NationStates Jolt Archive

The World Assembly,

CONSIDERING health care assistance an inalienable right of every human being;

BELIEVING that the State is the only organisation who can work to provide the best possible care without looking for profit;

NOTING that in some WA nations the only scope of privatized hospitals is to make money and not to cure patients;

CONSIDERING this situation intollerable and inacceptable for any civilized nation;

HEREBY STATES:

1) that all WA nations within a month from the approval of this resolution must nationalize all private hospitals;

2) that in the same period of time all WA nations must create a National Health Service (NHS), to organize and make more effective the nationalized hospitals.

3) that the scope of the NHS is to provide the best possible health care assistance to anyone who need it, even if it's not a citizen of the nation.

4) that the NHS cannot ask money for its service, and must offer the same assistance to anyone, without any kind of discrimination.

5) that the government must give the NHS the money it needs to provide the best possible assistance for free.


p.s. I need your help: can you tell me if there are some mistakes in this draft?

The World Assembly,

CONSIDERING health care assistance an inalienable right of every human being;What about the intelligent non-humans around here?

BELIEVING that the State is the only organisation who can work to provide the best possible care without looking for profit;There are nations in which religions and/or [other] charitable organisations peform this function perfectly well, and others in which it is the responsibility of provinces or states or other sub-divisions rather than of the actual national govenments.

NOTING that in some WA nations the only scope of privatized hospitals is to make money and not to cure patients;Nonsense! If they didn't cure any patients then nobody would bother going to them (and they then wouldn't make any money)...

CONSIDERING this situation intollerable and inacceptable for any civilized nation;This depends on the correctness -- which I dispute -- of the previous clauses.
Oh, and there's only one 'l' in 'intolerable'...

HEREBY STATES:

1) that all WA nations within a month from the approval of this resolution must nationalize all private hospitals;Paying fair compensation to the previous owners? Or just stealing them?

2) that in the same period of time all WA nations must create a National Health Service (NHS), to organize and make more effective the nationalized hospitals.Do you really think that this could be done so quickly? Do you really think that the bureaucracy necessary to organise an NHS on the gigantic scale of some of the WA's member nations could be anything but hugely inefficient & wasteful?

3) that the scope of the NHS is to provide the best possible health care assistance to anyone who need it, even if it's not a citizen of the nation.So that non-WA nations would no longer require medical services of their own, apart from 'accident & emergency' ones, because they'd be able to freeload on the member nations by sending their potential patients to those...

4) that the NHS cannot ask money for its service,Not even in those cases where the RL British NHS does so, such as prescription charges? Not even for, for example, elective 'cosmetic' surgery?and must offer the same assistance to anyone, without any kind of discrimination.So every patient would receive exactly the same [single] medicine as everybody else?!?

5) that the government must give the NHS the money it needs to provide the best possible assistance for free.
Regardless of any financial problems, or other spending committments, that government might have?

p.s. I need your help: can you tell me if there are some mistakes in this draft?Done.
Also, you might want to check this resolution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14370300&postcount=31) for possible points of duplication or contradiction...

Ok, I understand that you don't agree with SOME pioints of my drafts.
But many corrections are purely ideological. Others are not, and I'll try to correct them soon and repost the draft here.
But i was just asking if there was something ILLEGAL in this draft.
Best Whishes,
Ambassador of kholhaasenbruck

What about the intelligent non-humans around here?

This draft is only about human beings, not animals.

There are nations in which religions and/or [other] charitable organisations peform this function perfectly well, and others in which it is the responsibility of provinces or states or other sub-divisions rather than of the actual national govenments.
The scope of this draft is exactly that of giving the entire duty to provide helath care assitance to the State. With 'State' I mean also local governments.
I'll explicit that.

Nonsense! If they didn't cure any patients then nobody would bother going to them (and they then wouldn't make any money)...
If they're the only one who provide helath care, like in the us, they actually gain money. I meant that private hospitals think only how to make more money and not how to provide the best possible helath care.

Oh, and there's only one 'l' in 'intolerable'...
as says the Title that's a draft.

Paying fair compensation to the previous owners? Or just stealing them?
I'll explicit that. It's not called 'steal' but 'eminent domain' or 'expropriation'.

Do you really think that this could be done so quickly?
I'll give them a year. That's more than enough.

Do you really think that the bureaucracy necessary to organise an NHS on the gigantic scale of some of the WA's member nations could be anything but hugely inefficient & wasteful? Ask the english.


So that non-WA nations would no longer require medical services of their own, apart from 'accident & emergency' ones, because they'd be able to freeload on the member nations by sending their potential patients to those... If I don't add this clause, immigrants will be discriminated, and if they are not cured diseases will spread to all the nation's territory.

Not even for, for example, elective 'cosmetic' surgery?
I will exclude that.

Regardless of any financial problems, or other spending committments, that government might have?
Yes. That should be a priority.

Also, you might want to check this resolution for possible points of duplication or contradiction...
there aren't duplications which I'm aware of.

i appreciate your corrections. I'll redraft it and i'll repost here corrected.

Certainly we agree that it is a human/sapient right to live healthily and to be able to avail of good health care. However we do not see how imposing a single method of providing such care on the entire World Assembly would support this right, especially since the system outlined in this statute is deeply flawed and in our opinion would not afford the best system of providing health care.


Yours,

This draft is only about human beings, not animals.And there you lose any chance of support from this nation's population (c. 94% Ursine, 01% Human, 05% [others])...

If they're the only one who provide helath care, like in the us, they actually gain money. I meant that private hospitals think only how to make more money and not how to provide the best possible helath care.Then try saying that, in place of the inacurate rhetoric that you used in the first draft.

as says the Title that's a draft.A draft for which you asked us to point out any mistakes...

I'll explicit that. It's not called 'steal' but 'eminent domain' or 'expropriation'.The use of 'eminent domain' generally does involve compensation; 'expropriation' is iffier...

I'll give them a year. That's more than enough.We'll see... if this ever gets passed.

Ask the english.OOC: I am English... The bureaucracy's bad enough in a service intended to serve c.60 million people, and there are nations in the WA with populations that are more than a hundred times that size...

If I don't add this clause, immigrants will be discriminated, and if they are not cured diseases will spread to all the nation's territory.Or you could try writing a clause that specifically addresses this concern, instead of just throwing the services wide open to everybody from anywhere...

Yes. That should be a priority.Even if a nation's actually fighting for its very survival, perhaps even against genocidal foes, and there isn't enough money available to provide "full" funds for both activities?
OOC: Note that RL Britain didn't create its NHS until after WWII, although the plans for that organisation were actually drawn up (by a cross-party committee, at the instructions of Winston Churchill, not just by the Labour Party as some of the latter's supporters have been known to claim...) during that conflict...

I'll rewrite the draft to eliminate misunderstandings and too much semplification.
The point of a resolution is actually to impose to all other WA nations the views included in the resolutions, so I don't see why you two are so outraged. If the WA don't like it, it won' pass. I just wanna know what's actually ILLEGAl in this draft.

And there you lose any chance of support from this nation's population (c. 94% Ursine, 01% Human, 05% [others])...
well, in that case what term should I use?

Then try saying that, in place of the inacurate rhetoric that you used in the first draft.
I'm doing that, if you give me some time

A draft for which you asked us to point out any mistakes...
point out, not ridiculazing my grammar (it's not my first language as it's for you)

We'll see... if this ever gets passed.
obviously it needs to get passed. It's a draft for a proposal.


Even if a nation's actually fighting for its very survival, perhaps even against genocidal foes, and there isn't enough money available to provide "full" funds for both activities?
I'll specific the few conditions whcich are more impotrant than helathcare.

Now i'm going to rewrite the draft. Please wait for further corrections until i post it.

Thank you very much, your help is appreciated.

I'll rewrite the draft to eliminate misunderstandings and too much semplification.
The point of a resolution is actually to impose to all other WA nations the views included in the resolutions, so I don't see why you two are so outraged. If the WA don't like it, it won' pass. I just wanna know what's actually ILLEGAl in this draft.


No body is outraged honoured Ambassador, except perhaps your good self.

Why ask for help and then ignore it ?

If your statute outlined what the minimums of decent health care should be, if it encouraged best practice instead of needless elaboration of bureaucracy, if it encouraged sensible approaches to health care provision and not vast waste of money and resources, it might not have been so necessary to point out so many of its flaws.

As it is your request for drafting assistance has been answered, we suggest the honoured Ambassador take a moment to consider the advice which has been offered them and stop being so defensive.


Yours,

Why ask for help and then ignore it ?
I absolutely don't ignore them. I'll consider your points and correct my drafts.

We in Gnoria believe that a nationalized healthcare system similar to the one the good delegate from Kohlhaasenbruck proposes could be very effective and appropriate for many nations. Gnorian healthcare operates according to a similar principle. However, considering the vast number of nations in the WA and the various codes and values that they live by, and also realizing that there are other effective methods of delivery of healthcare besides complete socialization, we doin't think it's wise to force all nations to adhere to a single system. We second the comments of the fine delegate from Urgench when he states that the proposal should focus in more general terms on best practices for healthcare and similar topics.

Douglas Moore
Secretary to the WA

The World Assembly,

CONSIDERING health care assistance an inalienable right of every man, woman and child;

BELIEVING that the State must provide the best possible health care without looking for profit;

NOTING that in some WA nations where hospitals are private many poor people cannot have the assistance they need and deserve;

CONSIDERING this situation intollerable and inacceptable for any civilized nation;

HEREBY STATES:

1) That all WA nations within a year from the approval of this resolution must nationalize all private hospitals;
No-profit charitable and religious organizations who are not public but that provide free health care have the right to exist and cannot be nationalized;
Any other tipe of private hospitals must be nationalized, paying fair compensation or, if necessary, by expropriation for the common good;
The nazionalized hospitals cannot be privatized in any ways, but must remain under public control.

2) That in the same period of time all WA nations must create a National Health Service (NHS), to organize and make more effective the nationalized hospitals.
The burocratization of the NHS must be minimal and functional only to the needs of patients.
The NHS must be as much as possible decentralised: the local governments have the power to control the local NHS and must respect the prinicples stated in this resolution.

3) That the scope of the NHS is to provide the best possible health care assistance to anyone who need it, even if it's not a citizen of the nation.
Immigrant people who need assitance must have the same rights of national citizens, because otherwise they will not be cured and diseases would spread on all nation's territory causing epidemics.

4) That the NHS cannot ask money for its service, and must offer the same assistance to anyone according to his needs, without any kind of discrimination.
Cosmetic surgery is not considered medical assistance but luxury and the NHS cannot provide this. Are authorized private clinics who practice only this treatment.

5) That the government must give the NHS the money it needs to provide the best possible assistance for free.
The NHS should be a priority for the government, except the cases when the national security of the nation is put in severe risk.


I made some corrections. Please tell me if there are any further mistakes which are not related to your personal opinion on the subject.
Every hint is appreciated.
Thank you very much,

The honoured Ambassador for Kohlhaasenbruck realises that the only thing this resolution actually does is nationalise hospitals ?

It does not guarantee standards of care within these hospitals, it does not insure the best possible working practices , it does not guarantee proper funding of health care provision.

Also it completely ignores the possibility that health care might be being provided at a better standard than could be afforded by a National Health Service by other means.

So effectively better systems than the one outlined in this statute would be destroyed by it in the process of creating massive bloated bureaucratic nationalised hospital services.

And what of non-hospital based treatment ? What of General Practice and Out Patient services, what of chronic illness clinics e.t.c. the list of glaring omissions is endless.


Yours,

Well, the main thing it introduces is that all citizens can have helath care assistance for free. The others are just functional to that, including the nationalization of hospitals. In fact, a private hospital by definition cannot offer services for free, so this duty must be given to the State. This resolution legiferates only about hospitals, so I don't consider adding laws about non-hospital based treatment. Maybe i should add the standard of care, but these have already been declared in the resoluion "Patient Rights Act".

I agree with what several other people here are saying, it is a good idea, on a small scale. The vast number of nations in the WA, and the vast populations several of them have, makes this notion extremely difficult, if not impossible.

,President of The Commonwealth of East Central America, John Erickson.

Well, if they have more people they also have more money to pay for the NHS,
p.s. there are any rl reference problems if it's called the same as in the UK?
Maybe i should call it National Health Care Service

Well I dont think Nationalization is the answer here Honored Ambassador. You as might as well include every little mom/pop clinic as well. You intentions are good, but we will not support this measure.

Guaranteeing health care acccess for all is a good thing, but how bout writing a bill for that rather than nationalizing hospitals.

Well, the main thing it introduces is that all citizens can have helath care assistance for free. The others are just functional to that, including the nationalization of hospitals. In fact, a private hospital by definition cannot offer services for free, so this duty must be given to the State. This resolution legiferates only about hospitals, so I don't consider adding laws about non-hospital based treatment. Maybe i should add the standard of care, but these have already been declared in the resoluion "Patient Rights Act".



So you freely admit then, honoured Ambassador, that all this statute does in nationalise hospitals, and that in fact it does not create a national health service of any kind ?

Nationalising hospitals is not the same thing as creating a National Health Service.

Yours,

If you know how to make sure that everyone have free access to health care assistance without nationalising hospitals, I'll be happy to propose it, but i'm afraid it's impossible.
NHS is a necessary creation if you nationalize, because you must create an organization to enforce that policy and to organize it.
Maybe I should point out the details and structure of the organization.

If you know how to make sure that everyone have free access to health care assistance without nationalising hospitals, I'll be happy to propose it, but i'm afraid it's impossible.
NHS is a necessary creation if you nationalize, because you must create an organization to enforce that policy and to organize it.
Maybe I should point out the details and structure of the organization.


But you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that in order to create a National Health Service all that need be done is nationalisation of hospitals.

What this statute would create if this was all that it did is a Nationalised Hospital System. A Nationalised Hospital System is not the same thing as a National Health Service, or a National Health Care Service for that matter.


And honoured Ambassador you are yet to make the case that the model you propose is so surpassingly superior to any other that this organisation should force it upon all of its member states.

Yours,

We will battle it out on the vote count!
After all, that's why wwe're all here!
with respect,
p.s. I'm gonna redraft it including exact information about the NHS.
p.s.2 if the hospitals are not nationalized how can you create a NHS?

This nation will not support that measure simply because it doesn't believe the policy will work.

Free health care is a good idea but offers no incentives for growth. Customers will have no reason to shop around for competitive prices because they are using the government's money. Therefore hospitals wouldn't need to compete for their customers or employees by improving their services or benefits.

Capitalist competition is more efficient at providing cheaper, better health care and better employment opportunities. Hospitals will profit if they find new ways to give better, cheaper services than their rivals. They will also keep employees from taking a better offer from a rival hospital by offering higher wages, safer working conditions, and better benefits.

It's win-win: Hospitals benefit from profits, employees benefit from a better, safer job; customers benefit from better affordable services, and society benefits from the technological innovations spurred on by competition.

Perhaps if you could find a measure like this, Ambassador?

We will battle it out on the vote count!
After all, that's why wwe're all here!
with respect,
p.s. I'm gonna redraft it including exact information about the NHS.
p.s.2 if the hospitals are not nationalized how can you create a NHS?


We are not suggesting that a national health service could be created without government control of hospitals, what we are suggesting is that a national health service does not consist of government controlled hospitals alone.

A national health service consists of a very large array of other things as well as hospitals and without these other things this statute will not actually create a national health service.

The reason we ask you to make the case for the model you propose is that if you do not make that argument central to how you frame this law it will never be coherent enough to convince anyone to vote for it.

Yours,

This is a socialist proposal from a socialist state. This matter should be dropped in its entirety and left for the states to handle. Im not going Nat Sov here, but all its going to do is raise peoples taxes, eliminate competition, and in NO way improve health care. Hell, Bill down the street could be a Dr and not be fit to pour water out of a boot. The point bad doctors and malpractice are bigger concerns than this health care thing.

If you know how to make sure that everyone have free access to health care assistance without nationalising hospitals, I'll be happy to propose it, but i'm afraid it's impossible.
NHS is a necessary creation if you nationalize, because you must create an organization to enforce that policy and to organize it.
Maybe I should point out the details and structure of the organization.


If free or low-cost health care is what you are looking for, there are ways to do that without Nationalizing hospitals and clinics. Have you considered making Government programs to which people of low-income can apply and be judged on a case-by-case basis? Going to the state level will and can accomplish your goal by mandating Insurance companies provide health-care coverage policies for low-income people with pricing to be sorted out at a later time.

You must realize that nothing in life of this nature is ever free. Who funds it? Where does the group funding it get its funds? Let me guess, you want to tax the crap out of the working folk just so the lazy of the world can get looked at if they have the sniffles.

We will not support this unless all this Nationalization is purged from this legislation. There is a better way here to do this.

everything

This absolute claptrap completely ignores the fact that the real world exists and indicates clearly that the ambassador doesn't really understand the nonsense they spout.

Allow me now to preface my remarks towards the author of this resolution with certain remarks about how Kelssek believes healthcare is best run. We are, as many of those experienced in these halls know, a bunch of filthy commies. We are big, big, big fans of public healthcare and charging someone money for anything which is medically necessary is more than just frowned upon in our jurisdiction, it is a criminal offence.

With the assurance that we are not motivated by some crazed free-market ideology, or indeed even a skepticism towards public healthcare or our belief that access to health care is an inherent right, I now wish to state that this proposal is ridiculous. In fact, the statements made in support of it seem to indicate that the proposer suffers from much of the same blinkered ignorance as the delegation addressed at the beginning of my remarks.

Given the proposer's apparent ignorance to what a single-payer system is, and the numerous omissions and loopholes already pointed out by other hon. ambassadors, we strongly suggest that they properly acquaint themselves with public health policy before seeking to impose an ill-conceived one-size-fits-all mandate upon nations with wide variations in economic development, culture, and political system, all of which are important to consider in public health policy.

Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the WA

Given that we're supposed to be talking technicalities here, rather than content: is this flirting with the "ideological ban" damnbadthing*?

If the WA mandates that nations have a nationalised anything, are anarchies, libertarians, plutocracies et al being forced to forgo their founding ideology (or ideological lack thereof)?

I offer this question up in happy memory of the intricate rules-lawyering once indulged in by lamented nations such as Forgottenlords. Over to you, fellow nostalgists.






*Note, I'm not saying it is definitely is an ideological ban -- it doesn't, after all, actually ban -- and if you ask me to rule on it I'll go hide in the cupboard under the stairs (or say snootily, "It depends on the wording"). Just thought it was time for some high-falutin' theorisin'.

Capitalist competition is more efficient at providing cheaper, better health care and better employment opportunities.
Go in the US and then come here and tell me it's cheap.
i will wirte better my draft, post it and this resolution will pass, I bet it.

Please don't submit it, though, until you've posted it here for further discussion.

Sure.

Given that we're supposed to be talking technicalities here, rather than content
Exactly. I posted here to know if there were someting illegal, not if they agree or not.
p.s. in what category should i post it?

I've just simplified the proposal dividing it into sections, and made some corrections.
Can you tell me exactly what point shuold i change, because of grammal mistakes, too much semplification, or contradiction? Thank you very much.

The World Assembly,

CONSIDERING health care assistance an inalienable right of every man, woman and child;

BELIEVING that the State must provide the best possible health care without looking for profit;

NOTING that in some WA nations where hospitals are private many poor people cannot have the assistance they need and deserve;

CONSIDERING this situation intollerable and inacceptable for any civilized nation;

HEREBY STATES:

Section 1: Nationalization)
-That all WA nations within a year from the approval of this resolution must nationalize all private hospitals;
-That no-profit charitable and religious organizations who are not public but that provide free health care have the right to exist and cannot be nationalized;
-That any other tipe of private hospitals must be nationalized, paying fair compensation or, if necessary, by expropriation for the common good;
-That the nazionalized hospitals cannot be privatized in any ways, but must remain under public control.

Section 2: National Health Service)
-That in the same period of time all WA nations must create a National Health Service (NHS), to organize and make more effective the nationalized hospitals;
-That the burocratization of the NHS must be minimal and functional only to the needs of patients;
-That the NHS must be as much as possible decentralised: the creation of local departments of the NHS controlled by the local government. If these local departments do not respect the principles stated in this resolution the national government can take directly control over them.

Section 3: Standard of Cure)
-That the scope of the NHS is to provide the best possible health care assistance to anyone who need it, even if it's not a citizen of the nation;
-That immigrant people who need assistance must have the same rights of national citizens, because otherwise they will not be cured and diseases would spread on all nation's territory causing epidemics.
-The national hospitals must respect all the medical conventions approved by the WA, including the Patient's Rights Act.
-If a hospital does not respect the basic human rights and igienic conditions the national government can sack the current chairman and replace him with another one.

Section 4: Money)
-That the NHS cannot ask money for its service, and must offer the same assistance to anyone according to his needs, without any kind of discrimination;
-That cosmetic surgery is not considered medical assistance but luxury and the NHS cannot provide this. Are authorized private clinics who practice only this treatment.

Section 5: Budget)
-That the government must give the NHS the money it needs to provide the best possible assistance for free and to respect all the guidance stated in this resolution;
-That the NHS should be a priority for the government, except the cases when the national security of the nation is put in severe risk.

p.s.2 if the hospitals are not nationalized how can you create a NHS?
OOC: Check the situation in RL Canada _ If I've been informed correctly (and my source is a Canadian doctor...) then health facilities there are privately owned/run, but the government (national or provincial?) buys services from those facilities on behalf of the populace and sets standards.

I offer this question up in happy memory of the intricate rules-lawyering once indulged in by lamented nations such as Forgottenlords. Over to you, fellow nostalgists.And of course Fonzoland, who actually responded to a criticism that a Mod made about one of his posts by adopting "Excessive Nitpicking" -- or maybe "Excessive Nitpickery", I forget which of those it was -- as his nation's pre-title.. :)

*Note, I'm not saying it is definitely is an ideological ban -- it doesn't, after all, actually ban -- and if you ask me to rule on it I'll go hide in the cupboard under the stairs (or say snootily, "It depends on the wording"). Just thought it was time for some high-falutin' theorisin'.I'd say that it was, but I've been told by Mods (particularly Fris) in the past that my definition of "ideological ban" is a lot stricter than the one that's being enforced so I didn't try claiming it here (yet)...

I've just simplified the proposal dividing it into sections, and made some corrections.
Can you tell me exactly what point shuold i change, because of grammal mistakes, too much semplification, or contradiction? Thank you very much.
Apart from anything else, the way in which you're referring to the Patient's Rights Act here is illegal as a 'House of Cards' violation of the rules because it would be meaningless if that resolution ever gets repealed.

man, woman and child;

"Person" is better.

You have also spelt "intolerable", "bureaucratisation", "type" and "hygienic" incorrectly, as well as one unfortunate instance in which "nationalised" has become something involving fascism. There is no such word as "inacceptable"; you want "unacceptable". That's just on a quick skim; there are also grammatical errors that you should rectify.

Meanwhile, our objections stand. One-size-fits-all is not going to work and we are very concerned that you are so dismissive of the concerns presented by other nations.

-That the burocratization of the NHS must be minimal and functional only to the needs of patients;

What does this even mean? As I read this we'd have to fire a lot of people, and how do you propose we run our health service without administrative staff to process paperwork and keep proper accounting, for instance?

That cosmetic surgery is not considered medical assistance but luxury and the NHS cannot provide this

Who are you to say we cannot cover cosmetic surgery? There are persons such as burn or trauma victims, for instance, for whom plastic surgery may be quite a reasonable thing to do as part of their treatment.

That the scope of the NHS is to provide the best possible health care assistance to anyone who need it, even if it's not a citizen of the nation;

You're inviting people from non-WA nations to flood us to take advantage of our healthcare systems.

I should add that Kelssek has a single-payer system and would be required to overhaul our free, universal system and nationalise a lot of not-very-evil private healthcare facilities for no good reason if this poor proposal were to be passed. If you don't know what single-payer means, please use the power of the Internet.


OOC: Check the situation in RL Canada _ If I've been informed correctly (and my source is a Canadian doctor...) then health facilities there are privately owned/run, but the government (national or provincial?) buys services from those facilities on behalf of the populace and sets standards.

[Yeah, that's basically correct. To be very brief, the provincial governments run universal insurance plans and healthcare providers essentially bill the government. That's how I run it ICly too.]

Who are you to say we cannot cover cosmetic surgery? There are persons such as burn or trauma victims, for instance, for whom plastic surgery may be quite a reasonable thing to do as part of their treatment.

yes, I intended to add it i just forgot.
I'll consider your proposals, as permitting private companies like in Canada, but I firstly want to try to pass a complete nationalization like I proposed.

I decided to accept part of your proposals; but the correction require quite an amount of time. So Now I'm going to concentrate myself on the repeal of the Reolution on Nucalera Weapons.

I am glad that the hon. ambassador has shown a measure of maturity in accepting the criticism offered by other delegations, and I hope to see a better proposal in the future.

Ok, but obviously the major points of my resolution will remain.
Now i'm writting a quite long and complex proposal about the freedom and rights of workers. i'll post here soon. thanks again for your help.

p.s. in what category should i post it?OK, full stop. If you don't even know what category your proposal should be under you're going about it the wrong way. You need to pick the category before you write the proposal that way you can write the proposal to fit the category rather than try to shoehorn it into a category after it's written (which rarely ever works).

So Now I'm going to concentrate myself on the repeal of the Reolution on Nucalera Weapons.

You know, if I had a Flib* for every time someone tried to repeal one of my resolutions I wouldn't have to work here any more. Many have tried, only one has ever succeeded. *Bob glares at the empty chairs belonging to the Maxtopian delegation.*

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

*A Flib is the unit of currency for The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

I will be the second, you can bet.

OK, full stop. If you don't even know what category your proposal should be under you're going about it the wrong way. You need to pick the category before you write the proposal that way you can write the proposal to fit the category rather than try to shoehorn it into a category after it's written (which rarely ever works).

I was asking to avoid mistakes who will nullify all the resolution. I think it's 'Human Rights'.

Section 3: Standard of Cure)
-That the scope of the NHS is to provide the best possible health care assistance to anyone who need it, even if it's not a citizen of the nation;
-That immigrant people who need assistance must have the same rights of national citizens, because otherwise they will not be cured and diseases would spread on all nation's territory causing epidemics.
-The national hospitals must respect all the medical conventions approved by the WA, including the Patient's Rights Act.
-If a hospital does not respect the basic human rights and igienic conditions the national government can sack the current chairman and replace him with another one.



I dont see how this is enforciable. Its my right to deport anyone who has entered my nation by illegal means, but this bill is suggesting I need to treat anyone who has entered by illegal means.

As for the bill on the whole, I support the idea of every citizen having access to medical care but nationalisation and national health services dont nessesarily offer the best form of medical care for any nation. There are other ways and means for affordable medical care to be provided without forcing the nationalisation of the health care system.

Why should we have to extend health-care and such to illegal immigrants??? They should be rounded up and sent back home.

I posted the resolution, because i first want to try to pass it in the most radical form. If this doesn't pass, I'll consider your proposals and write it in a more moderate way.

I posted the resolution, because i first want to try to pass it in the most radical form. If this doesn't pass, I'll consider your proposals and write it in a more moderate way.


You mean the most absurd and incoherent form surely, honoured Ambassador ?


Yours,

that's your opinion. Where is incoherent?

that's your opinion. Where is incoherent?


Yes that is our opinion. The entire thing is incoherent, it makes no sense honoured Ambassador.


Yours,

tell me where it is incoherent.

Sir, I won't even delve into the merits of your proposal. However, a piece of advice I shall offer: The Ambassador will need a much tougher skin to get anything passed in these halls. It seems to not be the case.

Once you have thrown this for submission, let the Delegates express themselves through approval or silence. And since you have submitted it despite numerous objections, how can you express dismay at the labelling of your proposal?

I posted the resolution, because i first want to try to pass it in the most radical form. If this doesn't pass, I'll consider your proposals and write it in a more moderate way.

By submitting this this early, you've just committed the WA equivalent of throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks,

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I see this thing as is as a plane with one wing, crashing and burning.

Why they deleted it?

Why they deleted it?
If we might hazard a guess, we frankly doubt that this is a Human Rights proposal, and it contains a clear House of Cards violation. Beyond that it is quite simply horrible, and we say that as a representative of a nation with a fully government-run public health service.

Well, there are other proposals with more violations than my own. And why now do you eliminate them before they reach the quorum?

Well, there are other proposals with more violations than my own. And why now do you eliminate them before they reach the quorum?

When a proposal is illegal it gets deleted.

When a proposal is illegal it gets deleted.OOC: Especially if the Mods think that its title might appeal to enough out of those delegates who won't bother reading any further than that for there to be a risk of it reaching quorum...

Well, there are other proposals with more violations than my own. And why now do you eliminate them before they reach the quorum?


It has always been our aim to delete illegal proposals before they reached quorum. That's because we don't have the tools to delete them when they are AT VOTE*, no matter how awful they are, and we don't want WA members to have to waste time and effort rejecting or repealing them. Ideally, illegal proposals would disappear within a short time after their submission.

This isn't happening right now because the senior Game Mods who specialise in the WA are flat out elsewhere and the rest of us can't match their speed in handling WA rulings. So some illegal proposals that haven't a chance of gaining approvals are being left alone to expire automatically.

It's not an ideal situation, as players are not supposed to submit illegal proposals and are supposed to be penalised if they do. So some particularly bad proposal writers may dodge a bullet. The better, but still illegal, proposals are being deleted faster for the reason Bears Armed explained: many people don't read all the way through and think they're okay, so there's a real risk of their gaining enough approvals to reach quorum. Yours, for example, had reached 15 before it was killed.

As to why it was killed, two players pointed out the House of Cards violation, Bears Armed shared my view on ideological ban (I would have been open to argument there, but nobody did), and for me this line pushed it into metagaming:

That the nazionalized (sic) hospitals cannot be privatized in any ways ...

So not just the hospitals, but every industry that deals with them, must be nationalised? This, it seemed to me, was an attempt to change some of the decisions players made setting up their nations.

Nope. There was still work to do on this proposal;you submitted it too soon.

*Edited to fix wrong info.

Nope. There was still work to do on this proposal;you submitted it too soon Yes, I should have waited a little more, but I was upset because some of the comments were ideologically biased.
It's nice to read that it had reached 15 in one day, by the way!

What was the House of Cards violation?

Thank you.

Yes, I should have waited a little more, but I was upset because some of the comments were ideologically biased.
It's nice to read that it had reached 15 in one day, by the way!

What was the House of Cards violation?

Thank you.

You have made the mistake of presuming that much of the advice given to you was ideological. Most of it was not. Ours certainly wasn't. You have also made the more important mistake of becoming emotionally attached to your resolution. Why be "upset" by the comments of other delegations ? It would make more sense to take the opinions of those who are diametrically opposed to what you propose and make use of them.

In any case you will have to write a statute which allows for some of the ideological differences within this organisation, if only because what you are proposing involves a very great commitment of national spending.

Yours,

You have made the mistake of presuming that much of the advice given to you was ideological. Most of it was not. Ours certainly wasn't. You have also made the more important mistake of becoming emotionally attached to your resolution. Why be "upset" by the comments of other delegations ? It would make more sense to take the opinions of those who are diametrically opposed to what you propose and make use of them.

In any case you will have to write a statute which allows for some of the ideological differences within this organisation, if only because what you are proposing involves a very great commitment of national spending.

Yours,

yes, I finally agree with you. That's what I will do after i try to approve the nuclear Weapons Possession Act Repeal.

That's because we don't have the tools to delete them when they do reach quorum,

Sorry -- when they're AT VOTE, I meant. By the time a proposal reaches quorum it's usually near the top of the queue, and can slide into AT VOTE before anyone notices.

Also, re HoC:

Apart from anything else, the way in which you're referring to the Patient's Rights Act here is illegal as a 'House of Cards' violation of the rules because it would be meaningless if that resolution ever gets repealed.