NationStates Jolt Archive

What do we think of making UN member nations adopting the strategy of paying a percentage of their citizens' tax to their own healthcare? This means that not only the rich get treatment but the less affluent people will also get the same treatment.

Please don't use the 'AT VOTE' prefix for your proposals: it's confusing. AT VOTE refers ONLY to proposals which are being voted on the UN floor, rather than just proposals submitted for delegate approval.

As to the idea...I don't like it. If a welfare state works for you great, but we prefer to grind our poor into the ground. By tying medical incentives into work quotas, it forces them to work harder.

What do we think of making UN member nations adopting the strategy of paying a percentage of their citizens' tax to their own healthcare? This means that not only the rich get treatment but the less affluent people will also get the same treatment.

OOC: Just go the hell away already.

Please don't use the 'AT VOTE' prefix for your proposals: it's confusing.Indeed. Title edited.

What do we think of making UN member nations adopting the strategy of paying a percentage of their citizens' tax to their own healthcare? This means that not only the rich get treatment but the less affluent people will also get the same treatment.

That is a great idea for the Allied Alien Planets to implement. Now, think carefully:

How do you benefit in any way from forcing Fonzoland to implement it? How is free health care an international issue, or a basic human right, or anything this assembly should care about? If you cannot answer these questions adequately, then it is probably not worth proposing...

The UN is not intended to replace national governments.

How is free health care an international issue, or a basic human rightI would wager many people consider it to be a basic human right.

It is indeed a human right in my eyes. People should be healthy, and... that's what healthcare does. I'd vote for this.

I would wager many people consider it to be a basic human right.

Hmmmmm... that would put most RL nations in a very unconfortable position. ;)

Yes, you're right.

It is indeed a human right in my eyes. People should be healthy, and... that's what healthcare does. I'd vote for this.

The issue is not whether healthcare should be available. It's simply whether the taxpayers should pick up the whole bill, or if users should contribute. Not human rights, in my eyes.

I would wager many people consider it to be a basic human right.

My money's on a certain representative who submitted a proposal on abortion.

My money's on a certain representative who submitted a proposal on abortion.
You know I support our proposal; I wrote it, after all. But these kind of comments are just coming across as pissy personal attacks now, rather than attacking the substance. The UN majority support a repeal of Abortion Rights; more delegates have approved our proposal then theirs. There are plenty of good arguments we have: "I don't like her" isn't one. Can't we accept the debates are going to be heated whatever, and concentrate on the actual issues?

Oh, I suppose... *grumble*

That is a great idea for the Allied Alien Planets to implement. Now, think carefully:

How do you benefit in any way from forcing Fonzoland to implement it? How is free health care an international issue, or a basic human right, or anything this assembly should care about? If you cannot answer these questions adequately, then it is probably not worth proposing...

The UN is not intended to replace national governments.

For a start I have to agree that free healthcare is a human right, no matter what their political stance, race, religion, culture, age, sex, economical status. And as a result of a person's affluence just now directly affects how well they cared for by the government's health service. Which basically is saying: no money = no healthcare. Is this not an unethical issue that should be raised in the UN?

For a start I have to agree that free healthcare is a human right, no matter what their political stance, race, religion, culture, age, sex, economical status. And as a result of a person's affluence just now directly affects how well they cared for by the government's health service. Which basically is saying: no money = no healthcare. Is this not an unethical issue that should be raised in the UN?

No, it's not.

For a start I have to agree that free healthcare is a human right, no matter what their political stance, race, religion, culture, age, sex, economical status. And as a result of a person's affluence just now directly affects how well they cared for by the government's health service. Which basically is saying: no money = no healthcare. Is this not an unethical issue that should be raised in the UN?

Oh, why not, let's have this discussion.

Healthcare is a human right => Nobody should pay for healthcare.
Justice is a human right => Nobody should pay court fees or lawyers.
Education is a human right => Nobody should pay for education.
Basic necessities are human rights => Nobody should pay for food, housing, and clothing.

Wonderful country, right? Nobody is poor, everyone is happy. That is, until they are surprised in the end of the year by the fact that they are taxpayers as well, and will have to pay for all this stuff anyway. Maybe next year they will decide not to work at all, since everything they need to survive is free anyway. And if people are not working, there is no way in hell you can support a healthcare system. Damn, that didn't work...

If you want to institute a monstruous and paternalistic welfare state, nobody is stopping you. Heck, the welfare system in Fonzoland is rather comprehensive by most standards. But do not confuse access to healthcare (a human right) with the financing system (an economic model). And do not assume that nations following a different economic model care less about the health, well being, and poverty of their citizens than you.

If you do, we will have to consider you a threat to our sovereign right to institute our own economic ideals, as voted democratically by our citizens. And we will invade you.

OOC: Holy crap! Now Fonzo's threatening to invade people! LMFAO!

Oh, why not, let's have this discussion.

Healthcare is a human right => Nobody should pay for healthcare.
Justice is a human right => Nobody should pay court fees or lawyers.
Education is a human right => Nobody should pay for education.
Basic necessities are human rights => Nobody should pay for food, housing, and clothing.

Wonderful country, right? Nobody is poor, everyone is happy. That is, until they are surprised in the end of the year by the fact that they are taxpayers as well, and will have to pay for all this stuff anyway. Maybe next year they will decide not to work at all, since everything they need to survive is free anyway. And if people are not working, there is no way in hell you can support a healthcare system. Damn, that didn't work...

If you want to institute a monstruous and paternalistic welfare state, nobody is stopping you. Heck, the welfare system in Fonzoland is rather comprehensive by most standards. But do not confuse access to healthcare (a human right) with the financing system (an economic model). And do not assume that nations following a different economic model care less about the health, well being, and poverty of their citizens than you.

If you do, we will have to consider you a threat to our sovereign right to institute our own economic ideals, as voted democratically by our citizens. And we will invade you.


Are you saying, in all actuality, that the Nation Health Service of the United Kingdom is one of the worst ideas in history. This coming from a man from a country that requires a credit card swipe before they will even examine you? Yeah nice Fonzo real nice :P

For a start I have to agree that free healthcare is a human right.


Tell me how FREE fits in here if somebody has to pay for it. Healthcare may be a basic right but FREE never happen.. Doctors need cash to fund their way of life thus it will never be FREE.

Tell me how FREE fits in here if somebody has to pay for it. Healthcare may be a basic right but FREE never happen.. Doctors need cash to fund their way of life thus it will never be FREE.

It would be free in the sense that if it was made a constant charge upon tax. Then it would no longer have to be charged on the basis of how serious a disease, medication, or treatment is...

Are you saying, in all actuality, that the Nation Health Service of the United Kingdom is one of the worst ideas in history. This coming from a man from a country that requires a credit card swipe before they will even examine you? Yeah nice Fonzo real nice :P

OOC:
NHS users pay £6.40 per prescription, hence it is not free. The UK is in blatant violation of the basic human right to free healthcare, and should be denounced by Amnesty International. Furthermore, the queues for surgical intervention are so lenghty that most people are forced into (expensive) private clinics, most working people have private health insurance anyway, and dental care is not free. All this considered, it is still a major drain of public resources. Wanna discuss NHS with me? Go ahead. Or perhaps you prefer guessing my country of origin - you will fail.

Back IC:
Nobody is attacking your intention of implementing free health services for all your population. We just challenge the arrogance of presuming you can decide what the ideal healthcare system is for every single UN member nation. Have you even considered that nations can be so poor as to make the costs of such a system higher than GDP?

I say we (Government) pay the doctors. The person who got hit by a car and that needs a surgon didn't ask for it, did they? (Unless they did, then PAY AWAY, but...) Otherwise they shouldn't need to pay above a small tax each year to let us pay the doctors.

OOC:
NHS users pay £6.40 per prescription, hence it is not free. The UK is in blatant violation of the basic human right to free healthcare, and should be denounced by Amnesty International. Furthermore, the queues for surgical intervention are so lenghty that most people are forced into (expensive) private clinics, most working people have private health insurance anyway, and dental care is not free. All this considered, it is still a major drain of public resources. Wanna discuss NHS with me? Go ahead. Or perhaps you prefer guessing my country of origin - you will fail.

Back IC:
Nobody is attacking your intention of implementing free health services for all your population. We just challenge the arrogance of presuming you can decide what the ideal healthcare system is for every single UN member nation. Have you even considered that nations can be so poor as to make the costs of such a system higher than GDP?

I was merely citing an example, of how something could be arranged. I did not intend for the entire UN nations to become an NHS copy. Certainly some issues have been raised about waiting times and such. I fully take on board what Fonzo is saying, I agree the NHS has flaws, but surely it is a step in the right direction. And Fonzo may I also say that I am from Scotland, don't assume that I do not know what I am talking about, as I also work for the NHS. So there :P

OOC: I wouldn't usually continue OOC debates in the UN forum, but couldn't let some points go...

OOC: NHS users pay £6.40 per prescription, hence it is not free.
If you're entitled to any government benefit you don't have to pay for prescriptions - so while not free for everyone, it does still guarantee that the poor have access to healthcare (which is presumably the reason for wanting completely free healthcare in the first place).

Furthermore, the queues for surgical intervention are so lenghty that most people are forced into (expensive) private clinics,
You can't possibly believe that most people in the UK use private clinics? Anyway, waiting lists are only long for the most complex conditions - last month I went to the doctor's with an abscess, and I had an operation to remove it at the hospital just three days later (I could have had it within two days if I didn't mind an overnight stay).

most working people have private health insurance anyway
I'd hardly count 12.7% (2003 OECD/DoH figures) as 'most'.

If you're entitled to any government benefit you don't have to pay for prescriptions - so while not free for everyone, it does still guarantee that the poor have access to healthcare (which is presumably the reason for wanting completely free healthcare in the first place).

You may have noticed that the only point I wanted to make was that it is "not free for everyone." I am not playing the social Darwinist here.

You can't possibly believe that most people in the UK use private clinics? Anyway, waiting lists are only long for the most complex conditions - last month I went to the doctor's with an abscess, and I had an operation to remove it at the hospital just three days later (I could have had it within two days if I didn't mind an overnight stay).

I'd hardly count 12.7% (2003 OECD/DoH figures) as 'most'.

Probably you are right on both counts, my use of 'most' was inadequate. But still, my points:

1. It is a system of heavily subsidised, rather than free healthcare,

which shows that

2. Poor people can be given access without imposing free healthcare for all.

Furthermore,

3. Many opt out, or are pushed out of the system due to queues,

and even so,

4. It is a huge component of the government budget of a very rich country.

Conclusion:

5. It is neither necessary nor desirable to impose free healthcare on all nations, irrespectively of circumstances.

Some numbers for reference:
6.6% GDP public NHS funding
1.2% GDP private health expenses

Don't make me split this thread.

Don't make me split this thread.

Is there any way to make you close the thread? :p

Seriously, while a lot of the debate has been ooc, it is still on topic. That said...
*Drops NHS example.*

Most countries cannot afford a free health care system. Especially the third world systems.

Insisting that there be a way for paying for every malady doesn't work.

However, a universal way to set up a public health system might work. Basic sanitation facilities, clean water, mass disease prevention. Prevention of international plagues like the bird flu. We should probably have a WHO-- World Health Organization, focused on disease prevention, plague prevention, and public health.

However, a universal way to set up a public health system might work. Basic sanitation facilities, clean water, mass disease prevention. Prevention of international plagues like the bird flu. We should probably have a WHO-- World Health Organization, focused on disease prevention, plague prevention, and public health.
Agreed; I would fully support a WHO proposal.

You mean we don't have one of those? What a major lapse from the fluffy brigade!

I guess its time to bring out a great word from the Grand master R.A.H.

TANSTAAFL!

If you want heathcare, then pay for it or work for it. Don't ask me for a handout. The Taxman takes too much with the wallet-vac(TM) as it stands now.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Besides, once bureaucrats start to mandate healthcare, I would venture to say that the quality would hit rock bottom quickly.

Agreed; I would fully support a WHO proposal.

Hell, even I'd support that.

It is indeed a human right in my eyes. People should be healthy, and... that's what healthcare does. I'd vote for this.

If this proposal reached the vote stage of the UN, the Democratic Republic of Dsboy would not only vote in favor of it but lobby the other nations of our region to vote in favor of the proposal as well.

Agreed a human right and an investment in a nation's people

Hey, want an alliance?

From: BADOS (deptofstate@gov.baz)

This is a joke right?

You are going to compel nations that cannot even feed, or provide sanitation for there people with health care?

The UN has turned a blind eye to war, genocide, and embraces tyrannies within it's governing body, and members are worried about... health care.

If such a resolution where to come to actually be voted upon before the world becomes a safe and otherwise equitable place we would have no choice but to withdraw our delegate in disgust at the appalling self righteousness of said body.

Aqil al-Hariri
Secretary of State
Blanco Azul

Well, OK... but honestly, those people should ask for aid.

I say we (Government) pay the doctors. The person who got hit by a car and that needs a surgon didn't ask for it, did they? (Unless they did, then PAY AWAY, but...) Otherwise they shouldn't need to pay above a small tax each year to let us pay the doctors.

Trouble is WE (Government) is funded by WE (People) so why should WE (People) pay ourselfs to provide us with Health Care or any other function. All this does is add more red tape and some idiot who has to be paid a sallary to decide if WE (People) need it when WE (People) need it. WE (People) may be willing to pay WE (Government) to run certain functions such as national defense and our legal systems but why do WE (People) or would WE (People) want WE (Government) to get involved in some of the other issues like this one. As WE (Government) only messes up things adding cost to WE (People).. with the laws they put into place and all the employees WE (Government) might need to run it. So let WE (People) work this out not WE (Government) add cost to it and red tape...

I'm assuming here that when in the last line you say 'us pay' this would be WE (People) to WE (Government).. My only question is where do the doctors fit into this as; WE (People) or WE (Government)....?

From: BADOS (deptofstate@gov.baz)

This is a joke right?

You are going to compel nations that cannot even feed, or provide sanitation for there people with health care?

The UN has turned a blind eye to war, genocide, and embraces tyrannies within it's governing body, and members are worried about... health care.

If such a resolution where to come to actually be voted upon before the world becomes a safe and otherwise equitable place we would have no choice but to withdraw our delegate in disgust at the appalling self righteousness of said body.

Aqil al-Hariri
Secretary of State
Blanco Azul

Give me another addition to the proposal for aid-sanctions then Aqil, should other nations give aid to the poverty-stricken? Does that sound reasonable? Or is that too humanitarian for you?

If this proposal reached the vote stage of the UN, the Democratic Republic of Dsboy would not only vote in favor of it but lobby the other nations of our region to vote in favor of the proposal as well.

Agreed a human right and an investment in a nation's people

Dsboy how many delegates do you think you could sway to vote for this proposal... The same question applies to Pythogria too.

Dsboy how many delegates do you think you could sway to vote for this proposal... The same question applies to Pythogria too.

You do realise that if you ever submit this, I'll be campaigning vigourously against it, right? Do you really think you're up for that battle? ;)

Give me another addition to the proposal for aid-sanctions then Aqil, should other nations give aid to the poverty-stricken? Does that sound reasonable? Or is that too humanitarian for you?[/QUOTE]
From: BADOS (deptofstate@gov.baz)

Certainly:
We hereby propose that the UN spend all of it's efforts ending, war, famine, genocide and tyrannical regimes and worry not about forcing Machiavellian internal bodies upon member states until the end of all of the aforementioned.

At which point through referendum all member states cede all national sovereignty, and proclaim the UN sole arbitrator of fairness and purveyor of all equality (Audhu billahi min ash Shaytan ar rajim).

Your measure sounds all too human; that a group of people and legislation is somehow better at deciding measures than individual or spontaneous collective action.

Aqil al-Hariri
Secretary of State
Blanco Azul

From: BADOS (deptofstate@gov.baz)

Certainly:
We hereby propose that the UN spend all of it's efforts ending, war, famine, genocide and tyrannical regimes and worry not about forcing Machiavellian internal bodies upon member states until the end of all of the aforementioned.

At which point through referendum all member states cede all national sovereignty, and proclaim the UN sole arbitrator of fairness and purveyor of all equality (Audhu billahi min ash Shaytan ar rajim).

Your measure sounds all too human; that a group of people and legislation is somehow better at deciding measures than individual or spontaneous collective action.

Aqil al-Hariri
Secretary of State
Blanco Azul[/QUOTE]


Ok Aqil,
So how about we edit it just slightly... Something along the lines of...

The UN will take action to aid with the countries that need most help: in essence to rid the world of poverty, disease and war???
That sound fair?

You do realise that if you ever submit this, I'll be campaigning vigourously against it, right? Do you really think you're up for that battle? ;)

You know I love you for being you so I welcome your challenge Cluichstan. My Midas Array is already set to your shield harmonics, along with the aid of the Klingons I think I can handle it :P

You know I love you for being you so I welcome your challenge Cluichstan. My Midas Array is already set to your shield harmonics, along with the aid of the Klingons I think I can handle it :P

Ok, so if you are against this how about asking the UN to create an agency thats similar to Medicines Sans Frontiers?

Ok, so if you are against this how about asking the UN to create an agency thats similar to Medicines Sans Frontiers?

There is a Red Cross already, and someone is drafting an interesting World Health Whatever (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469732) thingy. But yeah, I think you are moving in the right direction: focusing on the big picture, not on national budget allocations.

This is, at its core, socialism. I would believe socialist nations would be 100% in favor of this bill. There are nations that would call themselves democracies that would argue this. I would argue that they are more socialist then they realize. We could never be in support of socialized medical care. Every model of socialized medicine we are aware of fails miserably. Feel free to disagree, as no doubt many of you have and will, but we will vote against.