Mideast Assembly Thread

[Peter]

Aye
I introduce the following:
Mideast Sexual Health Bill
For the purposes of this statute:

   1. Public Medical Facility means any medical or family planning centre under the direct control of the Regional government or a private medical or family planning centre that draws more than one-tenth of its funding from Regional funds.
   2. Non-Public Medical Facility means any medical or family planning centre not included in Clause 1.

Therefore,

   1. All Public medical facilities are hereby required to provide a reasonable amount of barrier contraception free of charge to any person who requests it.
   2. Any private facility covered under clause one that fails to comply shall have its Regional funding reduced to a point where it comprises exactly 10% of the facility's funding.
   3. Any non-Public medical facilities, and private facilities covered under clause one, that provide barrier contraception free of charge to persons may reclaim their costs subject to such rules and regulations as the Mideast Department of the Treasury shall deem necessary.
   4.  Each person who receives barrier contraception under the terms of this statute will be provided with a leaflet produced by the Mideast Department of Health explaining how to use the contraception, the dangers of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, the potential problems associated with unwanted pregnancies and any other facts that the Department of Health finds relevant.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I oppose the bill that Peter proposed, and urge the Governor to veto it in the event that it passes.

[Badger]

The vote is on the bill that I quoted above. Please vote now.

Aye.

[Peter]

The Ayes have it. The Ayes have it.
The bill is transmitted to the Governor for his signature or veto.

[Purple State]

As a side note (albeit slightly late), perhaps gender expression could be protected as well.

[Хahar 🤔]

As a private citizen, I'd like to recommend that the Mideast repeal its current electoral system in favor of STV.

[Purple State]

As a private citizen, I'd like to recommend that the Mideast repeal its current electoral system in favor of STV.

Why? This has worked well and fairly for the entirety of its existence thus far.

[Хahar 🤔]

As a private citizen, I'd like to recommend that the Mideast repeal its current electoral system in favor of STV.

Why? This has worked well and fairly for the entirety of its existence thus far.

This is only because there have been very few contested elections. What advantages does the current system have over STV?

[Badger]

I oppose the bill that Peter proposed, and urge the Governor to veto it in the event that it passes.

Goodness me, why?

I support the bill. There are few better ways to reduce abortions than reducing unintended pregnancies. Not to mention STDs.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I oppose the bill that Peter proposed, and urge the Governor to veto it in the event that it passes.

I'm very intrested to hear your argument as to why this is so horrible?

I will most likely support this bill. As I see it, the most effective way we can bring down unwanted pregnacies and sexual diseases are to make people use condoms and other barrier contraception. If we can bring down the number of unwanted pregnancies, we will also bring down the number of abortions, which I think is vital as I do not think highly of abortion. One of the biggest part to make people, especially teens and young adults, to use protection is to make it more available. Therefore I'm very positive to this legislations. I'd very much like to hear the opposition's point of view before I completely make up my mind though.

[Franzl]

I don't see any reason to oppose the sexual health bill, unless you think that it's encouraging "immoral behavior".

I fully support the proposal.

[big bad fab]

As a citizen, I respectfully disagree with the proposal called "Mideast Sexual Health Bill".

- First of all, I don't think public money should be used to subsidize items that are for private and personal use.
What is more, at a time of economic crisis and budgetary constraints, even on other health spendings.
Of course, if this proposal is voted, there will be a windfall or bonanza effect for many people who can afford these devices, but who will go to public medical facilities to get free devices. And, based on the necessary privacy of the delivery, it would be of course irrealistic to check personal financiel resources...

And if you begin to subsidize one type of items, you may soon have demands for subsidizing anything else in the same category or other "health" devices.
Furthermore, a "reasonable" amount isn't precise enough to prevent this new spending to grow out of control.

- Following this argument, I may add that this proposal entails that the Regional Government favors some types of contraception over other ones.
This proposal would favor uses of costlier means of contraception, over means of contraception that don't cost anything.

- Secondly, there is a limit to the public intervention in private matters. You want to avoid unwanted pregnancies and abortions, which is a good idea.
But you must first rely on information, education and personal responsibility. A government should first view its citizens as adults and take measures only when the problem is obviously out of control and when personal responsibility isn't enough to tackle it. I don't think this is the case for the moment.

You may argue that this a public health problem, but eating badly is a far bigger public health problem and the government doesn't plan to subsidize massively "safe" food (and wouldn't have the financial resources to do it).

- Finally, I ask a question about the timeliness of this proposal, just before the election, whereas our Region is plagued with foreclosures, budgetary constraints with less tax revenues and, furthermore, high unemployment, , as Sweedish Cheese underlined it accurately in his candidacy speech.

One may wonder whether it is a real priority on the Assembly's agenda or if it is a way of intervening in the campaign ?

I'm sorry to take again the liberty of interrupting the Assembly's debates, but some questions have to be asked and some arguments have to be put forward.

Thanks for your attention.

[Franzl]

I don't see any reason to oppose the sexual health bill, unless you think that it's encouraging "immoral behavior".

I fully support the proposal.

OK, big bad fab just proved me wrong

Still, I think it's a logical step towards reducing sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy....and that should have priority over any ideological disputes.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Glad to see you taking part in the debate BBF.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here in Sweden you can get free condoms in so called youth clinics if you're under the age of 24 or 25 (Can't recall which one). As teens and young adults are the group where sexual transmitted diseases as well as unwanted pregnancies are the biggest problem, and since teens and college students usually doesn't have a lot of money, maybe setting an age limit for how old you are allowed to be to get acess to the free barrier contraception would be an acceptable compromise to ease your worries on this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Funny you'd say that, I was actually thinking about proposing a bill that would require Medical Facilities to give people free skin lotion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can actually think of one form of contraception that's more affective than condoms to prevent both sexual diseases and pregnancy that is also free, but unfortunatley lesbian sex can only be used by half the population. And of that half only around 5-10 % are willing to use the method. Gay sex is very effective too against pregnancies, not so much against sexual diseases unfortuantley.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough, but it's not like we're forcing people to use a special sort of contraception over another. They can still rely on abstinance if they want, and they can still choose to have sex without any protection and hope for the best. We will just make it easier for people to get hold of protection if they want to use it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is why I said I am not 100 % behind the bill yet, and this was the main argument I was counting on people apposed to the bill would bring forward. It is true that we right now is in need of cutting unnecessary spending not adding more to avoid creating an even bigger deficit than we already have.

However the argument that I will make is that we will end up paying either way. As of the passing of the Atlasian National Healthcare Bill, when teens get sexual transmitted diseases because not using condoms,  our tax money will end up financing their treatment. Especially when it comes to certain heinous diseases like HIV, that means we will have to pay for expensive medicine for the rest of that persons life.

So if we can decrease the number of sexual diseases with this proposal, that might actually help us save money.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well I invited you to take active part here in my speech, and I am happy to hear your views on the subject. Only when we see both sides of a coin does we know which way to best attack it.

[Badger]

Stockholm Cheddar spoke my thoughts quite well. A few additional thoughts:

Peter's choice of subsidized barrier birth control is rationally related to reasonable societal goals and perfectly acceptable for regional government to promote as opposed to other methods. While other methods such as the pill combat unintended pregnancies, only barrier protection such as condoms prevents the spread of STDs. Also, other more sophisticated methods such as the pill require more oversight/monitoring (and thus time and money) from health care staff.

SC correctly pointed out the considerable potential health care savings by proactively reducing the spread of STDs. Think also about the potential savings of the welfare and health care system by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. A disproportionate number of unintended pregnancies, especially among teenagers, result in increased costs to social services like AFDC, Head Start, SCHIP and Medicaid. A proactive reduction in such unintended teen pregnancies can save the taxpayers FAR more than the costs of free condoms and sponges. As the old saying goes: "An ounce of prevention......

I join Swede's crusade: "Skin lotion for all!" ;-)

All this said, Fab, I think its important for Mideast voters to add their two cents to the Assembly's debate and strongly encourage you continue speaking your mind.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I oppose the bill that Peter proposed, and urge the Governor to veto it in the event that it passes.

I'm very intrested to hear your argument as to why this is so horrible?

I will most likely support this bill. As I see it, the most effective way we can bring down unwanted pregnacies and sexual diseases are to make people use condoms and other barrier contraception. If we can bring down the number of unwanted pregnancies, we will also bring down the number of abortions, which I think is vital as I do not think highly of abortion. One of the biggest part to make people, especially teens and young adults, to use protection is to make it more available. Therefore I'm very positive to this legislations. I'd very much like to hear the opposition's point of view before I completely make up my mind though.

I oppose this because I don't want to pay for somebody else's birth control--let's face it, nothing is really "free". If someone wants to get birth control, they ought to PAY for it, and not expect to get it for "free" at the taxpayer's expense. Not to mention that, as Franzl said, it does encourage immoral behavior.

By the way, what does Peter consider a "reasonable" amount of contraception?

[Purple State]

The problem is that most unwanted pregnancies happen among those who cannot often afford means of contraception. Education initiatives are nice, but if they don't have the money to practice safe-sex, no amount of knowledge will matter.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The bill has been signed.

[Peter]

The bill longer term will, I suspect, pay for itself. If there is a wide availability of barrier contraception, this will decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies. If this is the case, there is a lower number of abortions, thus reducing any health complications from an abortion, thus reducing the exposure of the taxpayer to pay to treat these patients.

It also will hopefully decrease the number of STD infections, thus again reducing the exposure of the taxpayer to these patients. Most of all, I think that the very people this bill will protect are the future of the Mideast economy - it will stop the hard-working Atlasians of tomorrow from contracting an illness that inhibits their ability to work and thus grow the economy.

I originally considered an age cap when I wrote this bill (it was in fact written some years ago and lied dormant on my wiki page). On balance, I do not like to discriminate against individuals based on age, and I think the probability is that there will be few people over a certain age who would use the service, thus meaning the age cap would not save much money.

My intent in the "reasonable" amount of contraception was to stop a joker going into a clinic and asking for 100000 condoms. Not sensible, and a waste of resources. As far as I am concerned, it is the medical professionals judgement as to what is reasonable in the case before them. I trust doctors, nurses and all hard working public servants to make these decisions.

My bill would ultimately open free contraception to teenagers who at the moment would probably not have sufficient independent financial means to buy their own, and certainly would not ask their parents for it. This is a critical age group for the future of the economy and we must do everything in our power to protect it.

- Finally, I ask a question about the timeliness of this proposal, just before the election, whereas our Region is plagued with foreclosures, budgetary constraints with less tax revenues and, furthermore, high unemployment, , as Sweedish Cheese underlined it accurately in his candidacy speech.

One may wonder whether it is a real priority on the Assembly's agenda or if it is a way of intervening in the campaign ?

Whilst you are welcome to your opinions and may voice them as you please, I must take great exception to this comment. I have always proposed bills that I feel are in the best interests of whomever my constituents were at the time - I do not propose bills for the purposes of my own electability (not that I am a candidate for election at any rate).

[Badger]

(not that I am a candidate for election at any rate).

You're not running for re-election to the Assembly? >:-(

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

(not that I am a candidate for election at any rate).

You're not running for re-election to the Assembly? >:-(

He hasn't announced he is yet. So technically no he isn't. That doesn't mean he won't decide to run before the election.

And Peter is one of this country's most experienced and talanted politicians. He's one of the authors of the current constitution. So it might be he has decided he wants to do something else for a while than the Assembly and don't seek re-election.

I think his point is mainly though that the soon forth-coming election is not effecting his actions in the Assembly, so you probably won't have to worry.



Anyway, it seems most of the Assemblymen share the same oppinion on this legislation.   

[Badger]

Mr. Speaker, as there's clearly unanimity in the Assembly on this measure, may the matter be called for a vote please?

[big bad fab]

Sorry, I was a bit busy for having answered immediately to your arguments.
As you want to call for a vote on the matter, I won't be long.

In a nutshell, I always think we should first (even if not only) rely on personal and individual responsibility and support it to "emerge" and prevail.
It's the only long term solution.

In France, when the HIV began to be less talked about because of flat statistics and of less media covering, the use of condoms declined and other campaigns on personal responsibility had to be revived by the health administration and by the gay associations.
Whereas condoms are available at very low prices (and even free in some medical cases), the use of them just declined, and not especially among poor people: they were just viewed as "boring", especially among upper classes...

So, many good theoretical aims and principles are inaccurate in real life.

Anyways, I let our Assemblymen deliberate and vote quietly.

BTW, Peter, there was no personal offence in my final question. We are in a game and, when one wants to play "seriously" in this game, as we are in an electoral period, one has to ask .
It's a bit difficult sometimes to see differences between Atlasians hwo post only for fun, Atlasians who are entirely serious, Atlasians who say they play but push very serious bills, Atlasians who are never in the same logic, etc.
That's why it's better to make things clear.

[Peter]

There has been no substantive debate in 24 hours. A vote is hereby opened.

[Хahar 🤔]

As a private citizen, I'd like to recommend that the Mideast repeal its current electoral system in favor of STV.

Why? This has worked well and fairly for the entirety of its existence thus far.

This is only because there have been very few contested elections. What advantages does the current system have over STV?