NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=un
This is the lastest resolution to come up to the United Nations for voting. I encourage you all to read it over and then respond with your feelings. Remember to carefully consider the pros and cons and don't just do something because it's "a nice thing to do." Personally I am HIGHLY against this bill but at the very least it needs to rewritten. In its current state it is a ridiculous attempt to sneak socialized medicine into every nation through the United Nations. Supporting this bill is a terrible idea because:

1. A MAJOR flaw in this bill is that it says that help would be provided by all countries to all countries. Say one country decided they'll pay for 30% of the cost of medicine and another country decides to pay for 100% of the costs. Then the country who is only partially paying for their country will pay a ton to support the other country since this bill says all countries will help pay for each other's medical bills. This is simply unfair. It should be determined on a nation by nation basis.
2. Providing this government supported medicine will happen at GREAT cost to governments. Currently countries who have the government running medicine (mostly socialist countries like Scandanavian ones and also Canada) have taxes that run up to 80%. This would greatly cripple world economies, as is seen in countries in nationstates who have high taxes
3. Subsidizing the pharmacuetical industry would destroy private R&D in the medical field because companies won't be making nearly as much money if the government muscled their way in or did it all themselves. People like to complain about pharmacuetical companies having high profit margins but what one has to remember is the money is all poured back into R&D. In real life patent approvals in the United States alone cost upwards of a billion dollars, whether the drug fails or not, and are only applicable for 20 years from the beginning of developement (if your drug takes 19 years to reach the market, you only have one year before everyone can make generics). In the end, the consumer will lose out because we won't have any advancement in the field.

In real life I have particular interest in the subject and I am very knowledgable. I only hope you'll consider my advice on this bill before forumulating your own opinion.

The Kingdom of Real Conservatives echo your sentiments. We are also opposed to this resolution. Please see our poll in the subject above yours.

Yours in Support

Prime Minister Thatcher
THE KINGDOM OF REAL CONSERVATIVES

The Empire of Keppy strongly agrees with Dovaan in opposing this bill.

This is hardly a full government supplied medicare program like that of those in countries you mentioned. This could be a small govenment program to provide price cuts on such medicine. Say for example the our government decides it will pay only half of the cost of certain treatments. It's not full blown and will not increase taxes to the ammounts you speak of, that is dependent more on the governments desicion on how to go about this.

In repsonse to the stance on this that the Real Conservatives have taken, I ask you how you intend to go about supplying medicines to countries whose dictators would probably not allow such organizations like the Red Cross in their borders. We have decided to take a more realistic approach to this proposal, and understand that it is "good enough" for now. I also understand that disease in such countries you speak of shouldn't be overlooked, but what non-conflict approach can we take on the situation?

Orhiikalon supports this proposal and encourages other countries to do the same.

This is hardly a full government supplied medicare program like that of those in countries you mentioned. This could be a small govenment program to provide price cuts on such medicine. Say for example the our government decides it will pay only half of the cost of certain treatments. It's not full blown and will not increase taxes to the ammounts you speak of, that is dependent more on the governments desicion on how to go about this.

So basically if the government doesn't do much then of course it won't cost much! But if the government provides medicine or highly subsidizes the medical field then it will cost a ridiculous amount and that will have a very negative effect on economics.

Another flaw in this bill is that it says that help would be provided by all countries to all countries. Say one country decided they'll pay for 30% of the cost of medicine and another country decides to pay for 100% of the costs. Then the country who is only partially paying for their country will pay a ton to support the other country since this bill says all countries will help pay for each other's medical bills. This is simply unfair. It should be determined on a nation by nation basis.

So basically if the government doesn't do much then of course it won't cost much! But if the government provides medicine or highly subsidizes the medical field then it will cost a ridiculous amount and that will have a very negative effect on economics.

Exactly, so countries can help out in moderation, the bill does not specifically ask you to subsidize fully. It is their own choice how far they would want to take this bill.

Another flaw in this bill is that it says that help would be provided by all countries to all countries. Say one country decided they'll pay for 30% of the cost of medicine and another country decides to pay for 100% of the costs. Then the country who is only partially paying for their country will pay a ton to support the other country since this bill says all countries will help pay for each other's medical bills. This is simply unfair. It should be determined on a nation by nation basis.

Now this, I actually agree with you on, and will admit I did not give it too much consideration in this field. Shamefully, in this aspect, and knowing some countries won't hold their end of the bargain, Orhiikalon will withdraw their vote, but hope that such a future proposal will deal with each country individually.

If this resolution passes, access to medicine would be increased with the support of all nations in the United Nations. This help would go not just go to people within their respective home countries, but would extend to all countries within the United Nations.

Nations may do this however they wish, from subsidizing their drug industries, to having their state provide more medicine and distributing it abroad.

In other words, you have no real obligation if this passes. So calm down. You'll be just as free as before to sit back as children die.

If this resolution passes, access to medicine would be increased with the support of all nations in the United Nations. This help would go not just go to people within their respective home countries, but would extend to all countries within the United Nations.

Nations may do this however they wish, from subsidizing their drug industries, to having their state provide more medicine and distributing it abroad.

In other words, you have no real obligation if this passes. So calm down. You'll be just as free as before to sit back as children die.

While you refused to respond to my points I will respond to yours. If I had no obligation to follow a course of action then this WOULDN'T BE A UN RESOLUTION. "However they wish" is simply saying that I have to figure out my own way to provide people with medicine, not that I don't have to. Trust me, many more children will die if this passes when economies do poorly because of ridiculous taxes and their parents lose their jobs.

If this resolution passes, access to medicine would be increased with the support of all nations in the United Nations. This help would go not just go to people within their respective home countries, but would extend to all countries within the United Nations.

Nations may do this however they wish, from subsidizing their drug industries, to having their state provide more medicine and distributing it abroad.

In other words, you have no real obligation if this passes. So calm down. You'll be just as free as before to sit back as children die.

For this reason and this reason only, the Protectorate of Tropica Isles has voted for this resolution.

Our nation strongly believes in businesses pulling their own weight with as little subsidization as possible: despite the best intentions of this resolution, it would have gone against our constitution.

Prior to going over this resolution a few times, we would have voted against it by Sunday. Good thing our nation holds off on resolution voting 'till the last minute after all discussions within the government and public debates have been complete. :wink:

Tropica Isles: As I said before, of course there is obligation otherwise this wouldn't be a UN resolution!

I most strongly oppose the topic author's decision on this matter! For countries with weak economies having their medical care subsidized by richer states makes superb sense, and it is primarily for this reason that I have voted for this resolution.

It will not only level the playing field in terms of international health care, but also put a dent in the seemingly impervious economies of consumerist super-states whilst giving a leg-up to poorer, more moralistic countries like my own!

Or such is my understanding... :?

I'm from a very small country myself but it is not right for any country to leech off another. Besides the small countries would most likely get the worst end of this because of the first reason I listed in my original post. Even if two countries paid the same % of drug costs the big one would most likely need help because it has more people.

Instead of later. That way, when my tanks roll in there are less of you to kill. If I pay to keep you alive, I have fewer tanks, and more of you to kill.


Your life....my tanks....hmmmmm

Tanks

All I really see in the bill is diseases are killing people. We can't very well have people dying.

The way I view it is more people are dying from old age. Why not just ban aging then? It has as much effect as this one.

It is because of this kind of garbage that Rationality has left the UN. There are several reasons why the resolution should not even be considered; in fact, it should not even have been allowed.

1. It is wrongly categorized. As its effect is to transfer wealth from those with more to those with less (in the form of healthcare), it should have been a Social Justice proposal, just as previous resolutions of this kind have been.

2. It has no content. It not only doesn't make any provisions for achieving its ends, but explicity states that nations may do as they please - yet it claims to provide health care without any basis for doing so. The UN might as well (and probably will) resolve to replace fossil fuels with perpetual motion machines.

3. Any resolution that claims that UN members are allowed to ignore it or to implement it however they choose is a resolution to alter game mechanics, since the present game mechanics require that resolutions are enforced uniformly in all member nations. All such proposals ought to be deleleted, although they never are because they are always left-wing proposals.

The resolution is also sloppily written, ludicrously supported in its own preamble, and hopelessly vague, in addition to all the objections that may be raised to socialized medicine.

For countries with weak economies having their medical care subsidized by richer states makes superb sense, and it is primarily for this reason that I have voted for this resolution.

Despite our rather weak economy and health-care, I have voted against this resolution. While Genesisium may feel that it makes superb sense to have larger states being able to exert yet more pressure on smaller nations, I cannot stand by and watch as nations corrupted by corporate interests are granted another method of controlling us.

To believe that this resolution will "level the playing field" is also, we feel, flawed. By bringing this resolution in, the United Nations condemns the medical industry in our nation, as the companies based in larger nations move in on our market. We could support a resolution that promised cheap medicines to a nation when there was a great humanitarian need, rather than one which will;
a) destroy industry in developing countries and,
b) give more influence to the developed world.

The friendship of the people of Mappopia to all who vote against this wicked resolution,

President Mapp

Rational Self Interest - well said!

That begs the question, what constitutes medicine?

I support the resolution.

This could be the legalize medicinal marijuana arguments again. You may say it is legal in your country, and by extention, force everyone else to legalize is under this proposed resolution.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=un

3. Subsidizing the pharmacuetical industry would destroy private R&D in the medical field because companies won't be making nearly as much money if the government muscled their way in or did it all themselves. People like to complain about pharmacuetical companies having high profit margins but what one has to remember is the money is all poured back into R&D. In real life patent approvals in the United States alone cost upwards of a billion dollars, whether the drug fails or not, and are only applicable for 20 years from the beginning of developement (if your drug takes 19 years to reach the market, you only have one year before everyone can make generics). In the end, the consumer will lose out because we won't have any advancement in the field.



This entire argument is factually wrong. First of all, pharmaceutical companies don't just have high profit margins, they have the highest profit margins of all industries. And they have those amrgins BECAUSE they are subsidized by government (NSF & Military) research grants and special patent protections (In the US). In the 80s drug companies were already always on top of the profit margin chart but they were given special patent extensions to cover the time required for FDA approval. So their 20 year patents begin when the drug IS APPROVED not when development begins.

And no, the money is NOT all poured back into R&D, it's poured into executives pockets and marketing. Ask any doctor (who will give you an honest answer) about the gifts and perks drug companies lavish on doctors to get them to prescribe their new drugs.

Nations may do this however they wish, from subsidizing their drug industries, to having their state provide more medicine and distributing it abroad.
The reason the Confederacy cannot support this resolution is the lack of concrete clarity in this paragraph, snipped from the original resolution. If it was to obligate nations to increase UN dues paid by 2% with the added money to go to a medical research fund, that would be clearer; if it was to obligate all countries to spend at least .5% of real GDP on subsidized medical research, that too would be clearer. The Confederacy might have to oppose those on individual merit, of course, but since the mechanism for funding here is so unclear, we must oppose it categorically until such time as it's clarified.

Bloody typos.

Fruitful Stability will withdraw their vote for further consideration. We did not allow ourselves enough thought before simply saying "yes".

And no, the money is NOT all poured back into R&D, it's poured into executives pockets and marketing.

That is simply incorrect. The pharmacuetical industry spends more money on research and developement than any other private industry. That is a fact.

... and meanwhile, people are dying in their millions in poor countries for lack of access to drugs because the producers of the drugs will not subsidise sales to poor countries by taking a lower margin, or permit lower cost generic drugs to be produced. The R&D argument is well stated but it is still an indisputable fact that shareholders require a return on their investment whereas taxpayers do not (it would be nice, but it's not going to happen)

Except that the taxpayers will be hurt when their government is saddled with this huge cost, thereby making necessary an increase in taxes. An increase in taxes will then hurt the economy and more people won't be able to pay for drugs than before! Just look at the different nations in nationstates, in general nations with good economies have low taxes and those with poor economies have higher taxes.

There's nothing about quality control in the proposal. I don't know how much medicine is imported into my real country right now but I doubt if it accounts for much among the total medical supplies I see in hospitals.
Why do you think that might be? Besides the fact that we are entirely capable of making the brunt of our own medicines, of course.
I think I'll check back among the other resolutions to see if there's anything about like an FDA or something.

And no, the money is NOT all poured back into R&D, it's poured into executives pockets and marketing.

That is simply incorrect. The pharmacuetical industry spends more money on research and developement than any other private industry. That is a fact.


And lot of money on executives and marketing. Not 100%, no, but neither is 100% spent on R&D.

Drug company research subsidized by taxpayers - http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/health/042300hth-drugs.html

Government frustrated by drug companies lack of openness to disclose financial data relating to marketing costs -
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk1/1993/9336/933616.PDF

A good source of info debunking the drug company 'scare card' -
http://www.citizen.org/publications/articles.cfm?ID=7065&relatedpages=1&catID=122&secID=1078

Drug company research subsidized by taxpayers - http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/health/042300hth-drugs.html

There is an important detail you're not acknowledging. The government is working WITH the drug companies to develop drugs and what the tax payer gets back is a product the government has deemed it needs. If you don't support the government working with drug companies than how can you support this resolution!?

Government frustrated by drug companies lack of openness to disclose financial data relating to marketing costs -
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk1/1993/9336/933616.PDF

The government can be as "frustrated" as it wants, it doesn't have a legal case against them.

Drug company research subsidized by taxpayers - http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/health/042300hth-drugs.html

There is an important detail you're not acknowledging. The government is working WITH the drug companies to develop drugs and what the tax payer gets back is a product the government has deemed it needs. If you don't support the government working with drug companies than how can you support this resolution!?


You're arguing both sides now. First you say that government subsidies are bad and then you say that the government needs this. But does the government get the patent rights for its investment? Does it get stock?

I don't object to my tax dollars subsidizing medical research, but then I want my share of the profits as well.

Government frustrated by drug companies lack of openness to disclose financial data relating to marketing costs -
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk1/1993/9336/933616.PDF

The government can be as "frustrated" as it wants, it doesn't have a legal case against them.[/quote]

Legal case? So, what are the drug companies afraid of? What are they hiding? Is their claim that a drug costs $802M to develop false? What are they basing this claim on? They do science. I do science. I want to see their numbers or their claim is worthless.

You're arguing both sides now. First you say that government subsidies are bad and then you say that the government needs this. But does the government get the patent rights for its investment? Does it get stock?

I don't object to my tax dollars subsidizing medical research, but then I want my share of the profits as well.

I'm not arguing both sides. I never said the government needed this, I was saying they want something so they work with the medical companies to get it. I was defending against your accussation that basically the government was paying drug companies to rip itself of. If you don't consider the creation of a medical breakthrough, possibly life saving, a "return on investment" then we have nothing more to talk about.


Legal case? So, what are the drug companies afraid of? What are they hiding? Is their claim that a drug costs $802M to develop false? What are they basing this claim on? They do science. I do science. I want to see their numbers or their claim is worthless.

They aren't hiding anything they just don't want to have to continue handing over mountains of paper work and records. They are swamped as it is by beauracracy, why would they willing participate in more of it??

My nation shall pay less than one percent of the medical bills.

"Nations may do this however they wish, from subsidizing their drug industries, to having their state provide more medicine and distributing it abroad."

I am not an expert on health care but I am an economist concentrating in international economics. This statement poses serious problems for international trade. Ideally trade should be based on comparative advantage and favor the most efficient firms. Any government intervention, normative arguments aside, distorts trade and causes it to be driven by factors other than efficiency. Allowing gov'ts to implement this bill "however they wish" allows gov'ts to implement Beggar-Thy-Neighbor policies. In other words, policies specifically implemented to gain markets at the expense of other markets that may hold the comparative advantage. For example, the passage of this bill gives my nation an incentive to heavily subsidize my health industries to drive out foreign competition. Of course all nations have this same incentive so in the end industries are heavily subsidized resulting in inefficiency with no clear winners. The only way this bill could work is if all countries were forced to implement equivalent policies, such as equivalent subsidies, so that int'l trade patterns are not altered.

Now I am no expert on economics nor medicine, but as I interpret this resolution it seems to me that countries being able to choose how they implement this bill seems to be the problem. For reasons previously stated I'm voting against this bill unless it is rephrased with all nations having to obey equal policies.

This bill would have been thrown out of my model UN council in 5 minutes tops. While being vague to the point of obscurity, this bill sets forth the rich temptations of "Help to all" and "Equality" without ever once mentioning specific tactics for the implementation of such deeds, nor specific requirements of countries involved.

My vote for this resolution has been pulled, and I urge everyone who feels strongly about this resolution to speak to their delegates.

OOC:

I think my statement can sum up all the reasons to vote against this so far but I'll post anyway... Oh yes, and I did this in the format of a formal speach so that hopefully anyone who would like to like to hack, slice, and dice it to respond will find it easier to do so....


IC:

Caras Galadon speaks out against the latest UN proposal for vote:

The people of Caras Galadon stand in opposition to the proposal entitled "Increased Access to Medicine." The facts contained in this proposal while both compelling and true are not acted upon. This resolution simply states things that will happen without any form or plan to bring them about. As such this is a completely pointless piece of legislation. This body has shown time and again that it cares for the welfare of all the people of its constituent countries yet its resolutions fall short to its promises in most cases.

This proposal sets a mandate for things that we believe must happen. However, to make them happen we need a proposal for legislature that will set a clear plan with guiding principles so that this goal may be achieved. This legislation does not provide that. We must have a clear and precise goal to be achieved before we can begin to work for it. This proposal does not supply such a goal. We need a clear rallying purpose to make all the constituencies of the United Nations work together to solve our common plights. Caras Galadon is prepared to answer that call and work to provide access to medicine for all the citizens of the United Nations but this cannot be done under the umbrella of such a resolution as this one.

We encourage all United Nations members to oppose this resolution and call for one with a clearly defined goal steps and guidelines to reach it, and the ability to have to far reaching effects that can be produced when we work together. We must send a clear and decisive message to the suffering people of the world that we have not forgotten them and that we all wish for the ability to help them and will not stop until such wishes become reality.

OOC: Oh, and for the cost, I beleive it can be managed through sound fiscal planning and responsible policies in economics. I hope to half the 84% tax rate in my country while maintaining a balanced budget, increasing responsible spending, and maintaining or incresaing the current power-house economic rating...

I voted against this resolution because there's no real meat to the resolution. Honestly -- IT DOES NOTHING. For those who say "it can't do anything bad if it does nothing," you're frankly idiots because I pay my Compliance Ministry and this resolution will create added costs and overheads with NO OBSERVABLE BENEFITS. Vote AGAINST the Increased Access to Medicine resolution! No more useless resolutions!

... and so it goes on. I see no discussion about what is right, just, good, laudable or helpful. Only about money.

Perhaps I was naive in expecting loftier discussion. Perhaps I should have realised that thinking outside the box is limited to fantasy and military things.

Having said that, in real life I would happily pay more tax if it enabled the least able to have access to lifesaving medicines, as we do here in the UK. If nothing else it would remove the need for more profusion of organisations (charities) to rely on goodwill donations and vie against each other for limited funds.

Regardless of what you think is "right or just" you can't FORCE that upon another tax payer. If you want to do what is right, give more to charities instead of trying to force others to do so. Spend more time out there helping others instead of telling people to do so online in a game.

... and so it goes on. I see no discussion about what is right, just, good, laudable or helpful. Only about money.

Perhaps I was naive in expecting loftier discussion. Perhaps I should have realised that thinking outside the box is limited to fantasy and military things.

Having said that, in real life I would happily pay more tax if it enabled the least able to have access to lifesaving medicines, as we do here in the UK. If nothing else it would remove the need for more profusion of organisations (charities) to rely on goodwill donations and vie against each other for limited funds.

What you, and most others fail to realize is the extent of the powers such a vaguely worded resolution would have, and the unintended consequences from merely joining in and voting for this resolution to "help people"

This bill is profoundly flawed in so many ways. Not the least of which is, yes, the economics it's founded on. It is not true that higher drug prices will drive a black market, in fact artificially deflated prices are what drive black markets. If I sell a pill of viagra at $5, and the market demand states that people are willing to pay $100 per pill, then black marketeers will buy ALL of the medicine, and sell it at the market demand price. Therefore this bill is not only flawed in all the aforementioned ways. It will also be impotent, causing no change in drug availability to the poor.

Hey, hey, this proposal isn't so bad. Why not? Because it forces other nations to subsidize my healthcare while I retain control of it. I'm not one to turn down free money, especially when it comes with no strings attached.

This help would go not just go to people within their respective home countries, but would extend to all countries within the United Nations.

... 2. Providing this government supported medicine will happen at GREAT cost to governments. Currently countries who have the government running medicine (mostly socialist countries like Scandanavian ones and also Canada) have taxes that run up to 80%. This would greatly cripple world economies, as is seen in countries in nationstates who have high taxes...


As we recall, the only industrialized RL nation that does not have "the government running medicine" is the United States. Every other Western nation that can afford to do so has universal health insurance policies. If you mean medical research, Canada certainly has private companies working in that field, and was thus a poor example to use (we lack equivalent information on Scandinavian countries, however.) As to high taxes, Sweden, which is a RL welfare state, still has a median income HIGHER than that of the United States, even if the taxes are factored in. In other words, even after taxes, the average Swede earns more than the average U.S. citizen. So high taxes, when they help global development, are often worth it, and don't allways cripple the economy or make life intolerable for the common citizen.

As to NationStates countries with high taxes, they do not allways have poor economies either. Our own nation, the Protectorate of the Planetian Empire, has an average tax rate of 54%, and we still maintain an "All-Consuming" economy. In fact, for a few RL months, until two or three days ago, our economy was rated as "Frightening" (we don't want to talk about it), which is the highest possible rating, and our taxes were not any lower back then. At present, our region of Nova Oceania includes a nation with a total (100%) tax rate which still maintains a Frightening economy. So, once again, in NationStates AND in the real world, high taxes do NOT allways mean a poor economy, and if raising taxes a few percentile points is what is needed to save lives, there is no (economic) reason not to do so.

Office of the Prime Minister

After much consideration the Nation of AlericQuintessence has chosen to oppose this resolution. We take this action in spite of our vehement arguments against the continuing fallacious arguments propogated by the pharmaceutical companies and their advocates.

Our decision is based on the vagueness of this resolution. While its goal is laudable, the adage "the devil is in the details" is very apt here.

This evening we had dinner with our medical advisor, a recently retired physician and emigree to our nation. We discussed the history of medicine for the last thirty years, the effects of drug industry and insurance industry. We discussed the explosive growth of the administrative sector of medicine in the HMO oppressed nation USA and the reduction of both doctors and nurses at the same time.

We discussed the experiences of one our citizens and his experiences with the health care system of England. Despite his furvent support of right wing policies and his long time belief that English socialized medicine was sub-par, he was forced to admit that the care he and his wife has received in England is the best he's ever seen.

We must oppose this resolution and continue to oppose any resolution which attempts to improve our health care system by vague, band-aid solutions.

Our health care problems are solvable but to do so we must reform the entire health care system, not just one sector of it. In order to do this, we must all be willing to do some extra work and study the system and challenge the claims of those both inside and outside the system.

We must find out who is profiting excessively from the suffering of others, where that money is coming from and where it is going. Who can justify a bill of $52,000 for a 96 hr stay at a hospital after a heart attack. That's $542 per HOUR. If a doctor costs $100/hr and nurse costs $50/hr and a room costs $150 a day, then that amount would pay for a doctor and two nurses at your bedside for 96 hrs. That still leaves $32,000 for four DAYS!

Thus, while AlericQuintessence would like to guarantee universal access to food, shelter, education and health care - without a real plan, we can not support this resolution.

If reducing aids, malaria, etc. is the attemp, then there may be an easier, more direct way: UN run research program.

1. first of all, there is no actual cure for malaria, aids, etc. Expecting a profit seeking company to instantly find a cure or two (and not drag out the subsidization) is risky, if not irrational.

2. When the people who are contributing, see where their contributions go, the will be happier (hence, UN run).

3. Once cures are found, distribution can then be disscussed.

---

There is also a hypocritical point in the bill. It suggests that some countries have high populations and are poor, thus they cannot afford the medicine distibutions. If a country is large enough, then it can fall back in some areas of funding to accell in other areas. I oppose.

Well, I read all of the views posted so far. I must say that it seems to be split down the middle. More or less. I must agree with the need for revision. I think that something like this should be used indepenently amoung each nation because lets face it. Not all nations get along. Noone wants to be paying for someone else. I think that perhaps there should be an overall percentage that everyone could more or less agree on instead of everyone choosing a different number. Or perhaps base it on the nations total amount of funds income ect. I am undecided on what to choose with this and right now will stay at that position. However I encourage everyone to read it thoroughly. And who knows, mabye this will be one of the few suggestions to actually fail.
Oh and if many have failed before, I dont know I'm kinda new here.

About as substantiative as a cloud. Anyone who votes for or against this is voting for or against an idea, not much more than that. It's ridiculous.

Each Nation posseses the capacity to interpert the results of the resolution as they see fit. It does not specify HOW we must act to fulfill the resolution. My vote is for the resolution as I believe it is the Government's responsibility to ensure the welfare of its people. In return, the people are to support the government and follow its laws to the letter and preserve the unity of the nation. However, Nations should do this independently and not rely on other nations if at all possible. I will not be assisting any other nations with their medicine.

Yours,
Maestro Proteus
Progenitor and Caretaker of the Commonwealth of the Pure Existence

Just look at the different nations in nationstates, in general nations with good economies have low taxes and those with poor economies have higher taxes.

Check my region, and see who has the best economy. Now check to see whose taxes are the highest. Frightening at 88% goes against your logic.

We in The UVS stand against sending money for medicine and the like out of The Union where we need it for our own health care for our own people!

"... and so it goes on. I see no discussion about what is right, just, good, laudable or helpful. Only about money."

What many "loftier" people fail to realize is that money is not real. It is an abstract tool that humans created to serve a purpose. Money acts as a measure and indicator of what people want and the best way to produce it. Money acts as a guide for the market leading it to the highest efficiency possible and efficiency allows markets to provide larger quantities and qualities of goods at lower prices. My reliance on issues of money is driven not out of greed (as leader of my country I already get the best healthcare and if I wanted to I could act as a corrupt dictator and just take as much money as I want) but out of a desire to see the market work efficiently so that healthcare can be provided to as many people as possible.

Being willing to pay higher taxes for healthcare is all well and good but that does not mean that you should just blindly adopt any healthcare policy without considering whether the policy actually works. If you want to pay higher taxes fine, but spend your money on something that does what you want it to do.

Sadly, all this talk is getting us nowhere; this badly thought out resolution looks set to pass as more nations foolishly give their support to it.

I understand all of the arguments given for and against this resolution. However, I have seen very few resolutions presented that were not flawed in terms of details, implimentation and funding. In the RL world you have legislative counsel that help in the drafting of introduced legislation to provide these needed details. Here, we do the best that we can.

Medical care is something that all people need. Although living in the RL United States, I resent the fact that we do not follow the lead of most nations in the civilized world in not having universal health care for our citizens. One of the most tragic pictures is that of many of the elderly who, having limited income, have to often forego needed medication in favor of housing and food. So many of them fall between the cracks of having to much income to get "free" or subsidized care and not enough to provide the cost of needed medical care. Even now, the recent changes will help the Drug companies more than it will help the elderly (read it, people!). Many of them will again "fall between the cracks."

Sugar Bear

Nationalist Pacifica voted against this resolution. Socialized medicine brings lacking innovation in new medicine for new diseases. There is less profit interest for the healthcare industry, therefore less new drugs are created. We also refuse to raise taxes on our free-market, rich citizens who currently enjoy 1-5% marginal tax rates.

Finance Minister Frank

Petition the larger regions for their UN delegate support in defeating this resolution.
It's unclear, unnecessary, and punitive to nations such as our own.
If any nation needed additional medicines, there are enough benevolent nations in the world to come to their aid. Take a look at any recent calamity that has befallen an area. Money and aid comes in abundance!
Petition the larger regions for their UN delegate support.
VOTE NO.

While I agree fuller reforms are needed,we have to start somewhere,so I've voted yes...

Sadly, all this talk is getting us nowhere; this badly thought out resolution looks set to pass as more nations foolishly give their support to it.

I too have accepted this and, unfortunately, given up...

Bearbrass has some reservations about the resolution, but will vote for it.

As others have said, the resolution is not well written. It is not clear precisely what burden it imposes on member states. However, it seems clear enough that it is intended to require member states to devote additional resources to medicine, with at least partly thhe aim of assisting other states, and that there is some discretion as to how this is done.

This is a valid issue for the United Nations to intervene in, since healthcare is an issue that has repercussions beyond the boundaries of individual states. All nations have a collective responsibility to assist in alleviating disease throughout the world, either from a simple desire to alleviate suffering, or out of self interest (ie stop the spread of disease across borders). The spread of SARS from China to neighbouring countries is a real-life example.

The concept of giving states some discretion in how they implement the proposal is a good one, since in many cases it allows individual states to take action without compromising their ideology.

never vote for this!!! Vote against it now!!!!!

[quote="MagdelenaWhat many "loftier" people fail to realize is that money is not real.[/quote]

For soemthing that's not real, a hell of a lot of people kill and die for it and because of it!

"For soemthing that's not real, a hell of a lot of people kill and die for it and because of it!"

Sure they do, but it's not the money they are killing for. It is the items, both necessities and luxuries, that the money represents that they kill for. That is why I say money is not real. It is an abstract representation of materials and the value of those materials. Find a form of money that is no longer accepted as a legitimate form of currency, and therefore cannot be exchanged for anything, and you will find very few people killing over it. The rest of my previous argument still holds.

ok well..yes teh new resoluting will take a huge bite out of the economy but the fact is we need medical bills to go down..to decrease the price of medicines and make them more available.....take america for exemple, it haas teh highest medical prices in the world and it ends up using up even mor emoney on welfare programs to ppl that cannt buy the medicine themsleves.......if prices a lowered there progrmas will nto be required as frequently and it will save a lot of mopney htat can go and support the economy...

For those who have voted for this resolution (or at least those who have posted), you are mislead on what might actually happen. Put simply: if you want universal health care, then propose universal health care. Do not propose a roundabout, "incentive" system.

This is bullshit resolution of left-wing govarments that read to much Karl Marx and his Capital. Because of this resolution I am thinking of leaving UN. :evil: :x

Goodby UN and all the left-wings

I'm with you, my vote is against, and if it's still leading tonight, Kilroytopia is resigning the U.N.

I SUPPORT this resolution. Each nation just needs to put in a little of money. Come on, I think WE ALL can afford to lose a million or two. Or is everyone so greedy about their money that they don't care about the little person? If I lose a million just so a kid in poverty can have the proper medical attention he/she needs then I'll do it. SAY YES TO MEDICATION!

I see the problem. I am torn between altruism and selfishness. Seeing as I am a small country...I have small resourses. I may decide to change my vote.

Currently countries who have the government running medicine (mostly socialist countries like Scandanavian ones and also Canada) have taxes that run up to 80%. This would greatly cripple world economies, as is seen in countries in nationstates who have high taxes


Next time, I will ask a Resolution against ignorance.
:shock: :lol: :twisted:

I'm with you, my vote is against, and if it's still leading tonight, Kilroytopia is resigning the U.N.

Oh don't be so touchy. :) This is not nearly as socialistic as some other resoluations have been. Come on, hang around and fight; be a back-bencher.

Dovaan how could you vote aganist this? Don't you belive in equal medicare coverage? Why tell me why in plain english.

I wouldn't mind stupid proposals as much if they didn't get the widespread approval of almost everyone, all the time. I can only come to the conclusion that the UN is largely a united group of idiots, or perhaps just short-sighted fools. Either way, the door is hitting me on the ass on my way out.

I wouldn't mind stupid proposals as much if they didn't get the widespread approval of almost everyone, all the time. I can only come to the conclusion that the UN is largely a united group of idiots, or perhaps just short-sighted fools. Either way, the door is hitting me on the ass on my way out.
I agree :twisted: :D

Rather than spending money on medicine for people why can't we just buy cars and other luxuries with the money instead?

I'm not in U.N., but seriously, medicare for EVERYONE? We're overpopulated! We NEED more people dying in Naori evey year! That's why we don';'t equip our army well: we need to cut the surplus population.