NationStates Jolt Archive

Disabled Care Accreditation Act.

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 12 months 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 which become capable of funding their own disabled 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 services 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

Some of you may remember this. I wrote it ages ago, but never tried terribly hard to get it to quorum.

Now seems the perfect time to try again however. I just read the thread on the resolution at vote (which will pass), and Tarmsden is copping a fair bit of dissent on the basis of funding. My proposal would solve any problems on that score, and then some.

I need some independant eyes to check through this for me and let me know if anything in it contradicts or clashes with anything in Tarmsden's resolution. I can't see anything myself, but need to be sure before submission, which is planned to happen on the day the current resolution passes.

Seems perfectly harmless to me. Granted, it stretches what I believe is the acceptable reach of United Nations policy, but I doubt anyone out there is going to say, "No, we demand the disabled of the word be treated like crap!" Funding issues is solvent, in my eyes, and the ability of nations to . . kinda sorta withdrawl and just not take money should appease the fundies.

I need to come up with a stamp of approval graphic.

New Arpad thinks that point 6 of the "Rights of the Disabled" resolution is already problematic because it might ignore economical aspects, but this draft here does definetly go too far. It is simply not the job of the UN to force nations to pay for an international welfare project.

Those nations who want to provide their citisens with an adequate health care system should strengthen their economy and their trade relationships with other nations but they should not force other nations to pay for them.

Perhaps you should actually read this draft properly. It doesn't force nations to do anything. It is all based on voluntary paticipation.

Just for information, the UN can do whatever it jolly well wants to. The only brakes on what the UN can or can't do are the proposal rules, and what the membership passes or rejects.

New Arpad thinks that point 6 of the "Rights of the Disabled" resolution is already problematic because it might ignore economical aspects, but this draft here does definetly go too far. It is simply not the job of the UN to force nations to pay for an international welfare project.

Those nations who want to provide their citisens with an adequate health care system should strengthen their economy and their trade relationships with other nations but they should not force other nations to pay for them.

We have to wonder if the representative of New Arpad read beyond the title of this proposal before raging against it. If so, we wonder where he could have gotten the notion that it forces nations to pay for other nations' health care systems. We'd suggest a calm and careful re-reading.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Perhaps you should actually read this draft properly. It doesn't force nations to do anything. It is all based on voluntary paticipation.

Just for information, the UN can do whatever it jolly well wants to. The only brakes on what the UN can or can't do are the proposal rules, and what the membership passes or rejects.
I assume you are refering to this passage here:

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

I would suggest to mention the "voluntary" part in the actual wording. Other than that I would like to point out that your opinion of the UN is exactly what makes New Arpad feel so uncomfortable and sometimes even suspicious about it. New Arpad agrees that the UN means well though, but also believes that many nations have a tendency to regulate issues that should be dealt with on a national level or between individual nations.

Last but not least I would like to say that New Arpad will not contribute to such a voluntary UN project. Nations who want to strengthen their economy to pay for such projects can still approach us of course. We are tough buisness partners and will never leave our own economical advantage out of sight, but we believe that ensuring that other nations can make money with us too is good for New Arpad in the long run.

The voluntary nature is already mentioned several times in the word "donation". I've never heard of mandatory donations before. If it was mandatory it would be a tax.

The voluntary nature is already mentioned several times in the word "donation". I've never heard of mandatory donations before. If it was mandatory it would be a tax.
The concept of donations from the state is totally alien to the way of how New Arpad thinks. If you want money from New Arpad then we suggest that you approach our citisens directly and if they should be willing to donate then New Arpad will not oppose this. Do not expect the state of New Arpad to help with the organisation though.

We don't expect anything from your state. If you don't want to donate, you don't have to. If you don't want to receive donation money, you don't have to. If this draft eventually passes however, and you change the stance of your nations sometime in the future, either way, then the legislation will be there for you to access.

If your people want to privately donate, they can do so, and can be assured the money will be used for the reasons they donated it. This draft was written as an accountability proposal so nations, individuals ect who do want to contribute can and not worry about the money being misused or stolen by corrupt governments.

The trouble is...is it so voluntary that it barely does anything?
While Randomea would welcome any attempt to aid the elderly and 'others' as the Wateranian(?) Representative so eloquently puts it, any nation that is not welfare orientated would find little reason to comply.
Therefore our situation doesn't change as we already look after our 'disabled' and instead would be sending money we can ill afford to look after the disabled in other nations, while the nations that need to look after their disabled don't lift a finger and have them taken care of.
The probablility that the DCAT will receive very little donations is high and renders it almost useless.

I like it. Maybe it could be a bit more aggressive?

The trouble is...is it so voluntary that it barely does anything?
While Randomea would welcome any attempt to aid the elderly and 'others' as the Wateranian(?) Representative so eloquently puts it, any nation that is not welfare orientated would find little reason to comply.
Therefore our situation doesn't change as we already look after our 'disabled' and instead would be sending money we can ill afford to look after the disabled in other nations, while the nations that need to look after their disabled don't lift a finger and have them taken care of.
The probablility that the DCAT will receive very little donations is high and renders it almost useless.

I could turn the donation into a mandatory contribution, but there are a couple of problems with that. The first is trying to find the right amount to demand from each nation, which I have seen from other drafts in the past is almost impossible. The second problem is nat sovers, quite rightly in this case, spitting their dummies from one end of NS to the other. This sort of thing doesn't need to be madatory, it is distribution of international aid after all.

I think we will get donations. While there will be nations that will refuse to give anything, that doesn't mean all nations will, or even the majority. Then there are private doners. I'm sure there are plenty of corporations and rich individuals living in capitalist oriented nations who need the tax perks usually given to those who support charitable endevours. I would have loved to include a line urging nations to give tax breaks to private enterprise/individuals who give donations, but PC's tax blocker prevents that.

Dashanzi, what do you mean by more agressive?

For obvious reasons, I strongly support this resolution (if you don't know what I'm talking about, check the UN!). This is an excellent opportunity for the UN to fill its role as a coordinator of voluntary forces, rather than to be an enforcer of mandates. I would like to congratulate you on creating a piece of legislation that fills a void in many nations, ensures that donations are going where they are supposed to and entirely respects every nation's right to set their own fiscal policies.

I would like to urge you all to support this as is, beyond any other recommendations brought up later. This is a worth-while piece of legislation and an exemplary sign of what the UN can be with enough innovation.

The trouble is...is it so voluntary that it barely does anything?
While Randomea would welcome any attempt to aid the elderly and 'others' as the Wateranian(?) Representative so eloquently puts it, any nation that is not welfare orientated would find little reason to comply.
Therefore our situation doesn't change as we already look after our 'disabled' and instead would be sending money we can ill afford to look after the disabled in other nations, while the nations that need to look after their disabled don't lift a finger and have them taken care of.
The probablility that the DCAT will receive very little donations is high and renders it almost useless.

Kivisto would contribute. We're not capitalistic, we don't have a strong economy, and we're certainly not big on social welfare, but we have our reasons. We would contribute.

Same here. We'll pitch in to help our brothers and sisters with disabilities, wherever in the world they may be.

Agreed, the disabled should be treasured as full and equal members of any society that considers itself humane and decent. We will contribute as much as possible to this worthy organisation.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I've just submitted this proposal (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Accreditation).

The name has been cut down by one word because it was one letter too long, so the proposal is now called just Disabled Care Accreditation.