NationStates Jolt Archive

Should governments provide health care for their people, instead of denying access to the poor because they can't afford private care?

Question: are you considering making a resolution to address this? If so, allow me to point out the following passed resolutions:Required Basic Healthcare
'RBH' Replacement
Global AIDS Initiative
No Embargoes on Medicine
Increased Access to Medicine
Fair Treatment of Mentally-IllAll of these resolutions provide at least some aspect of required healthcare which is mandatory for all UN nations. Do you see a need for additional mandatory international intervention in national affairs? If so, we're against you, tooth and nail. If not, why are you bringing it up here?

Go spend your own tax dollars how you will, and leave ours out of it.

I want to gauge the general opinion of a public health service among nations, but yes I do have a proposal in mind.

A proposal to prevent any future leglislation from forcing privatisation of health services or diminishing access to health care. At the moment it is quite possible for someone to introduce a resolution that'd force all health care programmes to open up to the free market.

I want to gauge the general opinion of a public health service among nations, but yes I do have a proposal in mind.

A proposal to prevent any future leglislation from forcing privatisation of health services or diminishing access to health care. At the moment it is quite possible for someone to introduce a resolution that'd force all health care programmes to open up to the free market.

No offense is meant to the orator from Beaumontia, but the nation of Sophista has no desire to make the United Nations any more of a bureaucracy than it already is. A good way to do that is to cut back on repetative legislation, so we urge you to take the most extreme caution with the topic you're choosing to cover in your proposal.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Any moral individual will, of course, select the third option in the poll above.

High talk of morals; i wonder if you have ever experienced the 'moral' practices of a privatised healthcare system? I have, my nation will not endure payrises over lifesaving, and we will never tolerate a system based on economic sovereignty over public well-being. In private systems, elderly people are overlooked and children are relegated. This is not a moral system at all.

There is nothing moral about forcing one person to subsidize the health care of another whether he wants to or not--that's called "slavery".

Any moral individual will, of course, select the third option in the poll above.

I consider the reduction of suffering and the saving of life the highest moral goal.

Hence, I selected the second (because I'm also a realist).

At the expense of individual rights? How despicable!

At the expense of individual rights? How despicable!

In your mind. I consider it more despicable to let people die because of lack of money.

If people are so horribly affected by (horror of horrors!) saving their neighbor's lives, they can get the hell out of the country. America would be much improved.

By what right do you claim the property of others? Is it the right of a slavemaster or a murderer?

By what right do you claim the property of others? Is it the right of a slavemaster or a murderer?

The right of the social contract they accept by accepting citizenship. They are free to renounce at any time and establish a new country in which their fellow citizens die due to the lack of compassion- or worth- of the people who could gladly

Property and money are useful and necessary only so long as they preserve and enhance life.

The difference between you and I is that I understand what that means.

As for your "social contract" fallacy, I'll explain why that's retarded after I've had a chance to sleep.

Ithuania, how many times....

Just because somebody disagrees with you does not make them retarded, stupid or ignorant. Even if, as you seem to believe, there is only one objective morality, how do you know that you're following it? No human is infallible, and we can all be wrong without being mentally deficient.

According to my system of morals, protecting human life is more important than property rights. Can you prove that this is universally and naturally wrong, or is it just your opinion?

The Community of Ecopoeia eagerly awaits Ithuania's impending piece of devastating rational analysis that will expose the fallacies of our and other nations' core beliefs. The possibility that they may actually provide some evidence of rational thinking coupled with diligent research to back up ther strident statements leaves us moist with excitement, ooh yes.

As for the proposal itself, we will not allow our health service to be subject to the whims of private enterprise. Unless Ithuania persuades us otherwise, of course.

The politically correct and excrutiatingly worded nation of Berkylvania would like to offer the following definition from Hyperdictionary.com:

Morals: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

Therefore, Ithuania, you are correct that a "moral" nation would choose number three. Unfortunately for your argument, a "moral" nation might equally choose one or two as you never specified the specifics of morality.

Thus, with complete and utter morality, the nation of Berkylvania righteously chooses option number 2 and suggests that if any sort of state sponsored health care chaps your hide, Ithuania, perhaps you should look into using the recently passed Euthanasia legislation as a justification for the wholesale slaughter of the sick and infirm.

Option 2 is an option where there is some level of protection for the poor in society.

While I support and enjoy the benefits of a public health service, nations that do not have public health services would find providing coverage for the poor a more viable alternative to nationalising health care.

The vote has gone more or less as I'd expect with a roughly 4:1:2 split between the 3 options.

The purpose of any possible resolution would be to protect all nations from having to open up their health services to private health care providers. This does not enforce nationalisation, or even providing insurance for all, on nations who believe in option 3 of the poll.

However nations with full publically funded health care are coming under increasing attack, private enterprises are asking governments to rethink their commitments to providing health care services. This is in the hope that they can bring out privatisation of health care and expand their market. Who'd lose out? Those who cannot afford to pay!

The Holy Republic wishes to ensure that can never happen, however we are aware of the need to avoid encumbering the UN with needless leglislation.

Perhaps a general proposal protecting all nationalised industries (power companies for example or water) from enforced privatisation would be a viable alternative.

Should governments provide health care for their people, instead of denying access to the poor because they can't afford private care?

The Soviet Delegate For Public health points out that a proposal such as this very much depends on the individual nation concerned. It is fairly obvious that stateswomen and men who answer 'yes' will have such measures implemented and those who answer 'no' will not. We worry not only for the soverignty of nations but also for the very real possiblity that if such a proposal was to become law, then at some point that same law may one day find itself overturned leaving those who freely chose to implement public healthcare (such as we) will be forced to remove it.

If the good people of Beaumontia just wish to chew the fat over the issue, then we would ask them to perhaps examine the possibilty of taking the issue to the speakers corner commonly known as the 'general forum'.

The people of _Myopia_ are also eagerly awaiting Ithuania's philosophical coup, which may surpass the achievements of philosophers down the ages. Absolute proof of an objective, universal morality which holds to anarcho-capitalism would be something which would cause serious moral and political adjustment in our nation.

To the prospect of a proposal which would say "you can't make proposals to privatise by force", I'd point out that this would be A pointless, as people will make such proposals anyway, B game mechanics, as to enforce it would require the mods to change their approach to what proposals are acceptable, and C undemocratic, because legislating on future legislation is always dangerous (even constitutions are open to amendment). Also D it would change nothing, as the current situation is that the nations may privatise or nationalise industries by choice anyway.

The YID Army has no welfare state. The individual is required to provide his or her own insurance cover to pay for healthcare. Failure to take insurance precautions and thus the inability to pay would result in no treatment.

Due to the fact we have no welfare state the YID ARMY has not put in place previous UN motions on healthcare.

Minister Reed
HOSPITAL CO
YID ARMY'S Largest Hospital Chain and Official Spokesperson for Healthcare of the Yid Army governemnt.

There should always be some publicly funded means of healthcare (example: sick orphans without means of income, and no Mr. Scrooge, there are no poorhouses...); however, I do not believe forming a UN proposal forcing nations into a publicly funded hospital and medical wage system sponsored entirely by the tax money of a national government is such a wise idea. First, you are dictating too much in the way of member nations' tax policy and; second, you'll lose all Capitalist backing of the UN as an entity.

I like their quirky and misguided arguements around, so let's not do anything to make them take their ball and go home.

In response to Topless Polecats: I believe that the intention was simply for a resolution to *prevent* the forced intervention of capitalism into state-owned enterprises in the name of "commercial freedom". If I understand the author's intention correctly, the aim was not to force nationalised healthcare on those misguided nations with a private system, despite its concrete and obvious superiority in delivering efficient and cheap health care to all.

In response to Ithuania...the free peoples of East Hackney are still waiting for his crushing refutation of the social contract. *dons Samuel Beckett hat*

[pause]
He said he would come, but he hasn't.
[pause]
Do you think he's forgotten?
[pause]
Maybe he had something more important to do, like proving that black is white or that 2+2=5.
[pause]
Shall we bother waiting for him?
[pause]
No, it's not worthwhile now. Let's go and get drunk at the disarmament summit.
(Exit stage right, pursued by a bear)
(Waiting for Ithuania, Act 1, Scene 2)

Due to the fact we have no welfare state the YID ARMY has not put in place previous UN motions on healthcare.

Sorry, not possible. The game works so that resolutions are automatically enacted in member states, and there's no way to stop it unless you find a loophole.

And we're still waiting for the philosophical coup. Three days now. Maybe he's trying to create an air of suspense.

A soft breeze sighs through the empty corridors of the United Nations Headquarters. Tumbleweed bobs along, lazily following the direction of the wind. Ghosts of delegates past pass into view, bemoaning their failed legislation. And then...could it be? Ithuania? My goodness - no, false alarm. Just dancing shadows casting spells on weary minds.

We're still waiting...

The healthcare resolutions were passed before we entered the UN so in my opinion its a grey area as to if we have to enact it in lesiglation or not. If we really have to then we will. However it just so happens that my latest issue is on healthcare and to appease the socialist loving Nanny State that is the UN The Yid Army is putting in place very basic healthcare for its poorest citizens. This will provide free GP access but perscriptions will be charged for at 7.90 YIDS and any further treatment / operations charged for at usual rates.

The healthcare resolutions were passed before we entered the UN so in my opinion its a grey area as to if we have to enact it in lesiglation or not. If we really have to then we will. However it just so happens that my latest issue is on healthcare and to appease the socialist loving Nanny State that is the UN The Yid Army is putting in place very basic healthcare for its poorest citizens. This will provide free GP access but perscriptions will be charged for at 7.90 YIDS and any further treatment / operations charged for at usual rates.

However if the UN forces free healthcare onto my nation, at huge cost, the the Yid Army, along with thousands of other capitilist countries will leave the UN for good.

The UN lesiglation should be for international matters NOT internal affairs such as healthcare.

The difference between you and I is that I understand what that means.

As for your "social contract" fallacy, I'll explain why that's retarded after I've had a chance to sleep.


People who belong to the American right such as yourself (I assume) often use words like "idiot" and "retard" to cover for intellectual shorfallings on their behalf, like Bill O' Reilly for example.

By what right do I claim the property of others? By the right of the democratic and constitutional processes that legitimise a governments' right to do so in that it reflects the will of the people and is its chosen body. Democracy involves some negation of the freedoms you argue for in favour of other ideals and goals which are equally valued.

I figure this means that Ithuania isn't coming back anytime soon.

I am glad to that the yes option is winning. :wink:

Hi, I'm John Marat and I like to think of myself as being very much like early morning radio. Because I'm cheery and I get you up in the morning. Now, let's take a moment to really express ourselves over this ok? Now, as our delegate for public health, Robbie Spear pointed out, Albion has a publically funded National Health Service so the principle of public healthcare is okay with us, okay?

But we would kinda have some questions: let's take a country that spent all its money on weapons. Now, yes, yes, think of the children. Now this country, they spent all their money on weapons and they say 'but I can't implement the proposal, look at oue economy, its basket case!' Okay? So what do we do? Do we a) Kick them out of the UN? Ahh well we kinda can't. Do we donate money? Well there's never a gurantee that other nations will do that. Do we levy a UN wide tax? I'm afraid that would be problematic because you see, there was a resolution passed which kinda bans the UN for taxing citizens.

Do we go to war with them? Now I know that sounds silly but you see, a resolution has to be enforced somehow, Now, of course, they all do. But come on, some need more stick than carrot, and frankly, this one looks like a big lot of stick, okay?

Or do we start doing the nation's budgeting for them? Well you see that kinda crosses the sovreignty line there you see. Then you would be talking about plans to slash this or that program and if another program happened to be pensions or welfare for the sick, then you haven't really improved the health of that nation.

Now let's talk stability. You know how many nations in the UN would resign? No? Damn, I was hoping someone would. it would be a few anyway. And if it happened to be rich countries that did resign and decided not to trade with UN countries? Ouch, that's bad. That's very bad you see because that would put a big dent in public health care funding. Now, hospitals. Let's say we enforce this resolution in a country that only has private healthcare. That could mean either buidling new hosipitals, or trying to buy out the private ones. Now that's costly. If a nation can afford it at all, it could still be years in some cases before anyone is treated on this new scheme. And what would we do with private healthcare companies? Ban them? Tolerate them? Compensate them for loss of earnings? Try and bring them into the national health service fold? hell I don't know! We worked things out here but we're one nation, not many many hundreds!

See, someone has to work all this out and if this is at a UN wide level then that's a big job, a lotta accountants and diplomats, meetings and dinners and reports and that all costs money and could drag on for months. Of course, as UN spokespeople, we'll be living off champaigne and vol au vonts through the whole "working out" process, but I kinda think that some of our people won't approve.

So uhh...yeah. Here at Albion we're kind of open but we're kinda not about this okay? Okay let's focus our chi.

You've been great, I've been John Marat, thanks for listening. ^_^