NationStates Jolt Archive

Please take the time to read my case. While I may appear to be going against the 'obvious right choise', there are loopholes in the current proposal that have serious reprocussions for any nation.

The current policy is vague in it's definition of "mentally ill". By the current legislature, people who are CAPABLE of work, but unwilling, could be on the recieving end of welfare. Also people who would get better with treatment may choose not to do so in order to recieve welfare.

It is also vague in its definition of 'basic services'. What services? Who will pay for them?

This is a major problem for most nations. This bill needs to be clarified, but it cannot be clarified if it is passed. Please vote against so that it can be clarified and then re-submitted.

By voting against this issue, you are NOT endorsing it's opposite. If this measure does not pass, you are still free to enact whatever fair treatment policies in your own country that you see fit.

I have chosen to make this a new topic, because no matter how many times I say it people seem to 'skip' my posts because they do not want to read through four pages of debate.

----------------------------
Phineous Oakhurst
New Eriu's Delegate to the United Nations

It seems that very few countries think through their resolutions, even fewer take advice on changing them, and the sheep countries will follow whoever sounds coolest!!! :roll:

I for one think your correct about this resolution, because when I read it I was unsure about half the stuff they would pass, and i dont really want to vote for something when I really dont know what it is going to do for the people of my country.

Indeed, there seems to be a misconception in NS that to vote against a resolution is to be against its basic premise.

The Commonwealth of Hoydonia will most likely not accept the current proposal for some ofthe reasons detailed by New Eriu.

We have our own functioning system in place.

The current policy is vague in it's definition of "mentally ill". By the current legislature, people who are CAPABLE of work, but unwilling, could be on the recieving end of welfare. Also people who would get better with treatment may choose not to do so in order to recieve welfare.

This is how the resolution defines mentally ill:

A mental illness is defined as a psychiatric disorder that results in a disruption in a person's thinking, feeling, moods, and ability to relate to others.

Please, an explanation as to how being lazy and unemployed counts as a psychiatric disorder (N.B. the bit about "results in a disruption in..." does not mean that a disruption to moods alone counts as a mental illness, it means that only psychiatric disorders that have one or more of those specific effects are covered).

It is also vague in its definition of 'basic services'. What services? Who will pay for them?

As to payment, that is something for each nation to decide for themselves - allowing them to fund it through income tax, or corporate taxes, or some other method that I can't think if, but I'm sure somebody will want to use (perhaps a capitalist opposed to taxation would find some clever way to deal with it). I reckon its only necessary (or even desirable) to specify where money should come from if it's an international programme. Since this is domestic, funding should be left up to individual nations.

Basic services would need to be defined according to each country's situation (e.g. in a very poor country, it would be impractical to demand the same level of provision as in a rich Western nation). With this kind of thing, because the UN enforces its resolutions (they are inescapable), it is implicit that the UN will ensure that each nation has a sensible definition of basic services.

A mental illness is defined as a psychiatric disorder that results in a disruption in a person's thinking, feeling, moods, and ability to relate to others.

Please, an explanation as to how being lazy and unemployed counts as a psychiatric disorder.

I wasn't talkign bout lazyness.

http://www.crescentlife.com/disorders/psychdisorders.htm

You'll notice addiction to gambling is a psych disorder (at least according to this page) as is kleptomania. should these types of people be on welfare?

A more 'scientific' site; http://www.mentalhealth.com/p20-grp.html

Schizoid and Avoidant are two Psychiatric disorders that do not interfere with a person's ability to work, but they do interfere with the ability to relate to others. Should they really be on welfare when they have the ability to support themselves?

I simply feel that it needs a clearer definition of who should be the recipient of the welfare and who should not.