NationStates Jolt Archive

A poll will added after the debate has finished.

Proposal Outline

RECOGNIZES the skill and expertise of doctors, nurses and medical staff.

RECOGNIZES that despite attemps by doctors and charities to bring healthcare to the Working Class, they have not been succesful.

BELIEVES that people should never, regardless of class, creed or background, have to resort to charity.

REALISES that many people cannot afford healthcare and it is benefiticial for the country as a whole for the wholew community to be fit and healthy.

The bill also:

1) Nationalizes existing health facilities into the NationStates Medical Service.
2) Crestes a governing body for individual health facilities.
3) Creates a governing body for the entire service.
3) Provides a legal framework to fund the service.

Full Text

The full text may be viewed here (http://udcp.11.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?p=649#649)

A poll will added after the debate has finished.

Proposal Outline

RECOGNIZES the skill and expertise of doctors, nurses and medical staff.
As determined by who? The government, or the private citizen? If my "free" healthcare is dependent on just who the government happens to think is a qualified professional, I can't imagine being to thrilled by the prospect.

RECOGNIZES that despite attemps by doctors and charities to bring healthcare to the Working Class, they have not been succesful.
I think this is a bit of an exaggeration. Most of us have health issues of some variety, it's just a question of where more of the costlier ones tend to fall. Some problems are caused by bad conditions, which means taking more money from these people to help with the problems caused by their conditions that they can't improve because we're taking so much money from them is something of a redundancy. If you couldn't tell.

BELIEVES that people should never, regardless of class, creed or background, have to resort to charity.
Of course they shouldn't have to, but that's only in a fairytale world where accidents don't happen. They shouldn't have to resort to charity, but that's not a good enough reason to do away with the concept or put private chairty on a more tenuous moral ground than it already is.

REALISES that many people cannot afford healthcare and it is benefiticial for the country as a whole for the wholew community to be fit and healthy.
How do you define "many?" In the US, the poverty rate has been hovering around 10 percent for the last few years. Is 35 million people, compared to a remainder population of roughly 250 million people actually that many? Is it worth dipping into the pockets of the other 250 million to fix?

The bill also:

1) Nationalizes existing health facilities into the NationStates Medical Service.
Strongly opposed. As mentioned in my opening argument, giving the government too much power in an area like this [or any area, in general] prohibits the private citizen from acting within the context of his own needs; rather it sets a template for them to which his needs must conform to become eligible.


2) Crestes a governing body for individual health facilities.
3) Creates a governing body for the entire service.
3) Provides a legal framework to fund the service.

Full Text

The full text may be viewed here (http://udcp.11.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?p=649#649)
I think my position on this should be pretty obvious.

I see no good reason for a government, which is in the business of creating laws, to branch out into the health business. Nor should it become a health insurer as it is far too incompetent in micro management and financial investment to be able to do either well.

If we do not tax people, they will have the means to pay insurance for themselves and their families. If they have no income, then this should motivate them to do something about it. The physically and mentaly handicapped can be supported by charities and, if necessary by government funding. But the lazy and incompetent do not deserve to have their inability to fend for themselves ameliorated at the cost of other honest working people.

This is a personal opinion, and does not represent the position of the NSCL.

The NS Medical Service is not designed to be the government 'branching out' into the health sector. It creates a universal health service which is run mostly independantly from the government.

As determined by who? The government, or the private citizen? If my "free" healthcare is dependent on just who the government happens to think is a qualified professional, I can't imagine being to thrilled by the prospect.

Tell me: what is the difference between the government deciding who is qualified and the private sector deciding who is qualified? Unfortunately, the private sector is not a magic wand that suddenly picks out the best doctors, nurses, researchers and the like.

I think this is a bit of an exaggeration. Most of us have health issues of some variety, it's just a question of where more of the costlier ones tend to fall. Some problems are caused by bad conditions, which means taking more money from these people to help with the problems caused by their conditions that they can't improve because we're taking so much money from them is something of a redundancy. If you couldn't tell.

We all have health issuses, rich and poor. The funding of a health service was not decided by this bill, to allow for a seperate debate as to where the tax burden to paying for it should fall. However, it seems unfair that people should have to pay large amounts of money in private healthcare simply for having an accident, in circumstances that may be out of their control, especially the poor, who cannot afford this sudden expense.

Of course they shouldn't have to, but that's only in a fairytale world where accidents don't happen. They shouldn't have to resort to charity, but that's not a good enough reason to do away with the concept or put private chairty on a more tenuous moral ground than it already is.

What we wrote was a belief, not an argument. It is still important, though, to use what power we have to make sure everyone has access to health facilities, not just those who can get charity and those who can afford to go private.

How do you define "many?" In the US, the poverty rate has been hovering around 10 percent for the last few years. Is 35 million people, compared to a remainder population of roughly 250 million people actually that many? Is it worth dipping into the pockets of the other 250 million to fix?

Yes - 35 million people too many.

Strongly opposed. As mentioned in my opening argument, giving the government too much power in an area like this [or any area, in general] prohibits the private citizen from acting within the context of his own needs; rather it sets a template for them to which his needs must conform to become eligible.

Noone has to conforn under this bill, it provides universal health care. Under this bill there is no illegible person who cannot be refused treatment.

There is no gurantee, either, that the private sector provides facities for every citizen health needs. It provides services on who is profitable, not who needs health services.

I think my position on this should be pretty obvious.

It does kinda stand out :p

Tell me: what is the difference between the government deciding who is qualified and the private sector deciding who is qualified? Unfortunately, the private sector is not a magic wand that suddenly picks out the best doctors, nurses, researchers and the like.
You have a point, however this is probably one of the least of my concerns. Also, it is worth noting however that the words 'private sector' were not invoked in my opening thesis.


We all have health issuses, rich and poor. The funding of a health service was not decided by this bill, to allow for a seperate debate as to where the tax burden to paying for it should fall.
TANSTAAFL. You guys love to call programs like this 'Free Healthcare,' but it most certainly is not. Tax funded healthcare implies that it is the role of the government to keep us alive; I would prefer that task be left to me thankyoudrivethrough.

By not taking tax revenue out of every pocket in the nation, we're making the private citizen that much more able to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs: if any progrma like this is to be set up I cannot endorse it unless it's a pay-as-you-go program, funded with user fees and the like. Which brings us to you rnext point.

However, it seems unfair that people should have to pay large amounts of money in private healthcare simply for having an accident, in circumstances that may be out of their control, especially the poor, who cannot afford this sudden expense.
And it's unfair that my boss is a mindless prick with his head up his ass; it's not fair that I've busted my ass in that place for 10 months and I haven't seen a raise since November. Does that mean it's justified to pass a law demanding all dishwashers in the foodservice industry receive a raise every so often? Of course it's not fair, but that's life. Once we start obsessing over making everything 'fair,' we will begin to realize that we've turned our nation in to a police state.

What we wrote was a belief, not an argument. It is still important, though, to use what power we have to make sure everyone has access to health facilities, not just those who can get charity and those who can afford to go private.
Here we go with the 'fairness' again. Please, for the love of God, find some other way to justify this beyond "It's not fair!" And people wonder why I treat leftists like children.

Yes - 35 million people too many.
Oh please. You can't possibly be telling me that you really think there's a way to get rid of poverty. I'll agree that it's a deplorable thing, but we're not going to end poverty by generating more of it with higher tax revenue. This 'Lets make everyone poor' mentality serves no purpose but to stifle human volition and brew malcontent among the masses.

Noone has to conforn under this bill, it provides universal health care. Under this bill there is no illegible person who cannot be refused treatment.
Oh that's real nice, that means I get to pay for drug addicts and drunkasses who get fucked up and go out to do stupid shit that gets them hurt. And drunk drivers? I get to pay for them too when they wrap their dumb ass around a tree. Some guy breaks into my house and gets his ass shot? Guess what!

No thanks.

There is no gurantee, either, that the private sector provides facities for every citizen health needs. It provides services on who is profitable, not who needs health services.
And if it can't reach a certain amount of customers, it goes out of business. People who have no experience with the medical industry love to say stuff like this; there's this perpetual myth surrounding the whole thing that tells us that all corporations are evil and that the private sector intentionally makes medicine too expensive just because they can. If you're going to say that the private sector is automatically going to fuck it up no matter what, then I get to say that the government will mismanage the funds and tax us too heavily for it because it can.

And, I'd just like to point out, it would be infinitely easier for the government to get away with somethinl like this.


It does kinda stand out :p
I try.

It all comes down to priorities in principles, doesn't it... I believe one of the most essential duties of the state is to ensure the health of the people. Something as basic and as important as health cannot be left to free market principles, where the quality of your health depends upon your wealth. Everyone's health should be ensured, and for that the profit motive must be removed from the equation, which means health must be the responsability of the state.

Of course, for now we're simply discussing whether this issue is worthy of being brought before Parliament, and to that I vote yea.

I'll be away for a month starting in a couple of days, so I won't be able to take part in the actual debate, nor vote - but of course, I support this proposal.

Will alternate forms of medicine, for example and especially Chinese medicine (which has been proved by 5000 years of hardcore experience) gain equal standing with the mainstream Western style medicine?

The NS Medical Service is not designed to be the government 'branching out' into the health sector. It creates a universal health service which is run mostly independantly from the government.

I take this to mean in all aspects apart from the decision making ones. In all apsects apart from who shall and who shall not be treated, in all apsects apart from what procedures will be provided.

The point is that while the health service is paid for by taxation, it will be administered by bureaucrats and not be able to respond to the health needs of the nation.

Private systems are highly responsive to changes in demands, nationalised systems hardly ever respond to anything.

Look also at the cost per patient figures for the UK comparing private health care to state health care. Private is cheaper without taking into account the DHSS costs (Department of Health and Social Security).

So what is being suggested is a more expensive, less responsive, less efficient and outdated system in place of an efficient effective and responsive private system. We oppose as a party.



It is not clear in this thread if this is a legislation proposal or a legislation debate. If it is a proposal to debate health care, then I support the proposal. If it is a debate about providing a state funded health system then I oppose.

It all comes down to priorities in principles, doesn't it... I believe one of the most essential duties of the state is to ensure the health of the people. Something as basic and as important as health cannot be left to free market principles, where the quality of your health depends upon your wealth.
I've got news for you: In many cases, no matter what your economic model, the quality of your life is frequently dependent on how much money you have. Not just your health. Everyone's health should be ensured, and for that the profit motive must be removed from the equation, which means health must be the responsability of the state. Basically what you're doing here is reaffirming the predominantly socialist belief that we're all somehow entitled to man-made products and innovations.

Tell me, on what rational basis does this assumption lie? If we're all entitled to man-made things, then why stop at healthcare? Why not just go ahead and say we can take whatever we see?

I have to concur with my colleague Melkor, and, of course, the Liberal policy. The debate isn't really about free vs private healthcare, it really boils down to "who pays for it." I, for one, believe that health care, like education (a seperate issue, I know) is better served by tailoring to individual needs. No one has the exact same health needs. Therefore, it makes more sense for an individual to pay for his own specific health needs then to have the general population pay for a shotgun approach, so to speak.

Should this come up as a vote on proposed legislation, I agree with the Liberals: nationalized healthcare will only make things worse in the long run. I agree there would almost definatly be immediate short-term benefits to such a health care system, but it's much more prudent to look as far ahead as possible, and realize that issues such as health care, poverty, et al, are never EVER going away.

BELIEVES that people should never, regardless of class, creed or background, have to resort to charity.


What do you call this proposal?

Definition of charity:

[n] an activity or gift that benefits the public at large
[n] a kindly and lenient attitude toward people
[n] an institution set up to provide help to the needy
[n] a foundation created to promote the public good (not for assistance to any particular individuals)

First:
Excellent posts Melkor. I would respond to each ignorant point, etc. But you have done already, saving me the trouble...


As a NS Classic Liberal MP, I will vote against this, both personally and as that is the emerging consensus of the party.


I Finish with some nice (relevant) quotes...
:
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free. – P.J. O'Rourke (1993)

The government's War on Poverty has transformed poverty from a short-term misfortune into a career choice. – Harry Browne

They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here? – Paul Harvey 8/31/94

Have you ever noticed how statists are constantly "reforming" their own handiwork? Education reform. Health-care reform. Welfare reform. Tax reform. The very fact that they're always busy "reforming" is an implicit admission that they didn't get it right the first 50 times. – Lawrence W. Reed, economist, in The Freeman

National Health Insurance means combining the efficiency of the Postal Service with the compassion of the I.R.S. … and the cost accounting of the Pentagon. – Louis Sullivan/Connie Horner quoted by Novak in _Forbes_

Nationalized health is synonymous with delays, waiting lists, rationing, and high taxes. – Dr. Christopher Lyon

It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights – the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery – hay and a barn for human cattle. – Alexis De Tocquiville

I've got news for you: In many cases, no matter what your economic model, the quality of your life is frequently dependent on how much money you have. Not just your health. Everyone's health should be ensured, and for that the profit motive must be removed from the equation, which means health must be the responsability of the state. Basically what you're doing here is reaffirming the predominantly socialist belief that we're all somehow entitled to man-made products and innovations.

Well, I was elected on the basis of "socialist beliefs", wasn't I? ;)

But we're talking about something basic and essential here: health. If people are not entitled to health, then what are they entitled to? How can profit go before the most basic necessities for survival? I can never agree to health being a merchandise, sold for profit only to those who can afford it.


Tell me, on what rational basis does this assumption lie? If we're all entitled to man-made things, then why stop at healthcare? Why not just go ahead and say we can take whatever we see?

See above. And please tell me by what leap of logic you make that statement. Unless you're seriously saying that, because man cannot be entitled to everything, then he can be entitled to nothing (not even life), then your statement doesn't hold water. Where's the problem in drawing a line to determine what people are reasonably entitled to and what they're not? That's how it's always been done, and it's what you're doing yourself. The only difference is where you and I put that line.

It is not clear in this thread if this is a legislation proposal or a legislation debate. If it is a proposal to debate health care, then I support the proposal. If it is a debate about providing a state funded health system then I oppose.

As per Parliamentary procedural rules, it's a proposal. NB, perhaps you could edit the thread title to make that clear?

I lived in a country which had a nationalized system of healthcare, the Soviet Union that is. Now I live in Russia, and our present system is best described as 'in transition'. I am a doctor myself, BTW.

My point is, the Soviet Union had healthcare that was officially free. In practice doctors were likely to do something after receiving some kind of 'gift--need I say more?

I'll tell a story. One day, Stalin was studying a healthcare budget. He crossed off pay rise for doctors (nobody denied him the power of line-item veto ;)), and the Minister of Health asked why. 'A good doctor will always be able to feed himself,' the answer was.

In Russia today healthcare is mostly 'free'--that means that you have to pay only to a doctor... BTW, I myself work in a private clinic.

I'm against the nationalization of healthcare.

Well, we've got free health care here in France, it works fine, and I'm damn glad we've got it. I would never move to a country without it. So... *shrugs*

Exclaimer: This is my personal view, and at this point I do not represent the view of the DSP

When passed, the government shall nationalise all health facilities into the Nationstates Medical Service. Private industry shall be henceforth illegal in the Health sector unless a law is passed overriding this clause. The government may not Privatize any existing or future health facility.

I reckon that goes too far. Private Enterprise should be regulated, not outlawed. Think of the enormous amounts of money and effort by us in order to sustain something private enterprise could do too.
While I'm in favour of Health Care that does not cost the patient anything, I think there are better ways to go about it.

Exclaimer: This is my personal view, and at this point I do not represent the view of the DSP