HRA) of 2192
MessageDisagree with 2 and 4. 1 and 3 would be ok though.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 120

no
   

Total Seats: 154

abstain
   

Total Seats: 27


Random fact: Moderation will not accept Cultural Protocol updates which introduce, on a significant scale, cultures which are likely to be insufficiently accessible to players. In particular, for all significant cultures in Particracy, it should be easy for players to access and use online resources to assist with language translation and the generation of character names. Moderation reserves the right to amend Cultural Protocols which are deemed to have introduced significant cultures that are not sufficiently accessible and which are not being actively role-played with.

Random quote: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 86