NationStates Jolt Archive

Care for the Disabled

Social Justice

Mild

RECOGNIZING that many poorer nations are struggling, due to lack of funds, to provide adequate in-home and/or in-facility care to disabled citizens who are in need of assistance;

NOTING that many richer nations would be willing to donate money for the purpose of helping to provide such care, but hesitate due to the possibility of corruption and misuse of the money, and

BELIEVING that nations willing to provide adequate facilities and care for their disabled citizens, but needing help from the international community to provide it, should receive that help, but must agree to measures that ensure the money is being spent properly to benefit the disabled;

The United Nations

DEFINES "disabled", for the purpose of this resolution, as having physical or mental limitations due to old age or other causes and requiring either partial or total assistance with aspects of daily living and/or controlling their medical condition(s).

ESTABLISHES the Disabled Care Accreditation Team (DCAT) to collect donations for the care of the disabled from willing nations and private donors, distribute funds to nations who request it on an as needed basis, and monitor the use of the funds to ensure that the money is properly spent on care for the disabled. Care settings may include, but are not limited to: nursing homes, hostels, private homes, group homes, homes of relatives, and respite centres. The DCAT shall:

1. Negotiate an agreement with each potential receiving nation on basic standards for care, tailored to the nation's needs and ensuring that disabled citizens receive the care and attention they need to live as independently and contributively as possible. A receiving nation may negotiate an agreement to cover as much or as little of its disabled care activities as it wants and needs.

2. Work with each receiving nation to ensure that all aspects of the nation's own culture and religion are fully respected.

3. Inspect or evaluate the funded services in receiving nations 6 months (or equivalent) after the initial donation to ensure that the agreed-upon standards are being met and that the funds are being properly spent to benefit the disabled citizens. If all standards are met, the receiving nation will be accredited to receive further donations on a regular basis.

4. Carry out unannounced inspections at irregular intervals to ensure continuing compliance with the agreed-upon standards.

REQUIRES that, if a receiving nation fails or refuses to meet the standards agreed upon, the DCAT shall suspend disbursement of funds to that nation. The DCAT may, at its sole discretion, continue to disburse funds if the nation is making a good faith effort to comply with the standards.

AUTHORIZES the DCAT to reduce or cancel disbursements to nations that become capable of funding their own aged care activities. Receiving nations may voluntarily withdraw from this program if the contributed funds are no longer needed or wanted.

URGES all UN member nations to provide adequate facilities and/or care for the disabled in their communities, taking advantage of this program if needed.

ENCOURAGES nations and private donors to channel international donations through the DCAT to promote proper expenditure of funds.

Co-authored by Ausserland

This is my latest proposal, and in my opinion a much better effort than Banishment Ban thanks largely to the help Ausserland gave me in cleaning up the original mess I wrote.

I want to put this through the list a couple of times without a TG campaign, just to see what sort of support it will attract, but thought I'd put it up here first and see if anyone can find anything wrong with it that we missed.

Was not sure of the 12 month check in section 3 but then like the idea of section 4.. As it would for me avoid the question of 12 months is to long to wait to see it things going well as they could do it earlier under section 4. Also section 4 would cover after the first 12 month period..

Since that was my only noted concern think it covers that in those two section....

Actually, after reading your comment, I am beginning to think 12 months is too long. Our RL aged care facilities in Queensland only got 6 months to prepare for the first accreditation inspection, and most managed to make the deadline.

I will change that and shorten the time.

I have little to add, but I would like to put in a word of support for this proposal, which I see as continuing the fine tradition of providing much needed services to members of the UN community, whilst respecting national sovereignty to an appreciable extent.

If i understand correctly the DCAT will function as the RL UNHCR or UNICEF, with volontary donations from governments, foundations and private donors
http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/partners?id=3b963b874

AUTHORIZES the DCAT to reduce or cancel disbursements to nations which become capable of funding their own aged care activities. Receiving nations may voluntarily withdraw from this program if the contributed funds are no longer needed or wanted.

...to nations that become capable...

Fonzoland will support this excellent proposal.

If i understand correctly the DCAT will function as the RL UNHCR or UNICEF, with volontary donations from governments, foundations and private donors
http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/partners?id=3b963b874

Not exactly. DCAT is more a monitoring agency. It will collect donations, but its main function is to make sure the donation money is spent by the receiving nation in the areas of aged/disabled care that nation agreed to spend it, and not on new tanks for the army or gold plated toilet seats for government officials ect.

This will ensure that the funds go to only to nations that need it, aren't wasted or stolen, and donating nations can be assured that the money they give is being used for the purpose they gave it.

The receiving nation by making an agreement on what parts of their disabled care system they wish to fund, and by honouring that agreement, get ongoing donation money to assist them in providing services that benefit the disabled in their communities.

...to nations that become capable...

Fonzoland will support this excellent proposal.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll change it :).

Full, unqualified support for this fine proposal. Good work Waterana.

Articles 3 and 4 are of critical interest to the people of North Tacoma. It is imperative that the funds donated to recipients are dispersed and not redirected to some non-related programs.

It is the responsibility of the UN to protect the donor's money to make sure it is used for its intended purpose. The irregular inspections are essential for allowing this generous social cause to operate.

This proposal has the endorsement of the Commonwealth of North Tacoma in the South Pacific.

Not exactly. DCAT is more a monitoring agency. It will collect donations, but its main function is to make sure the donation money is spent by the receiving nation in the areas of aged/disabled care that nation agreed to spend it, and not on new tanks for the army or gold plated toilet seats for government officials ect.

This will ensure that the funds go to only to nations that need it, aren't wasted or stolen, and donating nations can be assured that the money they give is being used for the purpose they gave it.

The receiving nation by making an agreement on what parts of their disabled care system they wish to fund, and by honouring that agreement, get ongoing donation money to assist them in providing services that benefit the disabled in their communities.



Thanks for pointing that out. I'll change it :).

Thanks for your answer LAE will support it.

Not exactly. DCAT is more a monitoring agency. It will collect donations, but its main function is to make sure the donation money is spent by the receiving nation in the areas of aged/disabled care that nation agreed to spend it, and not on new tanks for the army or gold plated toilet seats for government officials ect.

*snip*

But I like my platinum potty... :(

The government of St Edmund can accept this resolution, although our nation won't need such help...

I've just submitted this again for a proper try at getting it to quorum.

It attracted around 50 endorsements on its dry run, so hopefully I can get it through without having to TG every delegate in the list, just 3 quarters of them perhaps. Banishment ban took me going through every letter on the delegates list except L, M and N, and even then it only just made it, though I wish now it hadn't :p.

If delegates reading this think this effort has merit, could you support it please :).

Link to Proposal (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Disabled)

We'd like to add our request for your support to that of our distinguished colleague and friend from Waterana. We believe this is a fine proposal and are honored to be listed as co-author.

The proposal provides a needed mechanism for charitable people and organizations to be able to provide funds for care of deserving people in other nations with confidence that the money will be spent for the intended purpose. We believe this will be of substantial benefit to disabled people in economically distressed nations and is clearly within the proper scope of the NSUN's concerns.

Please consider adding an approval or asking your regional delegate to do so. The approval link is in Waterana's latest post.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

My present post is only related by the topic, but I found this initiative very interesting and wanted to say something about it on this forum:

Millions and millions people in the world need a wheelchair, and these are often expensives (very rarely below 150$).

A non-profit organisation had created a non-patented $45 wheelchair.

http://www.freewheelchairmission.org/images/chair_new.jpg

http://www.freewheelchairmission.org/thewheelchair.html#

I've just submitted this again for a proper try at getting it to quorum.

It attracted around 50 endorsements on its dry run, so hopefully I can get it through without having to TG every delegate in the list, just 3 quarters of them perhaps. Banishment ban took me going through every letter on the delegates list except L, M and N, and even then it only just made it, though I wish now it hadn't :p.

If delegates reading this think this effort has merit, could you support it please :).

Link to Proposal (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Disabled)

Supported.:) I think it has enough merit to, at the very least, have a discussion and Up or down vote.

It probably won't make it this time though the list. I've had unexpected emergencies the last couple of days and just haven't had the chance to send many TGs.

I will be resubmitting it straight away when it disappears, and hopefully, 2nd time will be the charm. Will also be locking the door, sedating the husband (a slab of beer should do it), taking the phone off the hook and turning msn off. Maybe then I'll manage to get enough TGs out to get it to quorum without interuptions.