NationStates Jolt Archive

I've re-submitted the repeal to Required Basic Healthcare. The repeal is intended to both clarify what the UN is enforcing (in relation to "RBH Replacement") and to make game mechanics more easily understood (ie. with fewer exception from early resolutions) in general. Also, as it is the will of the UN (as per the RBH Replacement) that a repeal-like function occur for "Required Basic Healthcare". Now that we have repeals available, I feel it a duty to enact it on "Required Basic Healthcare".

If you don't know what I'm talking about, both resolutions are here. Look at clause 1 (and 2, to a certain degree) of "RBH Replacement". It is clear that a 9,151 majority of the voters felt that "Required Basic Healthcare" should be made but a "reference document".

Link updated for Saturday

Here's a link to my repeal proposal for today (Saturday) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/01626/page=UN_proposal)



Argument: The United Nations,

CALLING TO MIND the passage of “Required Basic Healthcare” from June 5, 2003 and its presumed ‘replacement’, “’RBH’ Replacement” from June 26, 2003,

RECOGNIZING “Required Basic Healthcare” as a valuable reference document, though outdated in its methods of delivery, as conceded by “RBH Replacement”,

RECOGNIZING FURTHER the UN’s decision that “Required Basic Healthcare” not be enforced, as per clause 1 of “’RBH’ Replacement” which states, “[t]he resolution “Required Basic Healthcare” is to be no longer enforced by the UN”,

NOTING the possible confusion to member nations over which resolution to enforce given the lack of the ‘repeal mechanic’ at the time of passage for “Required Basic Healthcare” and “RBH Replacement”,

NOTING FURTHER other older, poorly-worded resolutions or sets of resolutions which came about prior to the ability to repeal and CALLING for repeals to all such resolutions in order to clarify the international law imposed on member nations by the UN,

AIMING to make easily understandable the UN’s enforcement regarding healthcare,

DETERMINING it a clerical and technical necessity to repeal “Required Basic Healthcare”, as well as a required measure to elevate the nature of legislation in the UN:

REPEALS “Required Basic Healthcare”.


Please approve this. It's for the good of the UN.

You may want to close the URL tag in your post.

Good work, PC. :)

You may want to close the URL tag in your post.


Ah, thanks. I missed that.

Link updated for Thursday

Here's a link to my repeal proposal for today (Thursday) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/81058/page=UN_proposal/start=50)

Please approve the repeal if you haven't already.

Thank you for your time,

PC

i would support it. the biggest problem you will come across, which almost the sunk the education for all repeal and sunk the diplomatic immunity one (ioho), is those that look at the title and go no, without reading the contents. good luck anyway

i would support it. the biggest problem you will come across, which almost the sunk the education for all repeal and sunk the diplomatic immunity one (ioho), is those that look at the title and go no, without reading the contents. good luck anyway

Yeah, I know. But I have a plan to fight that: (1) a telegram information campaign to those delegates voting against the repeal (to weed out those that truly feel against and those that just misunderstand), and (2) likely support from the pacific regions (as I've learned that they decide, almost entirely, the fate of repeals). I think with a large enough slice of those pies I can scrape together over 50%.

Link updated for Saturday

Here's a link to my repeal proposal for today (Saturday) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/01626/page=UN_proposal)

It's on the first page with only 24 approvals yet to go! Please approve it!

Thank you for your time,

Powerhungry Chipmunks

I don't think your object is visible. I fear being manipulated.

Do you want more or less health care?

I don't think your object is visible. I fear being manipulated.

Do you want more or less health care?
Actually the resolution in question has been replaced by RBH Replacement, so this repeal is intended to eliminiate redundancy.

I don't think your object is visible. I fear being manipulated.

Do you want more or less health care?

I don't want anything but clarity and simplicity in what the UN enforces in its member nations and the execution of the will of the UN. "Required Basic Healthcare" (RBH) has already been replaced (as Flibbleites has pointed out) by "'RBH' Replacement", which says that RBH is to be a "reference document" only--RBH is not in effect. Repealing RBH makes it easier for new members to understand what the UN actually enforces, and performs the technical necessity of repealing an already replaced resolution (since the modern UN rules make you repeal then replace a resolution--no replacements/ammendments allowed) as is shown to be the will of the UN through "'RBH' Replacement".

Oh, and only 10 more approvals to go now.

Quorum! *Woot!*

I dearly thank all those that have supported this repeal, from the first time it was submitted a few months ago, last week and this week as well.

I thank most heartily all the delegates that have approved this repeal proposal and have put up with my telegrams.

Thank you all. I hope we receive just as much support when it comes to vote.

Good job Powerhungry Chipmunks. Now to try and get this to pass.

:mad:

Would you kindly explain in simple common tounge what exactly you are trying to pass here...

And is this gonna cost my taxpayers more or less money

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

We are saying that we want to get rid of red tape, which will end up saving your nation money.

The resolution we want to get rid of has been replaced, but as we didn't have a repeal option at the time we couldn't get rid of it.

It seems logical. Fatus Maximus is always in favor of keeping things easy. Unless someone has an EXTREMELY good argument against it, we'll vote for it.

Dempsey Pomerantz believes that many nations are confused as to whether the resolution in question is still in effect. Could a UN member clarify this?

This resolution confuses me , but it seems that it is an attempt to declare that healthcare should NOT be mandatory in all nations?

Dempsey Pomerantz believes that many nations are confused as to whether the resolution in question is still in effect. Could a UN member clarify this?

That's why I proposed the repeal, to clear up this question.

Is RBH in effect? It depends on who you ask. Some think that the RBH Replacement actually did make Required Basic Healthcare "not in effect". However, there are also those that believe that without a proper repeal the resolution will always be in effect.

With a proper repeal, we perform the house-cleaning that the UN designed to do long ago. There are other resolutions long outdatedor unclear as to effect that need to be repealed (such as "Gay Rights", "Legalize Euthanasia", and "Scientific Freedom").

This resolution confuses me , but it seems that it is an attempt to declare that healthcare should NOT be mandatory in all nations?

All it does is declare the later, more modern, democratically agreed upon replacement of "Required Basic Healthcare" (which is novelly called "'RBH' Replacement", passed just a couple of weeks after the original Required Basic Healthcare) as the resolution UN members need to enforce.

With greetings to fellow NationStates,

We note the clever and tactical citation of the grounds for this new resolution being clerical and administrative. We believe its the tactic of encouraging a repeal for clerical reasons will probably enable it to pass without a real debate developing on the issues it concerns. This is unfortunate.

After hearing the expert opinions of the Social Affairs- and Health Ministry and the Foreign Ministry, and several hours of debate, the Borgoan national diet has advised its UN delegate to vote AGAINST this repeal resolution.

We voted AGAINST because whilst it has its weaknesses, we believe in the ideals of the original RBH resolution more than the RBH Replacement resolution. As a social democracy, we believe that the RBH resolution's provisions are the necessary bare minimums of healthcare coverage that a land should provide for its citizens.

The Borgoan government would in fact prefer to support a "Repeal RBH Replacement" resolution. Should the present resolution fail to pass we will indeed propose one.

Foreign Minister
Nordic Democratic Republic of Borgoa
UN Delegate of the Scandinavia region

I registered a very strong AGAINST vote on "'RBH' Replacement" on the grounds that it was a backdoor repeal of "Required Basic Healthcare", a resolution that I supported. However, I am generally in favor of reducing United Nations bureaucracy, and as such cannot in good faith vote against this. Therefore, I abstain.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

I registered a very strong AGAINST vote on "'RBH' Replacement" on the grounds that it was a backdoor repeal of "Required Basic Healthcare", a resolution that I supported. However, I am generally in favor of reducing United Nations bureaucracy, and as such cannot in good faith vote against this. Therefore, I abstain.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Your Lordship,

I emplore you and nations with similar thoughts to vote against this resolution. As above, should we suceed in defeating this resolution, the Borgoan Foreign Ministry will propose a resolution to repeal "RBH Replacement'.

Foreign Minister of the Nordic Democratic Republic of Borgoa

Arakaria claims that this repeal is a step in good direction. Therefore we cast our vote.

Vote: YEA

And in other news...
Blessed Elect Jan Kras accepts recently elected People's Council. In agreement with Liberal-Democratic Party he promised to activly adjust personal freedoms of Arakarian citizens.

Your Lordship,

I emplore you and nations with similar thoughts to vote against this resolution. As above, should we suceed in defeating this resolution, the Borgoan Foreign Ministry will propose a resolution to repeal "RBH Replacement'.

Foreign Minister of the Nordic Democratic Republic of Borgoa

Campaign as you will.

I still think it's best that the replacement, already agreed upon by the UN as a better version, be kept and the original be repealed.

I registered strongly AGAINST vote on 'RBH' Replacement :sniper:

Is not this game to ran my own nation the way I want, 'RBH' Replacement and all others of this nature should be up to the leader of the nation if it means 100% so be it. Best thing to do is just worry about better thing as that UN the word "required" is something I am willing to go to war for.

I registered strongly AGAINST vote on 'RBH' Replacement You DO realize that RBH Replacement has BEEN the law since Jun 26 2003, and that this repeal IN NO WAY acts on its validity or continuing existence .... Right?

:p
OK, This resolution will take a little less socialism out of the UN....well all I can say is


Let's do it!!!!!!!!!

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

:gundge: :confused: I don't know what to vote for because I don't know what this thing is saying. The proposal should say something in English for everybody to understand. I don't know if it is saying no or saying yes to this thing :headbang: it is really frusturating if you don't know what you are trying to pass. Geeze people

I advise that future proposals of this nature are put forward by moderators who clarify it's a non-political technicality to remove bureaucratic waste..

THIS PROPOSAL should have been more transparent but I advise to support it.

This is a hellishly confusing way to simplify a hellishly confusing pair of resolutions. I personally think it does nothing more than add a third double take, and you already know my stance on bureacratic failsafes. I'll let the vote go to my region, but you'll probably see an against.

I have voted for this Resolution. Spring cleaning has come for the UN, and it's about time it did.

I'm with Pojonia -- the region will decide what side to vote for.

Personally, I couldn't care less which side it goes, as this repeal is for a resolution WAY before my day...

Campaign as you will.

I still think it's best that the replacement, already agreed upon by the UN as a better version, be kept and the original be repealed.

But the UN also passed the original resolution. The UN is a fickle body at times, we believe in appealing to positive aspirations rather than the negative. This is why we take our position.

Foreign Ministry spokesman

:confused: I voted for the resolution, but I dont know all of its effects. could someone explain it to me?
send the explain to feastguy101@yahoo.com

The representative from the Holy Empire of Everlasting Suffering wants to know how much time the UN intends to spend undoing previous bureaucratic tangles rather than trying to pass new resolutions?

The representative from the Holy Empire of Everlasting Suffering wants to know how much time the UN intends to spend undoing previous bureaucratic tangles rather than trying to pass new resolutions?

The UN is you. So when are you going to start?

Anyway, I will let my region decide how to vote on this resolution. Personally, I don't care either way as the effects are zero anyway.

Well yes but we've only just joined and were wondering about the effectiveness of this frankly Kafkaesque body if it intends to spend its time undoing what it did before.

As we people of this earth are created by God as his resemblance we must endorse the fact of the good as naturally immanent of the human kind, therefore we should stay as one against all atempts of the burocracy to gain power and controll over The People as simply WASTE OF ENERGY!!!

I read this resolution carefully and am voting for it. Though I would love to see more "Social Justice" resolutions, this is really too confusing...

I think it IS time, however, to stop cleaning up, and start building new resolutions.

Vohteria out--

I would love to see more "Social Justice" resolutions


Endorsing "Social Justice" resolutions is just doubting in Your people sanity... isn't it??

I read this resolution carefully and am voting for it. Though I would love to see more "Social Justice" resolutions, this is really too confusing...

I think it IS time, however, to stop cleaning up, and start building new resolutions.

Vohteria out--

the last 4 resolutions up for vote werent repeals (and possibly more than 4, but wouldnt know for sure). So the UN is still building.

Well yes but we've only just joined and were wondering about the effectiveness of this frankly Kafkaesque body if it intends to spend its time undoing what it did before.
Anyone who thinks lawmakers shouldn't spend time disassembling laws and removing outdated material is defaulting to a "big government, never wrong" position. We find nothing surreally distorted about the concept of limiting government. We're entirely in favor of the repeals process, and have a much stronger process for ourselves.

The Frisbeeterian legistative bodies are bicameral. The Legislative Council deliberates new law, which must pass by a two-thirds majority; and the Sunset Commission studies existing law, which can be expunged by a mere 40% vote in favor. Less law is better law in Frisbeeteria, and we're delighted to see the UN working in the same fashion. We'd even consider rejoining if a half-dozen of the most restrictive resolutions were repealed.

It's been a long journey but I've finally travelled all the way from the Tolkien-verse to the NSUN-iverse.

And I really don't know what the bother is all about. With the exception of worlds in which one minus one does not equal zero, this is a positive proposal. At least some people gain and nobody loses.

Can't say fairer than that.

So if you don't mind, I've got people to serve in my bar and will be casting my vote in favour of this fiendishly simple resolution :rolleyes:

I just looked over both documents and see that the required basic healthcare is a null document since RBH replacement however Required basic health care seems to be a more clearly defined document, with definition and statute. It makes me wonder why RBH replacement is not the one up for dissolution especially considering Required basic care seems to be a limited subsidy proposal that would definatly lower taxes, wouldnt it?

Allemande supports this resolution. We would actually support the repeal of the substitute resolution, too - on the grounds that the level of health care a nation provides its citizens and the mechanism for doing so are matters that should be left to the Members - but in the interim a reduction in the number of overlapping mandates will do, even if it actually reduces health care coverage, which is doubtful.

After all, if our taxes went down, we could actually afford to set up a universal health care system of our own device...

Allemande> After all, if our taxes went down, we could actually afford to set up a universal health care system of our own device...

Unfortunately the ones who need public health care the most are not the ones who can afford to "set up a universal health care system", tax cut or no tax cut.

Greetings to All and Sundry,

The Nation asking for this Repeal is trying to overturn a Universal Health Care Agreement that was voted through by a majority of UN member states way back in June of 2003. They cite other Resolutions as replacements that make this Resolution unnecessary. The RBH Resolution is in many ways an illegal resolution that somehow snuck passed the Moderators. At the time the system had no means of Repealing a Resolution and Resolutions did not have the power to do so. In essence the RBH Resolution is little more than a lie. An expensive lie at that. It should be the Resolution being Repealed and not the one offering Required Basic Healthcare.

My main problems with the original Resolution, “Required Basic Healthcare”, was that it demanded full compliance of a system in place within three months (try doing that in real life with that big a change to your social safety net) and threatened nations with ejection from the UN. Given that compliance is automatic for as long as you are in the UN this sort of language is completely unnecessary.

It is a Resolution that asks only minimal healthcare for societies least able to provide for themselves and is very forgiving of a nation’s economic situation. Yes, it did make being a brutal dictator a bit more difficult when you suddenly had to provide something resembling medical services to some of your citizens, but that’s what happens when you sign on to the UN. In general, even the real UN doesn’t go out of its way to cater to the interests of nasty dictators and rogue nations (in general).

The worse part is the logic. By saying that you are Repealing Required Basic Healthcare you are not only in effect striking it from the books but also the RBH Resolution. This is because the RBH resolution is nothing more than a resolution that limits the Required Basic Healthcare to a study document (you’ve got to wonder how this thing got through the system). Once you remove the Resolution that is the source of the “study document”, in effect you are also removing the study document at the same time.

Grande Elector Bruce

The Green and Pleasant Dominion of The Bruce

I don't think your object is visible. I fear being manipulated.

Do you want more or less health care?

This is a worthy question, but clearly it is a question for each individual nation to decide for themselves, not to be imposed on them by the UNited Nations.

Should everyone in every country have a right to basic health care. What is the country doesn't required it, a person could get badly injured and never have the money to pay for it. Thus, they would never get their injury treated.

Representatives, this has little to do with health care and more to do with removing extraneous paperwork. Vastiva has voted in favor, and remains in that position.

:rolleyes: RBH replacement seems to be a waste of time, RBH itself sames to be fine and clearly outlines all details to null and void it with this replacement would not make anything any easyer this is at most- what 5% lower taxes, the RBH is fine without the repeal.
This is just a ran around thats goal is to overturn a RBH Agreement. :headbang:

Vote: No

The government of The Free Land Perfectionis will support The Mislabelled Unlicensed Trunk of Powerhungry Chipmunks in this resolution.

The resolution in question is Resolution #17, which outline strict guildlines as to what healthcare should provided to a nation's populace. This resolution infringed on national soverignity, and its last section states that

After this resolution’s passage, it must be instituted within three (3) months, otherwise face UN ejection

This is clearly an illegal statement that somehow made it past the moderators.

However, Resolution 17 was in effect repealed by Resolution #20 and this statement in that resolution:

The resolution “Required Basic Healthcare” is to be no longer enforced by the UN

While nations are still free to follow the recommendations of Resolution 17, the UN has not been enforcing that resolution since June 26, 2003. Resolution 20, however, is still in effect, and encourages nations to provide basic healthcare to all it's citizens in any way it can afford to. United Nations mechanics at that time did not allow for repeal resolutions, and that is why Resolution 20 exists.

We feel that this repeal resolution will make the law clearer to new nations, and that is why we will vote for it.

Ambassador Bryon Hulbur
Office of the Councilor of the State
Ambassador to the United Nations

This is clearly an illegal statement that somehow made it past the moderators.
Folks, Required Basic Healthcare (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=16) passed on Jun 5 2003. Melkor ran the joint all by his lonesome for several weeks in spring of 2003, and other mods were slowly added throughout the summer of 2003. Enodia's post about legal and illegal proposal first went into place on October 3, 2003. Up until then, there were no rules about "illegal" proposals, so there was nothing to 'slip past the mods'.

Rules evolve. Things change. This proposal addresses that fact nicely.

This is just a ran around thats goal is to overturn a RBH Agreement. :headbang:
No, RBH Replacement overturned Required Basic Healthcare. And stop that, you're going to hurt your head.

Enodia's post about legal and illegal proposal first went into place on October 3, 2003. Up until then, there were no rules about "illegal" proposals, so there was nothing to 'slip past the mods'.

I apoligize. I did not even think to take that into account, even though I used the changing rules as one of my points to support the resolution. Please disregard my comments on that fact. Next time, I'll make sure to take that into consideration and have my facts straight.

My government votes for the repel.

No, RBH Replacement overturned Required Basic Healthcare. And stop that, you're going to hurt your head.

Thats what I siad when I said : "This (meaning RBH Replacement) is just a ran around thats goal is to overturn a RBH(Required Basic Healthcare) Agreement." :headbang: :headbang: :sniper:

If you vote yes you may aswell be :headbang: :mp5: :mad: your very soul

Look it out and vote NO

You're still confused. Whether we vote yes or no on this resolution doesn't change the fact that RBH Replacement, not Required Basic Healthcare, is the resolution that affects our nations. This repeal is designed to eliminate confusion, and judging by many of the comments in this debate I'd say that elimination of confusion is a worthy, if not entirely necessary, cause that can be achieved simply by voting for this legislation.

why would u want to DECREASE healthcare?

:( hey man thats not cool :(

why would u want to DECREASE healthcare?

:( hey man thats not cool :(

Its not decreasing anything. The resolution under repeal is not in effect. Its just a waste of paper. Our nations are not getting any benefits from this resolution at all.

The other health care resolution, RBH replacement, is the only one that effects our nations and its benefits will not be decreased or changed in any way by the repeal of Required basic healthcare.

Waterana has voted for this repeal.

Missytoe18 will be voting against this resolution.

Regards,
Queen Missytoe

Since 'RBH Replacement' made the original 'RBH' a 'reference document', does that mean that my people do not have automatic basic healthcare until/unless that Issue comes up? That would mean the repeal of 'RBH' would have no effect on my taxes one way or the other, correct? Just wanted to clarify that point. Thanks.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote FOR the resolution.

The People's Republic of Siaka votes for this resolution

Brote, UN Delegate for West Virginia, has voted for this Resolution.

Vastiva is FOR this proposal.

Our first go as Delegate and we vote for something by Powerhungry Chipmunks... we shall have to bathe afterwards.... :D

Though the original RBH's idea was good, it went too detailed.

It would've been nice to see a replacement that still included those binding terms (unfortunately, the RBH replacement is just a recommendation), but I don't find practical to include exact rates of insurances to the resolution as the original proposal did.

At least, from a socialist point of view, these suggested reimbursement rates are way too low.

Also, I find it hard to accept the idea in point 4: "(...)In addition, if the insured, in this category, has been employed for at least 240 days in the given year, they must be reimbursed by an additional 5%."

Being employed or un-employed should have nothing to do with the amount of provided social security. Our global goal should be to separate livelihood from the wage labor. The pay-check should always be just extra, and the society should be the responsible one for keeping it's citizens alive and healthy.

I think that even though the Democratic States of Austrivum seemed to have a well meaning with this proposal, it had stated a wrong kind of base for a world-wide social security system.

The People's Republic of Buddugoliaeth will be voing for this Resolution by order of Chairman Pentony

Last UN Decision

The resolution Repeal "Required Basic Healthcare" was passed 12,011 votes to 3,559.

And the very best of luck to it for it was a fine thing untill something better came along.