[GA, Failed] Emergency Healthcare For International Travelers [Complete]

TlomzKrano

TlomzKrano

Just a blob chasing cars
-
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Kranostav
Discord
Tlomz
Category: Health
Area of Effect: Healthcare
Proposed by: Chus Kruthe
Onsite Topic

The World Assembly,

Aware that medical emergency situations may happen to people when they're traveling in foreign countries,

Understanding that emergency medical care can cause costs well beyond the traveler's available personal funds,

Wishing to bridge this financial gap to ensure international travelers can receive medical care regardless of the thickness of their wallets at the time,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,

a."international traveler" as a person who is traveling in or through a WA member nation, in which they are not a resident, and is doing so for purposes of business or leisure,
b."nation of origin" as the nation in which an international traveler is a resident,
c."medical emergency" as a serious, sudden, unforeseeable need for medical care, including but not limited to physical injury, heart attack, stroke, chemical overdose or the onset of an illness,
2. Reaffirms that member nations are requires to provide medical care to residents and international travelers alike, in the case of a life-threatening medical emergency,

3. Requires member nations to provide international travelers medical care in medical emergencies, even if it is not life-threatening,

4. Clarifies that member nations must treat international travelers using the same priorities as they use on their own residents, but do not have to give them a higher priority,

5. Directs member nations to assist the international traveler in returning to their nation of origin,

6. Allows member nations to send an invoice to the nation of origin to demand payment for the healthcare costs that have accrued from treating the medical emergency, if the international traveler is unable to pay for them,

7. Prohibits member nations from inflating the cost of or overcharging for care they have provided under this resolution,

8. Further clarifies that nations are only obliged to provide medical care to international travelers in cases of emergency and are not obliged to care for ailments which the international traveler was aware of or knew they required treatment for when they entered the nation,

9. Further clarifies that this resolution only applies to international travelers who are traveling for purposes of business or leisure; the treatment of people who are in the nation against their will, such as prisoners of war, should be handled by other legislation.

Co-Authored By The Grand Nation of Araraukar
Click to expand...

Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

[wavote=the_north_pacific,ga]2017_08_27_emergency_healthcare_for_international_travelers[/wavote]
[wavote=world,ga]2017_08_27_emergency_healthcare_for_international_travelers[/wavote]
 
The resolution is well intended to ensure that persons traveling abroad are afforded the same medical care as any other person in the event of the onset of an emergency medical condition regardless of the traveler's ability to pay. This much is admirable and could stand as a resolution by itself if measures were taken to ensure costs were covered.

However, although the proposal highlights basic rights travelers have to ensure they are cared for in an emergency medical event, this proposal also makes a problem out of what could be solved with a smaller and more efficient insurance program that member nations can use to ensure the safety and health of their citizens.

The proposal attempts to require member nations to foot the bill for medical expenses of tourists and then redirect the expenses to the home government of said tourists, assuming the home nation will be able to pay for the medical expenses of their citizens. Combined with an unintended prohibition on charging interest, the given invoice can create a long string of unpaid medical bills in tourism based countries.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote against the resolution.
 
For

[border=#090,1,solid][bgcolor=#090]SD:[/bgcolor] Invalid. In order for your vote to count towards the Delegate's decision, your WA nation needs to be in The North Pacific before the voting thread is opened or you must be on an NPA mission.[/border]
 
I don't get a vote, but I support this, people should have a right to access basic medical care.
 
For.

Here is my analysis, after a complete review of the resolution at vote, and current legislation (GAR#29, #31, #35 and #97):

This is a controversial point. Although patients have the right to receive emergency medical treatment, under existing legislation (which also establishes the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation in which they live or in which they are in a given moment), it could be the case that medical assistance to travelers generates expenses that are never recovered by the nation that executes them. We can think of citizens who decide to travel to other nations to receive public healthcare, which would be called "medical tourism".

This may be detrimental to some economies. However, existing legislation encourages coordination among existing health agencies in member nations, in order to promote decent health standards in the international community. In addition, it authorizes the World Health Authority (WHA) to coordinate efforts among those nations. This is consistent with the resolution at vote, as it authorizes member nations to demand payment for the involved medical care costs (in the event the traveler can not afford them). Moreover, it prohibits surcharges and clarifies that member nations are not obliged to care for ailments which the international traveler was aware of when they entered the nation (so that it does not promote "medical tourism").

Even if the nation providing medical care does not receive adequate reimbursement, current legislation states that the WHA can finance any nation that requires it, following an audit to ensure transparency and honesty. In this way, coverage of costs and compliance with the right to health is guaranteed (with a view to adopting a human rights-based approach to health and to further promoting health in international law).
 
Against
Whilst the Government of the Republic of Markonia supports the principle of universal healthcare and is fortunate in being able to support such a system at home, we recognise that not all nations are so well endowed. Consider an impoverished nation in the grip of a viral outbreak where it's citizens flood across the border, one would hope that the generosity of neighbours would be forthcoming but this legislation could result in a nation already in the midst of crisis being subjected to a unlimited bill for medical expenses. For this reason we will vote against the resolution.
 
For, for the reasons brought up by SF

I would also argue that adding more insurance companies and plans to the fire would be detrimental. Especially going from richer nations into poorer ones. Insurance companies by their nature drive healthcare costs up not down forcing hospitals to raise their prices just to give insurance companies a deal.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top