NationStates Jolt Archive

All member nations in the UN should know that by leveling out the social classes within the world, creativity and innovation are stifled by the lack of reward (or maybe even penalty) caused by such policies. Why must we move towards such ? It seems as if the majority of nations don't understand that by helping people who don't help themselves, and by penalizing those who DO help themselves, we are simply promoting mediocracy, or worse, dependency upon the government. However, in the case of international health, some degree of help is required. The system currently in place is NOT adequate for addressing international needs.

F-EN:sniper:

Is there a UN proposal somewhere in that rant, sir?

This is a suggestion for a proposal for the international reform of medicare. With the current system, nations' populations will be able to take advantage of the system set forth in

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #195
Healthcare Certification


specifically this paragraph:


ESTABLISHES the Care Certification Team, or CCT to collect donations 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 the health care sector without redirection or abuse.

This statement is very vague, in a word. ls it directed towards the redirection or abuse of the countries themselves. This does not take into account the abuse by the people, especially the of such services for minor inconveniences, like a minor cough or a cold.

I suggest a few simple restrictions on the usage of such services:


Allowing a maximum of two visits per month, or a total time of 20 visits per year that will be subsidized by the government of the person(s) in question

Allowing time outside of the two visits per month for biannual checkup (subsidized)

Prescription medicines will be subsidized to an amount of 70% if determined necessary by a licensed physician by way of detailed examination.


Best Regards
F-EN

I hardly believe that such a resolution, as I understand it, would be legal, since it effectively would impose a ban on certain political systems.

Ideological bans are illegal according to the rules on UN resolutions.

This could hardly be considered an ideological ban - more like a safeguard against abusers of a well meant system. This would simply help to better regulate the system.

The proposal, such as it isn't, would be illegal anyway. You can't amend an existing resolution, you have to repeal and replace it. I sincerely hope you don't get anywhere with the repeal, since the phrase you are complaining about isn't the slightest bit vague.

It is vague. This is because it does not really differentiate between the usage of the money or the usage of such services provided. If you think they are two separate issues, then the second is not accounted for in the original resolution. You are right: it would have to be repealed first (which I was implying). Therefore, the original should be repealed because of such shortcomings and replaced with one that more fully addresses ALL problems.

F-EN :headbang:

Sorry for the double post but this section of this thread forward shall be known by the above title.

(R&R - Repeal & Replace)

I shall be working to write up another proposal that I feel is more extensive, although the current one is rather good, besides a few reservations that I have against it.

Best Regards,
F-EN

(R&R - Repeal & Replace)


Whoa there, we have a trademark (not really) on R&R...not cool.

Reveal and Repeal (R&R) (http://randr.dompody.com)

"It would be unwise and rather stupid for you to make up a UN Proposal that would force all nations that currently are within the United Nations to forcibly become a Socialist State. What about all the other different types of governmental and economic systems that are in place? Your resolution, if you make it the way that we think you are, will up and force all UN Nations to become Socialist and thats sir, is not cool."

Mr. Larry Williams
Minister of Foreign Affairs

"It would be unwise and rather stupid for you to make up a UN Proposal that would force all nations that currently are within the United Nations to forcibly become a Socialist State. What about all the other different types of governmental and economic systems that are in place? Your resolution, if you make it the way that we think you are, will up and force all UN Nations to become Socialist and thats sir, is not cool."

Mr. Larry Williams
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me it seems that the proposal is to ban certain elements commonly associated with socialism, quite in contrast to the interpretation expressed by the honourable Mr. Larry Williams.

I would like however, to see, if possible, a more clear wording of what is actually being suggested.

Whoa there, we have a trademark (not really) on R&R...not cool.

Reveal and Repeal (R&R) (http://randr.dompody.com)

Well, okay... that works, too. I'm not going to argue about R&R, lol.

F-EN

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #195
Healthcare Certification

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: Waterana

Description: RECOGNIZING that many poorer nations are struggling, due to lack of funds, to provide needed health care services for their citizens;

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 health care services, 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 in the appropriate area;

The United Nations

DEFINES health care services as any service provided to further the health and/or well being of citizens, including but not limited to hospitals, clinics, disabled care services, training of medical personnel, sanitary facilities, acquisition and/or distribution of medicine(s), public health education programs, vaccination programs, specialised medical and/or surgical services, purchase of equipment and the building and/or maintainence of necessary infrastructure.

ESTABLISHES the Care Certification Team, or CCT to collect donations 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 the health care sector without redirection or abuse.

1. Negotiate an agreement with each potential receiving nation on basic standards for care, tailored to the nation's needs and ensuring that said nation receives enough money to achieve its goals. A receiving nation may negotiate an agreement to cover as much or as little of its health 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 after the initial donation to ensure that the agreed-upon standards are being met and that the funds are being properly spent to improve heath care services. If all standards are met, the receiving nation will be certified 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 CCT shall suspend disbursement of funds to that nation. The CCT 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 CCT to reduce or cancel disbursements to nations which become capable of funding their own health 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 health care facilities in their communities, and maintain them at an acceptable international standard, taking advantage of this program if needed.

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

Co-authored by Ausserland

Votes For: 8,209
Votes Against: 2,877

Implemented: Wed Jan 24 2007




--------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, what is to stop some of these so called "poorer" and implied corrupt nations from taking the first donation and "running" with it? There are no means that PREVENT the misuse of the money. Remember: an ounce of prevention is a pound of cure.

Not to mention this is all assuming that there will BE enough money to go around. There will have to be a limit for each country depending on the amount of money available.

Also, this needs to be more specifically directed towards member nations of the UN. (Section "ESTABLISHES")

The current legislature promotes world social equality, but does not actually infringe upon the governmental rights of the nations assisted. Therefore, there are no objections there. However, I do believe there should be some mention of a direct contract to the medical businesses in those states who wish to remain privatized (these contracts would have to be the same as those given to the governments - essentially nonprofit). This would be able to more broadly effect ALL member nations, allowing those governments who do not wish to be funded to still maintain a reasonable degree of medical care.
(Keeps public/private distinction while ensuring improving conditions).


What is the "acceptable international standard" defined as? (Section "URGES")

When do countries become defined as "capable of funding their own health care activities"? (Section "AUTHORIZES")

Definition of "good faith" in "good faith effort to comply with the standards"? (Section "REQUIRES)


I have already stated my case for the end of Section "ESTABLISHES" in a previous post.


Please dwell upon this...

Best Regards,
F-EN

First, what is to stop some of these so called "poorer" and implied corrupt nations
With these words you reveal your colours. You don't want to help out nations who need it, but you don't want to be seen not to help either. Either grow some morals and make a donation, or find some friends who are proud to keep their money to themselves. It's not like they're hard to find.

But back to your so-called logic.

First, what is to stop some of these so called "poorer" and implied corrupt nations from taking the first donation and "running" with it? There are no means that PREVENT the misuse of the money. Remember: an ounce of prevention is a pound of cure.
If you can think of any preventions beyond the negotiations with the CCT before so much as a ceiniog is handed over, feel free to mention them. Beyond that, I'd suggest that there are no means that prevent misuse of the money mentioned because there are no means that prevent misuse of the money.

Not to mention this is all assuming that there will BE enough money to go around. There will have to be a limit for each country depending on the amount of money available.
And sorting that out is the CCT's job.

Also, this needs to be more specifically directed towards member nations of the UN. (Section "ESTABLISHES")
Why?

The current legislature promotes world social equality, but does not actually infringe upon the governmental rights of the nations assisted. Therefore, there are no objections there. However, I do believe there should be some mention of a direct contract to the medical businesses in those states who wish to remain privatized (these contracts would have to be the same as those given to the governments - essentially nonprofit). This would be able to more broadly effect ALL member nations, allowing those governments who do not wish to be funded to still maintain a reasonable degree of medical care.
I disagree. Negotiating with medical businesses would infringe on the government's responsibilities as well as its rights. Far better that the UN negotiate with the government, and the government negotiates with its suppliers.

What is the "acceptable international standard" defined as? (Section "URGES")
Whatever the CCT chooses to define it as, within the bounds of reason.

When do countries become defined as "capable of funding their own health care activities"? (Section "AUTHORIZES")
Whenever the CCT determines that they are (the nation's own opinion is covered elsewhere), within the bounds of reason.

Definition of "good faith" in "good faith effort to comply with the standards"? (Section "REQUIRES)
I refer the honoured gentleman to any passing lawyer.

I have already stated my case for the end of Section "ESTABLISHES" in a previous post.
And your logic there is also of the flawed 'have your cake and eat it' variety. Either there isn't a distinction to draw, in which case there is no problem, or there is, and both cases are covered by the same clause, which is the desired effect so there is still no problem.

Still, you should take heart. Repeals with arguments this badly flawed have passed in the past.

I disagree. Negotiating with medical businesses would infringe on the government's responsibilities as well as its rights. Far better that the UN negotiate with the government, and the government negotiates with its suppliers.


I don't see why it is personally; I consider the UN to be a private entity rather than a public one, because, although it is run BY governments, it is not a government in itself (I hope this argument is not flawed itself... I apologize in advance). As long as it followed the laws of said government, it should be considered acceptable to fund them.

I believe that the rest of your points are valid, now that I look at them in a speculative light, but this one I'm sticking to.

Also, those things to be defined later by the CCT should be stated as such in order to avoid confusion such as this.


I still don't understand how the first issue I brought up is resolved already. Can't citizens of nations with this program abuse the services rendered by the aid of the UN?:confused:

Thanks for all your help.



Best Regards,
F-EN

I don't see why it is personally; I consider the UN to be a private entity rather than a public one, because, although it is run BY governments, it is not a government in itself (I hope this argument is not flawed itself... I apologize in advance).
I take the federalist view; the UN is a supra-government. We nations who choose to be members (part of the supra-nation of "the UN" if you will) take its laws as superceding our own, in exactly the same way that the individual principalities took on one over-arching set of laws when they first came together to form modern Gobbannium. The UN in that sense isn't run BY governments, it's run OF governments. It's the governments that form the UN, and it's with the governments that we should be dealing as much as is possible. Once you start micromanaging, as we would be the case if we dealt directly with private medical care companies, you're doomed.

Also, those things to be defined later by the CCT should be stated as such in order to avoid confusion such as this.
That's somewhat implicit in the language, really. In most cases, explicit lists of such things are more often hostages to fortune when (not if) something unexpected comes up.

I still don't understand how the first issue I brought up is resolved already. Can't citizens of nations with this program abuse the services rendered by the aid of the UN?:confused:
Yes, they can. Why is that not something that the nation concerned should deal with or permit on its own? Or are you proposing to micromanage the nature of the agreements the CCT makes, in which case I for one will oppose you?

Well, this is the last of my five resolutions I ever expected to see such a storm over. You seem to have the wrong idea of what this resolution is and does however.

It has nothing to do with medicare, and isn't set up to spread socialism. In fact, it is little more than accountability on the distribution of funds for medical care via donations, aka international aid.

The CCT deals with a nation's government, and has no control over the general population of a nation. That is deliberate. I didn't want some micromanaging peice of rubbish that mapped out exactly who was allowed to use this money and why from the government right down to a little old lady on a pension.

The government of a nation decides a) if they want the money, b) what they want to use it for, and c) how to control the distribution within their own system. They then make an agreement with the CCT, who do periodic checks to ensure the money is being used where the receiving government agreed to use it. If citizens of a nation are abusing the system, it is up to the nation to deal with that itself. All the CCT cares about is the money is going into healthcare, the sectors that were agreed to, and not gold plated toilet seats for that nation's president. In other words, this resolution provides and monitors funds to assist a nation, via the government, to run its healthcare sector, it doesn't run the healthcare sector itself, and was never meant to.

There is provision within the resolution for the CCT to cut funds if receiving nations abuse the money, or don't keep to their agreements.

It seems that I did misunderstand the resolution; it makes more sense to me now. I guess I just dislike things that are so... broad. Control of something by a team of people... mmm I think I have one last issue not aforementioned.

Some sort of integrity protection of the CCT perhaps? This just sort of popped in to my head so, excuse me. If a nation or a group within the nation were to bribe the CCT... they could accept the funds, and use them as a donation, but there is no way to stop corruption of the team; I mean, they HAVE to accept donations, and you're not really going to br able to tell the difference between a bribe and a genuine donation. I don't see a solution to this myself (and again, I apologize if I'm mistaken), so I'm just pointing out a potential flaw (I don't really care about repealing this anymore - I just want to interpret this correctly).

Some sort of integrity protection of the CCT perhaps?

Generally speaking, unless we are trying to bullet-proof something like UN Funding for those (*cough*Genosha*cough*) who are convinced that we're all corrupt and utterly incapable of using money wisely, we tend to assume that the gnomes on the committees are being of high moral integrity. It's just easier that way.

Generally speaking, unless we are trying to bullet-proof something like UN Funding for those (*cough*Genosha*cough*) who are convinced that we're all corrupt and utterly incapable of using money wisely, we tend to assume that the gnomes on the committees are being of high moral integrity. It's just easier that way.

Indeed, the gnomes manning the UN institutions are of a highly incorruptible breed. They have to, since fighting corruption within the UN would be impossible because it would have to be done through resolutions which could only be enforced by UN institutions - which could be corrupted!

Well, most of the gnomes are incorruptible --- most of the time.