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: CNP: Healthcare Ideology Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Nationalist 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: February 4739
Description[?]:
| This bill clearly lays out the plans that the Conservative Nationalist Party would like to see implemented into law. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The right to euthanasia.
Old value:: Euthanasia is allowed with consent from the patient and the treating doctor.
Current: Euthanasia is allowed with consent from the patient and the treating doctor.
Proposed: Euthanasia is illegal and considered murder.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Health care policy.
Old value:: Health care is entirely private.
Current: There is a public health care system, but private clinics are allowed.
Proposed: There is a public health care system, but private clinics are allowed.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The use of cannabis for medicinal purposes.
Old value:: Cannabis is legal as a sedative for patients in pain.
Current: Cannabis is legal as a sedative for patients in pain.
Proposed: The medicinal use of cannabis is illegal.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Pharmaceutical drugs policy.
Old value:: The government does not subsidise the cost of pharmaceutical drugs at all.
Current: The government pays partially for all citizens' pharmaceutical drugs, and pays entirely for those of low income citizens.
Proposed: The government subsidises the cost of pharmaceutical drugs for people on low incomes.
Article 5
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 outdoors and in private homes and clubs, but illegal indoors in all places of employment.
Proposed: Smoking is legal everywhere, at the discretion of the property owner. However, service/employer property owners that allow smoking must provide a separate non-smoking section.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:28:07, April 08, 2020 CET | From | Alliance Party | To | Debating the CNP: Healthcare Ideology Act |
| Message | The government has no choice but to dismiss this Bill out of hand as being quite ridiculous. Firstly, regardless of the points to be made hereafter, the Alliance Party does not agree (outright) with the idea of euthanasia being treated as murder (as long as the provisions of the existing law are followed). Not can it take the stance that the use of cannabis is illegal when used as allowed under existing law. Secondly, probably by the time this Bill is put to the vote, if the CNP decides to persist with it, the government's own Health Bill will have become law, and pharmaceutical drugs will already be subsidised for people on low incomes. Thirdly, the proposal on smoking is being put forward when again the government's own Health Bill has just proposed a change in that law, so is not going to change it again. Why on Terra did the Leader of the Opposition not propose that the government consider the CNP's proposal when the government's Bill was being debated? With sufficient justification it might have stood a chance of being amended or withdrawn or put into a separate Bill, but the silence was deafening. Finally, the government requests that the CNP awaits the promised Health Bill (Stage 2) which will state the government's own belief in a public health system. If the opposition were listening, we think the point has been made in several places that this is ultimate goal for the Alliance Party, but that financial realities dictate that this is done step by step. Would the CNP care to state how it expects funding to be magically available for an immediate implementation of a fully fledged public health system if this Bill were to be passed (which thankfully it will lack the necessary support so to do!) |
| Date | 19:59:22, April 08, 2020 CET | From | Conservative Nationalist Party | To | Debating the CNP: Healthcare Ideology Act |
| Message | Mr speaker, Cannabis use as a sedative for pain is unnecessary with cannabis containing carcinogens that can lead further (and importantly avoidable) illness such as cancers or has strong association with mental health disorders such as schizophrenia. I don't know what the prime minister or minister of health thinks, but we in the CNP are very proud to take the view that harmful drugs such as this that are by no means necessary should not be used. Their use can lead to addiction, other illness as explained which in turn leads to more money spent on private treatment as a result of this administrations failure to introduce a free healthcare system, and further strain on medical professionals. This is bad for the patients and bad for the system. Lets use other, equally effective treatments, focus on patient care and stop argument for arguments sake. In response to the frankly flawed comments of the government, we disagreed with the Alliance health bill then, and do so now. We have thus presented our ideals for the healthcare system of the state, and these are what we will implement if come the next election the people give us a mandate to form a government. David Simmonds, Leader of the Opposition |
| Date | 20:54:00, April 08, 2020 CET | From | Alliance Party | To | Debating the CNP: Healthcare Ideology Act |
| Message | For the further enlightenment of the Leader of the Opposition: Cannabis as a sedative for pain is only obtained via a doctor's prescription. It may have escaped his notice, but to date neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister for Health have yet been in a position to prescribe anything, and it is not on the current government's agenda to present legislation authorising us to do so. What is best for the patient is best left to the medical profession who probably know a little more about what alternatives there are and which is best for their patients than the Leader of the Opposition does. The proposal, after all, does not suggest that cannabis should be prescribed, or that it is the only legal painkiller. It is an enabling Act where appropriate to use it and strives to avoid being prohibitive. |
| Date | 21:05:11, April 08, 2020 CET | From | Conservative Nationalist Party | To | Debating the CNP: Healthcare Ideology Act |
| Message | Yet again the government is proving its inability to see clear reason. We base our healthcare policies based upon scientific fact and economic considerations. It is scientific fact that cannabis has adverse negative medical affects, and more so than other pain killers. The government simply claiming it is not our position to prescribe drugs is stating irrelevant information and quite frankly is an absurd response. The prime minister is suggesting that despite the scientific documentation of cannabis' dangers as a drug, that we should continue to allow its use. Ridiculous! Need I remind the prime minister; Doctors treat illness, but GOVERNMENT and politician decide the state of the healthcare system, and the medical drugs available. You prime minister, are hiding away from your responsibilities and it is unacceptable. |
| Date | 21:22:25, April 08, 2020 CET | From | Alliance Party | To | Debating the CNP: Healthcare Ideology Act |
| Message | Firstly, might we ask the Leader of the Opposition to do an historical investigation to see when the current legislation re medicinal cannabis was introduced? I can't remember exactly when the current Prime Minister was responsible to introducing such reprehensible legislation. Secondly, for yet further enlightenment for the poor gentleman opposite, the government presents the following facts (which we believe are somewhat different to opinions - especially those opinions held by those who are unfortunately rather opinionated): There are 43 nations in Terra who have adopted the very same policy on cannabis for medicinal purposes as this nation currently does. Seven others devolve the decision to local governments. That leaves eight countries whose legislature appears to be in agreement with the Leader of the Opposition. Would the honourable gentleman opposite like to speak to the rest of Terra himself, or would he like to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to do so for him - in order to tell so many upstanding leaders that they are all hiding from their responsibilities and that it is unacceptable - that is, to the party that has 50 seats in total (compared to their combined total of thousands)? (No, sorry 53!) |
| Date | 21:29:53, April 08, 2020 CET | From | Conservative Nationalist Party | To | Debating the CNP: Healthcare Ideology Act |
| Message | PRime minister, you keep avoiding the facts which are cannabis is harmful and it is against our moral principles to allow patients to receive harmful drug when there re far safer one available. The prime ministers inability to support something that will lead to improved treatment, is leading us to question his own morals. He can plaster us with his facts about other nations but at the end of the day these are irrelevant and frankly he should focus on his responsibilities in his government instead. We don't care when the current legislation was put into place, again this is irrelevant and just superficial defences from our government. What does mater is the fact that we are simply trying to introduce legislation that will lead to less damaging pain management, thus less side effect heath conditions which will take strain off the health providers. Maybe for once stop defending your lack of backbone, and support something for the betterment of the people who voted for you, and I hope likely will never do so again! |
| Date | 21:58:41, April 08, 2020 CET | From | Social Democrat Party | To | Debating the CNP: Healthcare Ideology Act |
| Message | The lack of compromise and understanding of the opposition proceeds, rather than attempting to problem solve and come up with a deal, simply insulting the prime minister for not believing that a pain treatment that has worked and will continue to work should be stripped from the hands of those who need them. The SDP would also like to point out that finding successful legislation from foreign governments and attempting an implementation of them is an idea that is useful and factual. Why not look to our peers within Terra who have the system that we have and are successful? If cannabis use as a pain treatment was harmful, then it would be reprehensible for the Alliance to continue with current law, but it is simply not. The current law allows for doctors to decide when they require to use cannabis and gives them the opportunity to do so if they need. We wish to point out the irony of the CNP saying that government decides the medical drugs available. That is true, so why not allow doctors to use a treatment if, in their professional view, they need to use cannabis as a treatment? The most important message that can be taken from this is, instead of an attempt to find a middle ground or at least an understand, the CNP continues to further it's own agenda rather than attempting the out-there concept of compromise. |
| Date | 22:03:28, April 08, 2020 CET | From | Conservative Nationalist Party | To | Debating the CNP: Healthcare Ideology Act |
| Message | The SDP might as well become a faction of the Alliance party. It certainly lacks the necessary initiative of effective opposition. At no point during the debate on this proposal has any party offered to constrictively discuss and support aspects or offer compromise on these proposals. The sheer audacity of the SDP to blame this entirely in the CNP is staggering. We are willing to engage in such talks as soon as either parties are ready to do so. |
| Date | 22:17:10, April 08, 2020 CET | From | Social Democrat Party | To | Debating the CNP: Healthcare Ideology Act |
| Message | Once again, the CNP attempts a jab at a party instead of any insight into the points made. We have challenged the Alliance again and again, as we believe our values are to be represented in parliament. I suppose calling out when a party has a lack of insight translates to being a faction of the government. If you'd like an itemized list, we would be delighted to share to the opposition disagreements between the Alliance Party and the SDP, there has been plenty. The difference is that we do not personally attack the Alliance when we disagree, but attempt to understand and find compromise. Do you have the same track record? The SDP also is prepared to enter into a discussion of a deal, but requests that it is truly constructive, leaving all biases out of a discussion. The SDP is prepared to do such a thing. |
| Date | 22:24:23, April 08, 2020 CET | From | Conservative Nationalist Party | To | Debating the CNP: Healthcare Ideology Act |
| Message | Actions speak louder than words, and yet again we in the CNP keep being labelled in a negative light by this government and our counterparts in opposition. So instead of again, continuing this arbitrary behaviour. Please do start talking about the legislation in hand. As we have been trying from the very beginning. We ate here to get things done. And I ask other parties to do the same. |
| Date | 22:27:40, April 08, 2020 CET | From | Social Democrat Party | To | Debating the CNP: Healthcare Ideology Act |
| Message | Absolutely. If the wish is for you to continue to talk about the legislation at hand, we humbly request you actually respond to our points about the legislation made at 21:58:41. What are your party's views on what we said? |
| Date | 22:34:28, April 08, 2020 CET | From | Conservative Nationalist Party | To | Debating the CNP: Healthcare Ideology Act |
| Message | We would suggest as we have continually in this debate that due to the scientific conclusive evidence of the harmful effects of cannabis as a medical treatment, we want to ban its use. Especially since their are so many more effective treatments. Even Intravenous paracetamol is an example of a more effective and much safer treatment. Opioids are other examples. The key point is that cannabis is an unessential drug which due to its adverse effects we wish to see taken off the market so to speak. And in response to the claim doctors should have the right to choose between such things, yes we totally agree. However the fact it is an unessential method of treatment means this is not as far as we are concerned a viable reason to allow the drug to be used. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 53 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 307 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players should not role-play characters without the consent of the owner, and if they find they have role-played the character beyond what the owner intended, they should withdraw or amend the role-play appropriately. |
| Random quote: "When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm beginning to believe it." - Clarence Darrow |