Atlasian National Healthcare Bill (Law'd)

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye

This just removes clause f? Sounds good, but a lot of work to go still.

It changes a few things in the Finance section and adds a clause in the Administration section as well as striking the clause banning private care.

Aye, by the way.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm going to work on a provision that details exactly how we plan on financing this. We need some sort of CBO to score things. Perhaps the GM? Or SoFA?

I promise to have a more detailed response in regard to finances by the time I go to sleep. I'm just taking a bit of a break right now

(But please, no de-facto tax hikes on the poor.)

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm going to work on a provision that details exactly how we plan on financing this. We need some sort of CBO to score things. Perhaps the GM? Or SoFA?

I promise to have a more detailed response in regard to finances by the time I go to sleep. I'm just taking a bit of a break right now

(But please, no de-facto tax hikes on the poor.)

No, I plan on taxing benefits in a progressive fashion.

I was hoping we could have a rough outline of where funding would come from in this bill, as well as lining out the fact that finances, personnel, and services from Medicaid and Medicare would be phased out and transferred to this new program. In doing so, we could avoid any major financial meltdown in regard to the new program for quite some time, as it would take time to implement anyway.

Because of that, I wanted to propose a separate Revenue Act that dealt with raising revenue in general, as opposed to trying to have a fight over detailed financing in this bill, taking the focus off the issue at hand.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm going to work on a provision that details exactly how we plan on financing this. We need some sort of CBO to score things. Perhaps the GM? Or SoFA?

I promise to have a more detailed response in regard to finances by the time I go to sleep. I'm just taking a bit of a break right now

(But please, no de-facto tax hikes on the poor.)

No, I plan on taxing benefits in a progressive fashion.

I was hoping we could have a rough outline of where funding would come from in this bill, as well as lining out the fact that finances, personnel, and services from Medicaid and Medicare would be phased out ans transferred to this new program. In doing so, we could avoid any major financial meltdown in regard to the new program for quite some time, as it would take time to implement anyway.

Because of that, I wanted to propose a separate Revenue Act that dealt with raising revenue in general, as opposed to trying to have a fight over detailed financing in this bill, taking the focus off the issue at hand.

We can't do health care piecemeal. I don't support reform if we can't pay for it. So it takes us an extra week. It will be worth it to pass a comprehensive bill.

Well, the problem is we don't know where the hell we're coming from in regards to income, and other, taxes. Even if we presume sin taxes and income taxes are the same as the US right now, we've got to make changes and It would be rather frustrating to deal with raising or lowering taxes on a set of brackets that don't exist.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Amendment

Section 2 shall read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am up for recommendations to alter this before bringing it to a vote.

I'm okay with those rates, they're much lower and more manageable than Franzl's proposal. Of course, we'll need other revenue sources, but that's a good start.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I like the intent of this bill, and indeed, universal coverage should be a goal at some point in the future. But the bigger issue is not those who aren't insured (though that is a big problem) but the people losing coverage because it's too expensive despite a middle-class income.

If you provide universal coverage through a government plan, but don't try to control the rate of increase in health care costs (without rationing), then you simply shift the problem to the government. The system cannot, and will not be sustainable if costs are not simultaneously dealt with. I realize that universal coverage helps control costs, but more must be done.

Using my great influence as Midwest Lt. Governor , I urge all Senators to vote nay on this bill unless more is done to control the rising costs.

My proposed tax on health care benefits was actually intended to do just that. I agree we will need to find additional ways to cut costs (currently reading through 5 CBO reports, so I'll be some time), but it is definitely on my list of things to do.

I look forward to hearing misguided congressional mumbo-jumbo.

As for controlling costs, there's only so much you can do. The program itself lowers costs, (I've said this routinely) simply on the virtue of being less profit-based and spending much less in administrative costs. The government is not going to take on all of the costs from the private market (like you somehow believe it will) because the private market creates a ton of costs on their own to make obscene profits and push people off the insurance rolls. (Also, many insurance companies don't like to pay for procedures, so they force you to undergo additional test after additional test, when they're not necessary. This will not happen, at least to the same extent, under a government plan.)

Many other costs can be controlled, but at some point you've got to focus on raising money, plain and simple. As for revenue, if we had, pardon my french, the balls to do it, we would raise taxes. But we have no tax brackets on the books, and no one here wants to do that. One side wants to double-tax the poor to raise revenue, another side wants to tax benefits, but no one wants to do the sensible thing and tax the upper class. If you want us to get serious about controlling costs and raising revenue, talk to your side, Vepres, don't complain to us.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Oh I haven't a problem with a modest tax on some benefits like you proposed, I just wish we could get serious with more potent measures of raising revenue. (Instead of targeting things at the middle class.)

[Marokai Backbeat]

Oh I haven't a problem with a modest tax on some benefits like you proposed, I just wish we could get serious with more potent measures of raising revenue. (Instead of targeting things at the middle class.)

So propose something. I already geared health benefits taxes to a progressive increase according to income, so further taxing the rich would be a bit much at this point. But I left my amendment open to suggestions, so give me ideas that will raise revenue or reduce costs or both.

I'll propose more serious revenue raising in another bill, as I believe I've said repeatedly. If we're going to raise taxes, I want a set of tax brackets on the books.

Also, if you think many rich or upper-class individuals are going to take part in this plan..

[Marokai Backbeat]

Oh I haven't a problem with a modest tax on some benefits like you proposed, I just wish we could get serious with more potent measures of raising revenue. (Instead of targeting things at the middle class.)

So propose something. I already geared health benefits taxes to a progressive increase according to income, so further taxing the rich would be a bit much at this point. But I left my amendment open to suggestions, so give me ideas that will raise revenue or reduce costs or both.

I'll propose more serious revenue raising in another bill, as I believe I've said repeatedly. If we're going to raise taxes, I want a set of tax brackets on the books.

Also, if you think many rich or upper-class individuals are going to take part in this plan..

It's not for this plan. It is all health benefits. Combined with a mandate...

And I will not be voting for a bill that doesn't include all facets of the proposal. Passing a plan without effective revenue clauses is a mistake.

Obviously I agree we need to do this right and fund it properly, I just don't want the Senate to have two major fights over revenue raising and lose sight of the real issue here, which is healthcare. With sin taxes, coupled with a taxing of healthcare benefits, and phasing out Medicare and Medicaid in favor of this new program, revenue will not be a problem for awhile.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Agreed. You cannot sustain health care insurance that is rising many times faster than inflation. You have to get it at or close to inflation, or you're just asking for a budget crisis down the road.

Marokai, I know your plan will slow the rate, but I feel it is not enough. While we shouldn't remove the profit aspect of health care we need a way to prevent redundant tests and procedures from occurring. Computerizing the system would help tremendously, as doctors could easily share information with each other.

Well I feel you haven't a clue what you're talking about and don't really know what you want. You want to reduce costs, but you want to leave a market in place that gouges prices and spends huge amounts of money each year on trying to find ways to not help people. You can't have both unless you institute a bunch of different subsidies and regulations that creates a patchwork system that still would be insufficient, but you may as well institute a public option.

You operate from the viewpoint of the costs as they currently stand, in the insurance market. What we know is that government programs spend only a fraction of administrative costs that private insurance companies do, what we do know is that every other country in the world that has a national health care program spend less than we do per-capita, and are still just as healthy, if not more so than us. The public health care program would also provide an incentive for the private market to cut costs. (And indeed, some studies show that private hospitals and insurance companies can cut costs

I'm tired of wasting time reading the same "OMG, THE COST" posts from you and others. In the most recent budget, we're going to spend $453 billion on Medicare and $290 billion on Medicaid. We spent an additional $30 billion on SCHIP earlier this year. These (rough) expenditures, coupled with a plan to raise sin taxes and tax all healthcare benefits, would raise a considerable chunk of revenue, and added with a modest tax increase to the top income tax bracket (brackets that don't exist, mind you) we can have more than enough money to fund such a program.

You keep repeating the same lines. In the past, you've done the same thing over and over again, and I'm tired of being expected of defending plans against such baseless and tired talking points. You've repeated several inaccuracies or talking points around these forums, even among questions or substantive response. Claiming that unions were the downfall of the auto-companies, despite my response comparing unionized and non-unionized plants, awhile ago (and still, as far as I know) you claimed that the GOP thought that they had a "lock" on the youth vote in 2004. Absurdity and I asked you for clarification: twice. If you have something to add, go do your homework first. There are a ton of different public health care program proposals that have been brought up over the years and the consensus is clear.

Study of a proposal brought up in 2007 that would provide coverage for all Americans, saved billions.

Public health care plans can save hundreds of billions more than private healthcare programs.

Preliminary study of one of the public option plans, yeah, shocker, saves billions.

I could go on. Plenty of people, even conservatives, can admit that public health care saves hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition to various revenue raising proposals we're bringing up here, I think we'll manage.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye on the amendment, I suppose.

And I'm glad we have your support mister VP.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Abstain

I would still like to know what we just did.

We created regional authorities to manage the healthcare program.

Sensible enough then. Aye ftr.

Which I guess the Southeast could just use to ignore the program.

[Marokai Backbeat]

When the Senator making the proposal uses a phrase, such as "I'd like something like...", I think it's pretty clear that this is not the actual amendment being proposed, just a debating point on a potential amendment to be proposed.  Also nowhere in his post did Franzl indicate that this was his proposed amendment.

If we're really voting on this, than nay because it's not worded properly.  I request that MasterJedi abort this vote, as it does not appear to have been Franzl's intention that this be voted upon.

Ditto, nay.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye on the amendment.

As for filibustering, go right ahead. I see no reason to unless you just want to whine about it. If you lose the vote, you lose the vote. You've not participated in this discussion in the slightest and now you want a filibuster? Speaks volumes about the opposition, in my opinion.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye on the amendment.

As for filibustering, go right ahead. I see no reason to unless you just want to whine about it. If you lose the vote, you lose the vote. You've not participated in this discussion in the slightest and now you want a filibuster? Speaks volumes about the opposition, in my opinion.

There is no vote yet. I'm just giving it till tomorrow morning to open up a vote. This needs to get actual good debate time first since everything's so jumbled.

My apologies, you generally don't bring up an amendment unless you wanted a vote on it, in the past, anyway.

I assumed that considering we've had pages of discussion on finances, you would've been satisfied with debate. Apparently not.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye

[Marokai Backbeat]

I support including some of the ideas that Vepres and NCY are concerned about, but let's not get too bogged down in small potatoes.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well now you're just making me hungry, Yankee.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I would not. Don't count on my vote with such absurd regressive tax increases in this bill.

Honestly, fellow Senators, man up and raise income taxes, stop pussy-footing around the finance issue with ass-backwards revenue raising schemes.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I would not. Don't count on my vote with such absurd regressive tax increases in this bill.

Honestly, fellow Senators, man up and raise income taxes, stop pussy-footing around the finance issue with ass-backwards revenue raising schemes.

This has nothing to do with the finances, you fool. It has to do with discouraging the irresponsible use and consumption of products that can be damaging to ones health and thus increasing the burden on society and the overall cost of Health Care. Don't think that this won't be an issue with your precious public plan simply because its on the Taxpayers dime, in fact its because of that we should consider these measures.

We already have obscene taxes on those "undesirable" activities. If drinking and smoking hasn't been taxed and stigmatized to death by now, there's no sense in harming average Atlasians further. If this isn't about finances, then simply spend some money on an advertising campaign, or research on their harmful effects. There's no reason to hurt poor people, who are most of our smokers, and probably most of our drinkers.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Abstain

[Marokai Backbeat]

Wow, interesting to see where "Mr. Conservative" will vote on this

I'm sure Mrs Thatcher would approve

I'm sure Mr. Reagan, Mr. Paul, Mr. Gingrich, and Mr and Mrs. anyone who is actually an American/Atlasian conservative would not

I'm sure if you have some serious evidence and mature reasons for opposing it, we'll give you the time of day.

[Marokai Backbeat]

.....No

This detailed message brought to you by the Regional Protection Party.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye

Aye, since the senator is to stubborn too understand how to not lose our time.

Now now.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye.

This bill is fair and reasonable, and as someone who believes in the facts, and in helping people in need, I support this bill wholeheartedly.