NationStates Jolt Archive

This has been submitted, if you like it, and you're a delegate, please approve

The United Nations,
OBSERVING that many governments pay for nation-wide health care for all cases,

RECOGNIZING that these programs are costly and divert funds from worthier measures such as aid for the poor and funding for police to lower crime, which are two areas where much disease stems from in the first place,

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that many patients who obtain treatment in government hospitals are victims of self-inflicted infirmities, such as smoking to cause lung cancer,

REALIZING that it is likely that if patients with these types of problems had to pay for their own treatment, they would have much more incentive to avoid self-destructive behavior,

1.MANDATES that all nations with government-funded blanket health care programs that fund all cases change their policy so that patients with ailments that have been inflicted on themselves by a free choice of their own must pay for at least 75% of the treatment they receive for that ailment;

2.DECIDES that self-inflicted ailments include, preliminarily, lung cancer caused by smoking, damage on muscle and/or bone structure by purposefully and willingly striking body parts against hard objects, etc., and obesity caused purely by prolonged overconsumption, and not by genetics;

3.CREATES the International Medical Committee on Self-Inflicted Ailments (IMCSIA), which will include one prominent medical specialist from any UN member nation that wants to join, will meet within a period not exceeding two months from the date of this resolution and will file a report on what constitutes a self-inflicted ailment on a date not exceeding six months from the date of this resolution;

4.ACCEPTS that in extreme circumstances, patients affected by this resolution may bring their cases before appropriate courts of law;

5.DECLARES that the IMCSIA report shall become international law to be applied to all such cases.

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/5525/crad8hi.png

Also, you have two clause 4s. Don't much care about clauses 1-2, as we don't have public healthcare...I think others will kick up a fuss. And your clause 3 constitutes a committee violation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).

So, this will need some work.

Exactly how far is this principle supposed to be taken? Taking risks is part of life - everybody does it. We could all reduce our risk of disease and injury by changing our lifestyles, but at some point this becomes self-defeating. Are governments now to dictate to their citizens exactly what balance of risk and security they should strike in everyday life? Are we to demand that sufferers of STIs pay for treatment? What about treatment for the physical results of anorexia? Will parents who fail to drill home strongly enough the proper procedure for crossing the road have to pay to get their kids treated if they are hit by cars?

You might dismiss these as absurd, but even one of the examples your proposal cites is fairly dodgy - "damage on muscle and/or bone structure by purposefully and willingly striking body parts against hard objects". What if a patient suffers from a mental illness which causes them to self-harm in this way? Your proposal would even prevent our health services giving free treatment to a firefighter who injured herself knocking down a door to save a trapped child in a burning building.

Anyway, a better strategy for governments wishing to avoid public health crises would be to tax cigarettes etc and put the money towards treatment. Smokers can easily pay their own way in this way.

We can't support this.

Failed suicides don't need a huge medical bill dropped in their laps while trying to recover from their despair, nor do the families of people who die in suicides (or cancer victims, or ...) need such added injury inflicted in the wake of the loss of a loved one. This legislation is cruel and antediluvian; it should be rejected.

Beyond that, we will raise the issue of scope (the new, fancy name for “national sovereignty”): since this applies exclusively to public health care, what is the international problem that we need to address here? IOW, how does Nation A's decision to pay for self-inflicted injuries harm Nation B?

We can't support this.

This legislation is cruel and antedeluvian; it should be rejected.



Um...I don't think this word means what you think. First off, it's spelt incorrectly. I'm not sure, but I don't think this is really that old (I believe that's what you meant when you used the term "antediluvian"). But hey, what the hell do I know?. I haven't been around that long.

I do agree that this proposal is cruel. I also agree that it should be rejected. It is also illegal.

Um...I don't think this word means what you think. First off, it's spelt incorrectly. I'm not sure, but I don't think this is really that old (I believe that's what you meant when you used the term "antediluvian"). But hey, what the hell do I know?. I haven't been around that long.Thanks for the spelling note. No, it just reminds me of Hammurabi's approach to things...

No results found for antedeluvian
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=antedeluvian


8 results for: antediluvian
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=antediluvian

Okay then you should have made reference to Hammurabi instead of the great flood. Antediluvian means "before the flood" Now, that's not a complete literal translation, but close enough. I do understand what you were trying to say, though.

At any rate, this is starting to turn into a threadjacking, so I'll just leave it at that.

Still don't like the proposal. Not too worried about it reaching quorum though. That whole being illegal thing.

It's our tax money. We'll decide how to spend it, thank you very much.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/5525/crad8hi.png

Also, you have two clause 4s. Don't much care about clauses 1-2, as we don't have public healthcare...I think others will kick up a fuss. And your clause 3 constitutes a committee violation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).

So, this will need some work.

Thank you for the suggestions, I realize now that I should have posted this here before submitting it, so if it doesn't reach quorum I will resubmit it after listening to the input here. I've added the line breaks and fixed the numbering.

As for clause 3, as I understand them, the rules say you can create committees, as long as you don't expect them to be realized in real life, which is exactly what I did. If I interpreted that wrong then please explain.

Exactly how far is this principle supposed to be taken? Taking risks is part of life - everybody does it. We could all reduce our risk of disease and injury by changing our lifestyles, but at some point this becomes self-defeating. Are governments now to dictate to their citizens exactly what balance of risk and security they should strike in everyday life? Are we to demand that sufferers of STIs pay for treatment? What about treatment for the physical results of anorexia? Will parents who fail to drill home strongly enough the proper procedure for crossing the road have to pay to get their kids treated if they are hit by cars?

This whole debate is why I included clause 3, so a body of experts can decide the answer to that question, presumably in a satisfactory manner.

Failed suicides don't need a huge medical bill dropped in their laps while trying to recover from their despair, nor do the families of people who die in suicides (or cancer victims, or ...) need such added injury inflicted in the wake of the loss of a loved one. This legislation is cruel and antediluvian; it should be rejected.
Beyond that, we will raise the issue of scope (the new, fancy name for “national sovereignty”): since this applies exclusively to public health care, what is the international problem that we need to address here? IOW, how does Nation A's decision to pay for self-inflicted injuries harm Nation B?


First of all, the resolution says nothing about families, and as for the rest, this resolution will make them realize the cost of their actions possibly more than anything else can, and will make people in general more responsible for their actions. Which also is the answer to your question about how it is international, as it is for the good of humanity, since making people accountable for their actions will make people less likely to do harmful actions in the first place.
Also, hopefully governments will use the money they save on this to either relieve the tax burden on their populace, giving the people more money to fix their problems with, or to fund government programs that combat the root problems in society.

It's our tax money. We'll decide how to spend it, thank you very much.


I don't understand where you're coming from here, this resolution does not deal with taxes at all, if anything it enables government to be able to levy less taxes, giving the tax money back to the people and therefore ensuring that they will decide exactly how to spend it.

I really can't see any international aspects to this proposal, nor human rights. If anything, it takes away human rights by discriminating against some sick people on the basis of what caused their ailment, and even worse, on the say so of some committee.

It also goes way way too far in micromanaging nations health systems. My nation has the system that suits us, and we are quite capable of deciding how to run it and what to prioritise. We don't need UN meddlers telling us who we can cover under our universal health care, and who we can't. Besides, universal health care means just that, it covers everyone equally. This proposal would destroy the concept of UHC in all member nations.

If you changed tack on this, and instead looked at attempting to reduce dangerous behaviors by regulating the international sale and promotion of tobacco products, or encouraging, not mandating, nations to provide better services for the menally ill to reduce suicide attempts, for example, then you may have better luck drumming up support. As the proposal stands however, I can't see a lot of national soverignists supporting it because of massive nation interference, or nations like mine supporting it because of massive discrimination.

It's our tax money. We'll decide how to spend it, thank you very much.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Totally agree. Besides I hate how non-smokers discriminate against smokers when they really don't understand how easy it is to get hooked and how hard it is to change once you do so.

First of all, the resolution says nothing about families, and as for the rest, this resolution will make them realize the cost of their actions possibly more than anything else can, and will make people in general more responsible for their actions. Which also is the answer to your question about how it is international, as it is for the good of humanity, since making people accountable for their actions will make people less likely to do harmful actions in the first place.On the first point: debts are not always erased upon the death of the debtor; someone has to pay those medical bills, and if the deceased can't pay them, then the bereaved will have to. It's just that simple.

On the second point, a person who is suicidal (mentally ill) or addicted (under the influence of a chemical substance) is not rational almost by definition. To expect some kind of cost-benefit analysis to influence their behavior is almost perverse. Do you really think suicides say to themselves: “Gosh, I better hadn't attempt suicide - I might get socked with the bill if I fail!”

On the third issue, your impression of what is best for humanity is exactly that - your impression. There are many of us who do not believe that the purpose of this body is to attempt to enforce our idea of what is best for humanity on the rest of the world, but rather to address issues that can not be addressed properly at the national level (eg, piracy, currency exchange, war and peace, the extinction of species, etc.). Just as you wouldn't like it if we told you how to run your country, you have no business telling us how to run ours.

In other words, the NSUN isn't here so that you or a bunch of people like you) can jam your ideas about “good” and “bad”, “right” and “wrong”, or “proper” and “improper” down other people's throats. As this is what you seek to do with this proposal, then it is not - in our humble opinion - the kind of thing the NSUN should attempt to do.

No, it just reminds me of Hammurabi's approach to things...Clearly you wanted 'draconian', even if that refers to Draco and not Hammurabi.

I don't understand where you're coming from here, this resolution does not deal with taxes at all, if anything it enables government to be able to levy less taxes, giving the tax money back to the people and therefore ensuring that they will decide exactly how to spend it.

If the government, and thereby the people, wanted to levy less taxes, it would do so by cutting the health budget. However, the people of Ceorana, through their elected Congress, have decided to levy a 44% tax on themselves, approximately 14% of which is used for the general operating budget of the Department of Health and Medical Services, which pays for a general healthcare system, which we judge to be in our best interest. The UN has no business telling us how to run it.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

The proposal is entirely fair, as by reducing taxes it means that ordinary people will not have to pay for the healthcare of others who have bought their ailment upon themselves. I really find it difficult to believe that there is no-one on this forum sensible enough to be in support of this proposal.

The proposal is entirely fair, as by reducing taxes it means that ordinary people will not have to pay for the healthcare of others who have bought their ailment upon themselves. I really find it difficult to believe that there is no-one on this forum sensible enough to be in support of this proposal.

Personally, I'm opposed because I see no reason for the UN to be meddling in nation's healthcare systems.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

How else will it become law? It is a sensible way of doing things, and a tax break for all. Is it not a worthy sacrifice that the UN intrudes this one time, for an increase in the productivity of the health system and a reduction in taxes?

How else will it become law? How about the nations do it on their own?
It is a sensible way of doing things, and a tax break for all. Is it not a worthy sacrifice that the UN intrudes this one time, for an increase in the productivity of the health system and a reduction in taxes?
And what about those nations whose healthcare systems are completely privatized? Besides a nation's healthcare system is a intranational issue, and I believe that the UN should limit itself to issue that are international in nature which this is not.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

How else will it become law? It is a sensible way of doing things, and a tax break for all. Is it not a worthy sacrifice that the UN intrudes this one time, for an increase in the productivity of the health system and a reduction in taxes?Try writing a issue. Then you can choose the response to the situation that you like, and we can choose the one we like.

2.DECIDES that self-inflicted ailments include... damage on muscle and/or bone structure by purposefully and willingly striking body parts against hard objects, etc.

Ah, so :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: would become an expensive expression of disdain.

Make it the only thing defined as self-inflicted and we might endorse. Well, no we wouldn't, but it would have to do with this being mean-spirited and discriminatory to lower economic classes.