NationStates Jolt Archive

I had an idea for a resolution that may or may not meet with stiff opposition and/or strong support. It deals with making sure everyone has access to necessary medicine.

It's also got a fluffy preamble. Fire away!

Medical Right to Life
Category:Human Rights
Strength:Strong/Significant

Description: The United Nations,

AFFIRMING that life is the most sacred and basic possession of all people,

SADDENED that many people must make the false choice between life of themselves and a family member and financial stability,

AFFIRMING that it is the undeniable duty of the United Nations to ensure that the above situation be all but eradicated,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, "lifesaving treatment" as any medical treatment or procedure that is necessary to save the life of the person it is being given to (hereafter known as the "patient");

2. MANDATES that all nations must provide a means for all patients, regardless of age, race, sex, ability to work, or any other discriminating factor, to receive lifesaving healthcare without incurring financial ruin to the patient or any other person paying for the procedure, preferably by the government paying for the procedure;

3. STRONGLY URGES, but does not require, nations to pay for lifesaving treatment for all patients, even though they are permitted to refuse payment for patients who have ample funds to pay for the procedure without government help;

4. STIPULATES that, if a patient who recieves lifesaving treatment under clause 2 is a citizen of a UN member nation other than the one that provided the financial means for the treatment, their nation of citizenship must compensate the nation that provided the treatment for the least expensive procedure (judged in the area and circumstances in which the actual procedure was done) that would have been sufficient to save the life of the patient;

5. DECLARES that clause 2 may be waived if the patient is from a non-UN member nation, but only if the nation of the patient's citizenship does not agree to pay for the costs;

6. URGES nations to extend the mandates of this resolution to non-lifesaving treatments.

I am somewhat concerned about poorer nations; it is entirely plausable that having to pay for such treatment will force them into ridiculous amounts of unrecoverable debt, especially if there is an pandemic sweeping the nation.

It may seem nice, but crippling debt isn't going to help...

AFFIRMING that life is the most sacred and basic possession of all people,
No, I think my second wife was my favourite possession.

SADDENED that many people must make the false choice between life of themselves and a family member and financial stability,
No idea what this means, but it sounds communist.

2. MANDATES that all nations must provide a means for all patients, regardless of age, race, sex, ability to work, or any other discriminating factor, to receive lifesaving healthcare without incurring financial ruin to the patient or any other person paying for the procedure, preferably by the government paying for the procedure;
So it is communist. Gruenberg has a successfully working private health system; why should its name be denegrated in international law? Please remove the 'preferably...' clause. As for 'any other discriminating factor', well that just steam-rollers over every triage system in existence. Discrimination - albeit on different grounds - is good.

3. STRONGLY URGES, but does not require, nations to pay for lifesaving treatment for all patients, even though they are permitted to refuse payment for patients who have ample funds to pay for the procedure without government help;
Nope, communist.

4. STIPULATES that, if a patient who recieves lifesaving treatment under clause 2 is a citizen of a UN member nation other than the one that provided the financial means for the treatment, their nation of citizenship must compensate the nation that provided the treatment for the least expensive procedure (judged in the area and circumstances in which the actual procedure was done) that would have been sufficient to save the life of the patient;
Tangled and obtuse...I think we'll just ignore that clause if this gets passed.

5. DECLARES that clause 2 may be waived if the patient is from a non-UN member nation, but only if the nation of the patient's citizenship does not agree to pay for the costs;
So life isn't the most basic right anymore? It's "life...so long as you live in the right country". We approve!

6. URGES nations to extend the mandates of this resolution to non-lifesaving treatments.
Communist.

All in all, we think this is best handled at the national level.

I am somewhat concerned about poorer nations; it is entirely plausable that having to pay for such treatment will force them into ridiculous amounts of unrecoverable debt, especially if there is an pandemic sweeping the nation.

It may seem nice, but crippling debt isn't going to help...
Good point.
Perhaps saying that the government has to pay as much as it can while remaining equal with other citizens in need and not causing financial ruin to the government? Or creating an international organization to help out?

So it is communist. Gruenberg has a successfully working private health system; why should its name be denegrated in international law? Please remove the 'preferably...' clause.
Will do.
As for 'any other discriminating factor', well that just steam-rollers over every triage system in existence. Discrimination - albeit on different grounds - is good.
I was planning on putting in an exemption for the military, but forgot. Would that do the trick?

Nope, communist.

Well if I leave it out, then it looks like a welfare proposal...maybe just leave it as stating the option w/o passing judgement.

Tangled and obtuse...I think we'll just ignore that clause if this gets passed.

I'll work on a way to clear that up.

So life isn't the most basic right anymore? It's "life...so long as you live in the right country". We approve!
I couldn't find another way to allow nations to prevent people from illegally immigrating just to get treatment from another government.

Communist.

I'll probably just take that clause out.

All in all, we think this is best handled at the national level.
I disagree. It should be handled at the national level, yes, but it is the responsiblity of the United Nations to ensure that it is handled.

I also challenge the assumption that this is communist. This doesn't force nations to take over private healthcare systems, in fact, it doesn't even encourage it. It simply makes sure that everyone will be able to get the most basic and necessary healthcare procedures. If your private healthcare system already works, this resolution barely even affects you.

I was planning on putting in an exemption for the military, but forgot. Would that do the trick?
I think you misunderstand.

I have two patients: one has a severed femural artery, one a shattered spine. Both are life-threatening injuries. I obviously treat the first one first, because they're in much greater immediate risk. But that, to me, is a 'discrimination'.

Discrimination isn't bad. Discrimination based on irrelevant concerns is bad. I would avoid trying to make this politically correct, and instead just say "all citizens" or something.

Well if I leave it out, then it looks like a welfare proposal...maybe just leave it as stating the option w/o passing judgement.
Including it passes an automatic judgment. The issue is healthcare, not how it's funded.

I couldn't find another way to allow nations to prevent people from illegally immigrating just to get treatment from another government.
That's not an issue for this proposal; it'll happen anyway. Just so long as we only have to give treatment to our citizens, and can shoot the dirty immigrants, we're fine.

I disagree. It should be handled at the national level, yes, but it is the responsiblity of the United Nations to ensure that it is handled.
To ensure that what is handled? A right to life-saving treatment is not a right. If I get cancer, I will die. The fact there is no cure for cancer doesn't mean the government is denying me a right.

Set up a World Health Organization for research and development. Promote free trade in medical supplies. Work on drug development and distribution. Those are areas the UN can do something without screwing up. The actual treatment itself should remain a prerogative of individual nations.

Communist!

*snip*

Well if I leave it out, then it looks like a welfare proposal...

*snip*


That's because it is a welfare proposal.

Although I beleive this resolution provides a noble sentiment, and I am tempted to throw in my insignificatn support, ultimately those above me have made a point. Many nations cannot afford this, and some nations do have find private healthcare systems and to change the system would be disasterous. Again, I support universal healthcare, but it just isn't something the UN force upon some nations without disaster.

How about changing it from life saving to 'emergency'?
Thereby guaranteeing anyone access to A&E, but things like a normal Health Service remains a National decision.

2. MANDATES that all nations must provide a means for all patients, regardless of age, race, sex, ability to work, or any other discriminating factor, to receive lifesaving healthcare without incurring financial ruin to the patient or any other person paying for the procedure, preferably by the government paying for the procedure;!


If I read this right you say that no person can be driven into financial ruin because of health care needs. Thus then you place the burden on government. Well that government gets it funds from imposing TAXES on citizens thus leading to some going into financial ruin when they fail to pay these.. TAXES... Thus how the heck can you reason this one since without citizens to pay taxes their is no government funds to pay for health care... Since citizens can't fall into financial ruin due to cost of health care then you can't make them pay for health care... thus since you draw TAXES for health care they don't have to pay them or that part that might go to healty care as only government pays for that.

Also since I think discrimination is out due to several resolutions on the books the part about all that is not needed since discrimination is not present in UN member nations in any form..

If I read this right you say that no person can be driven into financial ruin because of health care needs. Thus then you place the burden on government. Well that government gets it funds from imposing TAXES on citizens thus leading to some going into financial ruin when they fail to pay these.. TAXES... Thus how the heck can you reason this one since without citizens to pay taxes their is no government funds to pay for health care... Since citizens can't fall into financial ruin due to cost of health care then you can't make them pay for health care... thus since you draw TAXES for health care they don't have to pay them or that part that might go to healty care as only government pays for that.

Also since I think discrimination is out due to several resolutions on the books the part about all that is not needed since discrimination is not present in UN member nations in any form..

OK, taxation 101:
Taxes are essentially imposed on income, transactions, and property. The amount you pay depends on the amount you earn/buy/own. As a result, if the taxation system is well designed, it is impossible to be driven to financial ruin by it. On the other hand, a medical procedure can very easily have costs that are higher than the anual income of a lower class family. Implying that such a family can be driven to financial ruin, if the procedure is privatised.

I feel there will be the need for medical insurance 101 soon...

OK, taxation 101:
Taxes are essentially imposed on income, transactions, and property. The amount you pay depends on the amount you earn/buy/own. As a result, if the taxation system is well designed, it is impossible to be driven to financial ruin by it. On the other hand, a medical procedure can very easily have costs that are higher than the anual income of a lower class family. Implying that such a family can be driven to financial ruin, if the procedure is privatised.

I feel there will be the need for medical insurance 101 soon...

That only applies to a so-called progressive tax system, my friend, as I'm sure you well know. ;)

Indeed, Sheik Nadnerb. Why, the current Prime Minister of Cobdenia is looking at a regressive tax system.

After, all seems illogical to punish the successful and to reward the unsuccessfull :p

Indeed, Sheik Nadnerb. Why, the current Prime Minister of Cobdenia is looking at a regressive tax system.

After, all seems illogical to punish the successful and to reward the unsuccessfull :p

While your smartassed reply is certainly appreciated by this delegation (OOC: heh-heh), the alternative to a progressive tax system is a flat tax.

We have a regressive tax system in Gruenberg, you may be unsurprised to learn. But, a flat tax can work as the Fonzolander delegate described: the only prerequisite is that a) the personal allowance is set high enough and b) other taxes - sales tax, for example - are not excessive.

That only applies to a so-called progressive tax system, my friend, as I'm sure you well know. ;)

No. This applies to any system where rates are lower than 100%. You are not taxed for money you don't have. Ergo, after you are taxed, there is money left. Even if you tax the poor at 70% and the rich at 0%.

Now, in practice, a high taxation rate on the poor can increase poverty, inequality, blah blah blah. That is why we don't like regressive systems. But in the end of the day, even a regressive system does not cause bankrupcy, the way expensive health care does for the unfortunate individuals who literally cannot afford to pay.

Oy vey.

Oy vey.

*Pretends to understand and seriously nods in approval.* :p

In an attempt to make this more universally acceptable, I have composed another draft.

Medical Availability Covenant
Category:Human Rights
Strength:Strong/Significant

Description: The United Nations,

AFFIRMING that life is the most sacred and basic possession of all people,

SADDENED that many people must make the false choice between life of themselves and a family member and financial stability,

AFFIRMING that it is the undeniable duty of the United Nations to ensure that the above situation be all but eradicated,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, "lifesaving treatment" as any medical treatment or procedure that is necessary to save the life of the person it is being given to (hereafter known as the "patient");

2. MANDATES that all nations must provide a means for all patients, regardless of age, race, sex or ability to work, to receive lifesaving healthcare without incurring financial ruin to the patient or any other person paying for the procedure;

3. SUGGESTS that clause 2 may be implemented through public health insurance, compensating medical institutions to lower prices, government-funded healthcare, research in medicine that will allow prices to fall, reducing tax burdens on medical institutions, et cetera;

4. REQUIRES that UN member nations compensate each other for livesaving treatment services rendered in another nation, but the compensation only applies to the cheapest treatment that would be sufficient to save the life of the patient;

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, "lifesaving treatment" as any medical treatment or procedure that is necessary to save the life of the person it is being given to (hereafter known as the "patient");

Would this be emergency life-saving treatment, like say fixing a bullet wound ot treating a heart attack? If so would it include recovery time, or simply the basic act of saving the life. Or, does this include long-term lifesaving treatment, like cancer treatment or AIDS medication etc... if so, how much of the cost is part of the actual "life-saving" and how much is relegated to extra treatment, like non-surgery pain-killing medication etc... I just feel this part needs some clarification on what exactly is concidered "life-saving treatment".

Would this help?:

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, "lifesaving treatment" as any medical treatment or procedure that is directly necessary to save the life of the person it is being given to (hereafter known as the "patient");

This is still communist. Life-saving treatment isn't a right; it's a privilege.

This is still communist. Life-saving treatment isn't a right; it's a privilege.
No it's not. Privileges must be earned. There is no way to earn lifesaving treatment if you need it, because you're so sick you can't work [in some cases].

We reject your calling of this proposal communist.

No it's not. Privileges must be earned. There is no way to earn lifesaving treatment if you need it, because you're so sick you can't work [in some cases].

We reject your calling of this proposal communist.
If you haven't got enough money by the time you fall ill, you obviously weren't working hard enough before it. That's no one's fault but your own, and shouldn't be foisted onto other tax payers.

Communist!

If you haven't got enough money by the time you fall ill, you obviously weren't working hard enough before it. That's no one's fault but your own, and shouldn't be foisted onto other tax payers.
Suppose you had just gotten old enough to work and two months later you had a heart attack? You wouldn't have enough money just because you hadn't been working hard enough.

Suppose you were two weeks old and got a serious disease and your parents couldn't afford to pay for it? Surely you're not suggesting that people should have to work before they were two weeks old?

Suppose your government was oppresive and didn't allow any medical facilities?

Suppose you were looking for work but no one wanted to hire you?

There's a whole multitude of reasons why a person can't afford medical treatment, through no fault of their own.

COMMUNIPHOBE!

How about introducing debtors' prisons as a compromise?

You get your life-saving treatment, society gets legal slave labor. :D

How about introducing debtors' prisons as a compromise?

You get your life-saving treatment, society gets legal slave labor.
Unfortunately, I think that violates "End Slavery".

Suppose you had just gotten old enough to work and two months later you had a heart attack? You wouldn't have enough money just because you hadn't been working hard enough.
Should have gone to work earlier. Education is for the weak-minded.

Suppose you were two weeks old and got a serious disease and your parents couldn't afford to pay for it? Surely you're not suggesting that people should have to work before they were two weeks old?
Parents are slackers in that case.

Suppose your government was oppresive and didn't allow any medical facilities?
Move to a different country.

Suppose you were looking for work but no one wanted to hire you?
Should have trained better, instead of being a lazy unskilled bum.

Hmmm... The scourge of slavery yet remains in these progressive times. People are bought and sold like cattle, unable to determine their destiny. Their families are split apart; they are allowed no possessions of their own. They are beaten, chained, and tortured.

Therefore, I propose that the following human rights be given to every peoples of this great world:

- The right to leave her or his job, given two weeks' notice.
- The right to own possessions.
- The right to travel freely throughout their country.
- The right to bodily safety from one's employer.
- The outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people.Well, an extremely strict reading of this would outlaw prison in and of itself. Still, I think you could still spin labor camps. They're being given food and housing, and they are being paid for their work. They're just in the hole, so they won't see any money.

It's like washing dishes when you can't pay the restaurant check...

Should have gone to work earlier. Education is for the weak-minded.

...

Should have trained better, instead of being a lazy unskilled bum.
In any case, you fall into one of my scenarios. You get educated and you lose out because you haven't worked enough. Or you don't get educated and don't get hired because you didn't have enough education. If you're talking about on-the-job training, it's not like you get paid for that either.

Parents are slackers in that case.
So now we're punishing children for what their parents do?

Move to a different country.
And what if the oppresive government doesn't want to let you do that? We haven't passed an emigration rights proposal.

(ooc: Could you afford major heart surgery right now? I know I sure as hell couldn't.)

While my country has enjoyed free health cover for many years, I believe this would be unable to pass due to the many capitalist countries within the UN.
Therefore, perhaps we should have limits.

Emergency treatment is available to all. If someone is stabbed in the street they can be sure they can be fixed up without anyone checking their financial status.
Minors and OAPs receive full cover.
Those in full time education, full time carers, and those who work in dangerous or life threatening circumstances i.e. firemen or miners, get limited cover.
Military services should provide their own medical service.
Those with a long term illness which has rendered them incapable of working for a period longer than 12 months can have their position assessed for financial aid.

Would those satisfy anyone?

Unfortunately, the Ceoranan delegate continues to do nothing more than present unfortunate circumstances. Yes, they are all bad. Yes, in such situations, one would wish to have medical treatment. That does not make it a right, however. It's unfortunate that people are poor. Doesn't mean there's a right to be rich.

And what if the oppresive government doesn't want to let you do that? We haven't passed an emigration rights proposal.
I'm thinking about drafting one of those, my nation is having a public holiday for the next month, so I should have time to look into it.

ooc: if I'm not revising/earning dosh.
In the meantime -> to find a pair of shoes I haven't packed and T/A from Ned's Noodle Bar. Be back in an hour or so ;)

(ooc: Could you afford major heart surgery right now? I know I sure as hell couldn't.)Can, and have.

Of course, I have health insurance provided by... gasp!... a private company!

Unfortunately, the Ceoranan delegate continues to do nothing more than present unfortunate circumstances. Yes, they are all bad. Yes, in such situations, one would wish to have medical treatment. That does not make it a right, however. It's unfortunate that people are poor. Doesn't mean there's a right to be rich.
You don't have a right to be rich, but you do have a right to try to get rich through your own merits.

Same with healthcare. If you can't afford necessary healthcare because of something outside of your control, should you be denied it?

Can, and have.

Of course, I have health insurance provided by... gasp!... a private company!
ooc: I did have private healthcare, but only because I was covered by my parents'. Now I just hope I don't need anything that costs more than I can afford and less than the stupid health voucher allowed me, despite the fact that when I applied I was under minimum wage. Now I'm just in debt.

You don't have a right to be rich, but you do have a right to try to get rich through your own merits.

Same with healthcare. If you can't afford necessary healthcare because of something outside of your control, should you be denied it?
Bahahaha.
Your first section completely contradicts the second.

"You don't have the right to healthcare, but you do have the right to earn it through your own merits"

We agree.

"But if you can't earn it, you should get it anyway, because that's nice and fluffy"

We disagree.

Unfortunately, I think that violates "End Slavery".

Not if one enters into it willingly. ;)

Bahahaha.
Your first section completely contradicts the second.

<snip>

Not really, or at least not how I intended it. I said that people should be able to earn healthcare by their own merits. I was also implying (or meaning to imply) the converse: the people should only be denied healthcare on their own (lack of) merits.

Not really, or at least not how I intended it. I said that people should be able to earn healthcare by their own merits. I was also implying (or meaning to imply) the converse: the people should only be denied healthcare on their own (lack of) merits.
Yes. And in all those cases, people are being denied healthcare based on their lack of merit: they're poor.

Yes. And in all those cases, people are being denied healthcare based on their lack of merit: they're poor.
In a perfect world, how rich a person was and how much merit (how many skills) they had would correlate perfectly. However, they don't. Hence, this proposal.

In a perfect world, how rich a person was and how much merit (how many skills) they had would correlate perfectly. However, they don't. Hence, this proposal.
Make up your mind. Is healthcare related to merit or not?

Make up your mind. Is healthcare related to merit or not?
As a nation, Ceorana believes that healthcare should be given to all regardless of merit. Internationally, we would probably be fine with a proposal that gave healthcare to those wo deserved it, and gave nations the choice on everything else.

The problem is, how do you tell who deserves it?

And no, until the Gruenberger government is dissolved, we won't trust governments to decide.

OOC: the above post is IC. please do not take offense OOC.

As a nation, Ceorana believes that healthcare should be given to all regardless of merit. Internationally, we would probably be fine with a proposal that gave healthcare to those wo deserved it, and gave nations the choice on everything else.

The problem is, how do you tell who deserves it?
They can pay for it.

And no, until the Gruenberger government is dissolved, we won't trust governments to decide.

Scandal! Treason! Outrage!

OOC: the above post is IC. please do not take offense OOC.
;)

They can pay for it.

But as I said above, merit and skills do not always correlate.

Our delegation is either shocked or amused, the jury is still out. We reject denial of treatement on economic grounds. We reject eugenics. And we condemn the arguments presented here by evil tyrants, who wish nothing more than to divert this assembly's attention from one of its most laudable goals: protection of the right to life.

We believe the role of government in any society is twofold. First of all, it should guarantee the institutional framework that allows individuals to attain wealth, freedom, happiness, and togetherness. Second, it should guarantee social harmony and the protection of all its citizens, by providing for those who find themselves in dramatic situations. This is especially relevant when said situations are not a consequence of individual merits, negligence or misconduct, and are rather a misfortunate random act of Nature.

Those who do not agree with us are in the wrong. Yes, we dare say, they are morally inferior to us. We therefore commend the efforts of the Ceoranan / Ceoranader / Ceoranaite (oh ffs, whatever) delegation to bring the focus of debate back to much needed legislation on fundamental Human Rights.

Unfortunately, I think that violates "End Slavery".

OOC: Are you sure? That banned buying and selling people, but not enslaving them by other means such as this one... Why would expecting people in debtors' prisons to work be any less legal than expecting people in ordinary prisons to do so?