Pacific Proposition-Official MCS

[Platypus]

Pacific Statute on Prescription Medication

1. All those State funded programs relating to offsetting and subsidising Prescription medication that is provided for in this Statute is hereby cancelled.

2. The Regional Government shall subsidise Prescription Medication purchased by patients and/or their families that shall meet the following criteria:

i. The Medication is essential for maintaining the life or the quality of life of the patient being treated. Determination of essential shall be made by the qualified physician principally responsible for treating the patient.

ii. The Medication shall have been accredited by the independent panel of experts described in Section 5.

iii. The Medication shall be the most clinically effective available, and shall have this effectiveness supported by at least one clinical study.

iv. The Medication purchased shall be the least expensive of the generic form of the Medication.

3. Quality of Life Medication

i. Once a patient (or their family) shall have spent $5000 on Medication for the purpose of maintaining the quality of life of the patient in one fiscal year, the Regional government shall subsidise Medication purchased for the purpose of maintaining the life of the patient at a rate of 40%.

ii. Once a patient (or their family) shall have spent $10000 on Medication in either this Section or Section 4 in one fiscal year, the Regional government shall subsidise Medication purchased for the purpose of maintaining quality of life at a rate of 60%.

iii. Once a patient (or their family) shall have spent $20000 on Medication in either this Section or Section 4 in one fiscal year, the Regional government shall subsidise Medication purchased for the purpose of maintaining quality of life at a rate of 80%.

4. Life Saving Medication

i. Once a patient (or their family) shall have spent $2000 on Medication for the purpose of maintaining the life of the patient in one fiscal year, the Regional government shall subsidise Medication purchased for the purpose of maintaining the life of the patient at a rate of 75%.

ii. Once a patient (or their family) shall have spent $10000 on Medication in either this Section or Section 3 in one fiscal year, the Regional government shall subsidise Medication purchased for the purpose of maintaining quality of life at a rate of 95%.

iii. Once a patient (or their family) shall have spent $20000 on Medication in either this Section or Section 3 in one fiscal year, the Regional government shall subsidise Medication purchased for the purpose of maintaining quality of life at a rate of 100%.

5. Expert Panel

i. The Regional government shall appoint an eleven member panel of experts to determine that Medication which shall be available to be purchased under Section 2.

ii. Experts in this context shall extend to pharmaceutical industry representatives, healthcare specialists and medicinal scientists.

iii. The panel shall be able to use the criteria they deem appropriate to determine the clinical effectiveness of Medication.

iv. The panel shall also be responsible for determining the effectiveness and sustainability of the scheme outlined in this Statute and shall report every two years to the Regional government on the same. The panel shall have the assistance of government auditors in carrying out this duty.

6. Funding

$220 million, with appropriate adjustments for inflation, shall be appropriated every year to finance this scheme.


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

BIG THANK YOU to Peter Bell for translating it into legalese!

To see the debate on this, or to continue it, please look here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=14762.0

And to sign it, please do so below so that it may attain ballot status

[Platypus]

X Hughento

[minionofmidas]

x Lewis Trondheim

We have one week for three more signatures.

[Gabu]

Well, I haven't read it carefully enough yet to know whether or not I support it at this point in time, but a brief skim definitely looked as though it wouldn't hurt to have it on the ballot, so I'll sign it.

X Gabu

[TheWildCard]

Well, I haven't read it carefully enough yet to know whether or not I support it at this point in time, but a brief skim definitely looked as though it wouldn't hurt to have it on the ballot, so I'll sign it.

X Gabu

I concur with Gabu's asssesment and I would like to see this on the ballot.

[Lt. Gov. Immy]

Same as above.

x Immy

[King]

I like the Pacific's sudden interest in active government.

[Platypus]

so sign it alreadty, we still need one more as the governor didn't sign it.

[TheWildCard]

Okay... if you insist normally I just say but since it was requested.

X Governor Wildcard

[Platypus]

yay!

[minionofmidas]

The Pacific Statute on Prescription Medication will be on the ballot.

[King]

The Pacific Statute on Prescription Medication will be on the ballot.

This reminds me, on real life state initiatives, instead of the actual legislation being presented on the ballot, the Secretary of State (in this case, LT. Governor) puts a summary of what the bill is so voters understand it better.

Example: "Shall the Pacific Government...?"

I think we should do that, especially when this bill is a little long.

[Peter]

You should definitely still do what Ernest does and link the actual text on the ballot.

[King]

You should definitely still do what Ernest does and link the actual text on the ballot.

Yes we should, but some voters might not understand what the bill means by reading the legislative language. It's important to include a summary that clearly shows them what they are voting for.

[Gabu]

I think the summary thing is a great idea.  I'd bet anything, given humans' limited attention spans, that people would rather not read the whole thing (or maybe even twice) just to figure out what it's saying.

[minionofmidas]

The problem with such summaries is that they can easily end up a wee bit biased...I'd rather not, frankly.
I suppose in real life nowadays the Lt.Gov. department legal staff takes care of not doing that...that wasn't always the case though. In the 1870's in Arkansas, the state constitution had to be changed to make some land grants to a railroad company constitutional. The official ballots were marked "For Railroads" and "Against Railroads".

[King]

The problem with such summaries is that they can easily end up a wee bit biased...I'd rather not, frankly.
I suppose in real life nowadays the Lt.Gov. department legal staff takes care of not doing that...that wasn't always the case though. In the 1870's in Arkansas, the state constitution had to be changed to make some land grants to a railroad company constitutional. The official ballots were marked "For Railroads" and "Against Railroads".

Well, we can get an outside source to write it. I want informed voters!

[minionofmidas]

Why don't you hold a speech explaining it?

[King]

Why don't you hold a speech explaining it?

?

[minionofmidas]

Well, we can get an outside source to write it. I want informed voters!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What I meant was, be voters' outside source.