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: Competition In Healthcare Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democratic Party of Telamon
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: October 2303
Description[?]:
| This act will allow people who want private healthcare to get it, while preserving public healthcare for everyone. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Health care policy.
Old value:: Health care is entirely public and free; private clinics are banned.
Current: Health care is entirely public and free; private clinics are banned.
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.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:47:24, October 20, 2006 CET | From | Telamon Traditionalist Party | To | Debating the Competition In Healthcare Act |
| Message | The TTP is in full support of the proposition. |
| Date | 23:09:51, October 20, 2006 CET | From | Catholic Workers Union | To | Debating the Competition In Healthcare Act |
| Message | "This bill recieves our stern disapproval. Private healthcare was banned several years ago because of the stark injustice of the concept: that money should allow individuals to purchase better care than other humans in matters of life and death. Whether private healthcare would actually be better than our national service is a matter for debate, but it is inconsequential to this discussion. The mere concept that private care and money could provide better care for the well endowed over free public care is revolting. There are places for money to buy advantages. Matters of life and death are not examples." -Daniel Brandi Prime Minister |
| Date | 09:12:46, October 21, 2006 CET | From | Telamon Royalist Party | To | Debating the Competition In Healthcare Act |
| Message | His Excellency the Prime Minister says it best. Money should be able to buy many things, but life itself shouldn't need to be one of them. Life, and health, are rights, and should be provided free, and equally, to all. -- President Melissa Calderon |
| Date | 12:07:32, October 21, 2006 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Competition In Healthcare Act |
| Message | "The opposition seems unable to grasp the fact that private healthcare can actually be used to the benefit of all Telamonians, not just the rich. By public and private working together in partnership it can deliver huge improvements to services provided to all. Instead of languishing with a second class health system because of old fashioned and ignorant ideologies which see the private sector in all its guises as an evil thing which must be stopped at all costs, we would urge members of this house to see the opportunities that working with the private sector can bring. Yes healthcare should never be solely about profit and will always require government oversight and regulation, but that does not mean that all healthcare must be provided by the state. Working together and harnessing the expertise and power of the private and voluntary sectors can help to drive up standards of care and to provide a world class health system of which we can be proud. A health system that remains free for those who cannot afford to pay. --Richard Cobden UCA Health Spokesman |
| Date | 12:08:47, October 21, 2006 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Competition In Healthcare Act |
| Message | Although therefore for us this bill does not go far enough, we will support it as being better than the current |
| Date | 02:11:08, October 23, 2006 CET | From | Catholic Workers Union | To | Debating the Competition In Healthcare Act |
| Message | "Our dimuntive companions across the aisle fail to see the illogic in their statements and blindly overlook our most important objection to private healthcare: even when we try to insure that private healthcare is covered by government insurance for the poor, private clinics are under no mandate to accept that insurance. We then get what we most object to, a tiered healthcare system." -Ignatius Loyola IADP MP |
| Date | 22:57:58, October 23, 2006 CET | From | Páirtí Sóisialach | To | Debating the Competition In Healthcare Act |
| Message | IADP, I think that its sacrilege to claim saints as MP's. :D The Centre Party supports a mixed healthcare provision proposition. The point of a private system is not to allow the rich to 'buy better healthcare'. That notion is simply ludicrous and I would heap strong admonitions upon whomsoever planted it in your brain. The point of a mixed system is simple: the poor and lower middle class who cannot afford healthcare subscribe to a public system, whilst those who can afford to pay their way can do so privately. There is no difference in systems; a CT scan is the same whether it is public or private. The question is who pays for it. By having two systems, both sectors can address the healthcare needs of their patients quickly and thoroughly, BEFORE cancer patients, cardiac patients and the terminally ill die IN QUEUE. I can imagine no greater travesty in a modern health service than being so inefficient and lugubrious that its patients DIE before they are examined. (no, its not the only thing, but isn't it horrendous) Let my partners in government and friends and colleagues in opposition understand clearly: WHAT WE (or I) ADVOCATE IS NOT A TIERED SYSTEM. We advocate a system where all healthcare is equal and provided to ALL quickly and accurately. In a public system, instead of the patient paying up-front, the government pays. The government is paid through taxes from the rich and lesser amounts from the poor (not agregate, but average). The rich, who make enough to pay taxes and afford healthcare, can pay for their own, leaving both public and private systems equally funded (actually, the public one gets MORE money, not less) and the strain that would disable one by its onesies is easily carried and supported by the two. Again, I urge all Hon. and Rt Hon. members right round this House to vote in favour of the present bill. A vote for this bill is a vote to save lives. |
| Date | 22:58:05, October 23, 2006 CET | From | Páirtí Sóisialach | To | Debating the Competition In Healthcare Act |
| Message | IADP, I think that its sacrilege to claim saints as MP's. :D The Centre Party supports a mixed healthcare provision proposition. The point of a private system is not to allow the rich to 'buy better healthcare'. That notion is simply ludicrous and I would heap strong admonitions upon whomsoever planted it in your brain. The point of a mixed system is simple: the poor and lower middle class who cannot afford healthcare subscribe to a public system, whilst those who can afford to pay their way can do so privately. There is no difference in systems; a CT scan is the same whether it is public or private. The question is who pays for it. By having two systems, both sectors can address the healthcare needs of their patients quickly and thoroughly, BEFORE cancer patients, cardiac patients and the terminally ill die IN QUEUE. I can imagine no greater travesty in a modern health service than being so inefficient and lugubrious that its patients DIE before they are examined. (no, its not the only thing, but isn't it horrendous) Let my partners in government and friends and colleagues in opposition understand clearly: WHAT WE (or I) ADVOCATE IS NOT A TIERED SYSTEM. We advocate a system where all healthcare is equal and provided to ALL quickly and accurately. In a public system, instead of the patient paying up-front, the government pays. The government is paid through taxes from the rich and lesser amounts from the poor (not agregate, but average). The rich, who make enough to pay taxes and afford healthcare, can pay for their own, leaving both public and private systems equally funded (actually, the public one gets MORE money, not less) and the strain that would disable one by its onesies is easily carried and supported by the two. Again, I urge all Hon. and Rt Hon. members right round this House to vote in favour of the present bill. A vote for this bill is a vote to save lives. |
| Date | 23:04:37, October 23, 2006 CET | From | Páirtí Sóisialach | To | Debating the Competition In Healthcare Act |
| Message | Sorry about that, the computer went funny and I swear on a stack of Bibles that I only clicked the button once. I beg everyone to forgive me and have compassion. :{ |
| Date | 01:40:30, October 24, 2006 CET | From | Catholic Workers Union | To | Debating the Competition In Healthcare Act |
| Message | LOL, I'll try. I do from time to time find use the odd Jesuit founder as an MP. |
| Date | 01:50:07, October 24, 2006 CET | From | Catholic Workers Union | To | Debating the Competition In Healthcare Act |
| Message | "You have approached this situation from the wrong angle. There is not an infinite amount of healthcare capital that will easily increase with a private system. In other words, more doctors will NOT be created simply because we've privatized some of our clinics. In this sense, privatizing care will not make the system more efficient, it will make it less so because a public authority will be required to maintain a public system along with subsidies for low-income individuals to pursue treatment at a private facility. Moreover, it makes no sense to legalize private care if public and private care are equal in quality. The truth of the matter is not that simple; privatized care will be able to charge more, pay doctors more, and thus attract the brightest minds in the field. Private care will be better simply because it will attract the brighter doctors that will otherwise work for a public clinic. Fortunately the majority of Congress understands this very simple fact. And the IADP, the People's Party, finds it hilarious that the party which opposes privatized postal services supports privatized healthcare. They are clearly more frightened about inefficiency in the postal service than in the healthcare industry. It makes one question their priorities: a grandmother who needs emergency service or a package carrying their weekly supply of fine wines!" -Logan Fairfax IADP MP *Congress erupts in a spurt of laughter* |
| Date | 00:13:08, October 25, 2006 CET | From | Páirtí Sóisialach | To | Debating the Competition In Healthcare Act |
| Message | "What my Hon. friend cannot seem to understand is that this would not sell-off aspects of the NHS; rather, private capital would have to establish private clinics. If, as the hon. Gentleman says, privatised healthcare is more attractive and as he would seem to put it 'better all-round', why not privatise the whole system and have national insurance for the poor and lower middle class? Perhaps my hon. friend may be forgiven for his party's froward position on a matter that is very pertinent to litterally millions of our constituents. The truth is that tens of thousands of our consitituents are languishing-even dying-in queue at the NHS. This is unacceptable. A mixed system is the only viable solution. My hon. friend says there are not infinite funds; true enough, but what about the 8.500-million-pound NHS budget? If, though I doubt it, that is not enough, perhaps he could tap into the 6.500-million-pound budget surplus. I ask, if, as he says, the government can provide for everybody in a public system, how can it not provide for the poor and lower middle class when the rich are skimmed-off in a private system? Again, I argue, the funds are there, the right decision and moral fibre is all that is lacking. As to my party's stance on the Royal Mail, the postal service provides many essential services to communities accross the commonwealth. Providing checking and savings accounts in small communities without banks, and possesing all the facilities for all government paper-work required of the citizenry, how could my hon. friend honestly expect this wide array of services (some only available in a government office) to be equitably provided for in a private, non-governmental system. Again, I cannot but point-out to all my hon. and rt hon. friends and colleagues right-round this House, that a vote for this bill is a vote to save lives." -The Rt Hon. the Lord Norman Tebbitt, Centre Party MP |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 119 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 182 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In Culturally Protected nations, it is the responsibility of players to ensure the candidate boxes on their Party Overview screens are filled in with appropriate names. If a player is allotted seats in a Cabinet bill and has not filled in names for the relevant candidate position, then the program will automatically fill in the positions with names which might not necessarily be appropriate for the Cultural Protocols. |
| Random quote: “Can anyone imagine a more perverse idea than forcing faithful Hosians like me to give away my money to enable irresponsible teenage girls to kill off their children because they were too drunk to use a damn condom?" - Dr. Francesca dos Santos, former Dranian politician |