FT 10-05: Medical Care Act 2.0 (Debating)

[YE]

Healthcare is an issue that was addressed by now FM Scott and current Southern Senator NC Yankee back in August 2017. I initially as FM, I wished to avoid the issue, although as I was considering higher office, I started to think about it more. I opposed efforts by a faction of the Labor Party establishment to switch  to a single payer system for a variety of reasons, one of them being it wouldn't allow regions to control who is allowed on the exchange, or even to have one at all.

Fundamentally, the biggest difference between the US and every other major country on Earth is that special interests buy our politicians (and you can thank the Supreme Court for this). This in turn has, especially since 1980, shifts the overall policy to what those corporate interests want. In some industries, especially telecommunication, they push for monopolization so they can price gouge/influence the common. With healthcare, they wish to profit off of your illness, disability, or in some cases occupation. Why should someone make money off of a Wyoming coal miner who gets black lung disease?

As such, I want to kick out the price gouging middle man known as the for profit health insurance industry off of the preventive care exchange in Fremont.

[YE]

I just want to point out one thing. This is not singe payer, as co-ops that Kent Conrad pushed for in 2009can still be on the exchange.

[YE]

I'd like to hear a bit more before entering a final vote if that's alright, I remain somewhat uncertain in my vote. Mostly, I'm concerned about excessively restricting the role of the private sector within Health Care in Fremont and because of my admittedly very limited knowledge on the for profit health insurance industry, and if possible I should like to ask the Vice-President just how large the practical restrictions on the private sector might be and whether we might expect some degree of trouble on implementation or abandonment of the region of a part of the health care industry.

It's hard to say for sure since how successful implementing this would be since no country IRL has ever had private healthcare the way the US has. Considering we have a government run health care to fall back that is properly funded, a decrease in non-government funded healthcare would lead to an increase in the latter, so the health care industry would shift from profit to non-profit or public.

[YE]

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
[/quote]

Amendment that someone's gonna need to formally sponsor.

[YE]

Someone introduce an amendment to fix the bit Eckne brought up. Change "private" insurance to "co-ops".

[YE]

Someone introduce an amendment to fix the bit Eckne brought up. Change "private" insurance to "co-ops".

[YE]

Someone introduce an amendment to fix the bit Eckne brought up. Change "private" insurance to "co-ops".

I'm confused here. I don't see "private" in the bill as it currently stands (although I do in the original FremontCare, just not this bill), though I can amend it if this is clarified.

Yes, that's what I'm referring to.

[YE]

Any reason the sudden urge to abstain after previous support?

Especially given there are zero bills in the danm quene. This isn’t the cancer pay act, people.

[YE]

Any reason the sudden urge to abstain after previous support?

Especially given there are zero bills in the danm quene. This isn’t the cancer pay act, people.

Because the main criticism of this bill wasn't addressed - namely that price-gouging is mainly the fault of healthcare providers and not insurers.  Until that is addressed, I am uneasy about banning private insurance outright.  We should at least address either cost transparency or the price-gouging itself before making such a drastic change to the existing system, but I'm not sure what would be the best way to go about it.

Fair enough, though tabling this bill makes no sense given the lack of queue we have.

I'll look into this further soonish once I'm all caught up on schoolwork. Seeing as for once I'm not running a campaign, I'll have the time this weekend hopefully.

[YE]

I’ll get around to fixing this.

[YE]

What's the status of IRL supplemental Medicare plans post-Atlas Care? Because to be clear I don't think those should be banned but also find the entire profit health care industry IRL in the US to be problematic and I don't want rich guys using private insurance while the poor stays on the government plan.

[YE]

I am objecting to a final vote until we figure out a way to address cost transparency/reduction for healthcare providers.

What's the status of IRL supplemental Medicare plans post-Atlas Care? Because to be clear I don't think those should be banned but also find the entire profit health care industry IRL in the US to be problematic and I don't want rich guys using private insurance while the poor stays on the government plan.

That's a good question.  The RRPHA absorbed all current Medicare beneficiaries (along with Medicaid recipients) into AtlasCare.  I would think that Medicare enrollees keep their supplemental plans, but I'll confer with NCYankee just to be sure.

there's been no debate because this remains unresolved.

[YE]

I am objecting to a final vote until we figure out a way to address cost transparency/reduction for healthcare providers.

What's the status of IRL supplemental Medicare plans post-Atlas Care? Because to be clear I don't think those should be banned but also find the entire profit health care industry IRL in the US to be problematic and I don't want rich guys using private insurance while the poor stays on the government plan.

That's a good question.  The RRPHA absorbed all current Medicare beneficiaries (along with Medicaid recipients) into AtlasCare.  I would think that Medicare enrollees keep their supplemental plans, but I'll confer with NCYankee just to be sure.

A final vote has started on FT 10-05, which shall last for 72 hours or until the whole membership has voted.

1 week has now passed with no debate. No amendment is forthcoming, so I once again motion for a final vote. 24 hours for objections.

With 24 hours with no objections, I ask that the speaker please now open a final vote.

[YE]

But that wording that strongly implies that said objection is still applicable.....

[YE]

By my wording that strongly implies that said objection is still applicable.....

You can't object to a motion before a motion has been introduced. The standing orders are crystal clear.

4) After the conclusion of the first seventy-two (72) hours for debate, any Member or the First Minister may call for a vote on said legislation. The Speaker shall open a vote if neither another Member nor the First Minister objects within twenty-four (24) hours of the call for a vote.

I’d argue that the objection, based on the above context, is continuous.

That aside it was clear this is still being discussed so motioning for a final vote is highly questionable especially given your position on this issue is actually in line with your right of center party and you seem to simply want an outcome that sees this bill destroyed at a speed rivalving that of the speed of sound.

[YE]

That aside it was clear this is still being discussed so motioning for a final vote is highly questionable especially given your position on this issue is actually in line with your right of center party and you seem to simply want an outcome that sees this bill destroyed at a speed rivalving that of the speed of sound.

I highly doubt anyone in Labor either thinks banning all Private Health Insurance is a good idea.

Not being sold on the exchange!=banning all private insurance, at least based on my interpretation of this bill seeing as supplemental private insurance appears to be part of AtlasCare.

[YE]

If the rules suspension vote fails and the bill is rejected it will be reintroduced for the purpose of resuming debate.  This is not the right way to go about this, folks.

There were 6 days with not one debate before I introduced this motion.

Only because Yankee forgot to respond to a PM that would have answered my question and allowed debate to continue.

[YE]

If the rules suspension vote fails and the bill is rejected it will be reintroduced for the purpose of resuming debate.  This is not the right way to go about this, folks.

There were 6 days with not one debate before I introduced this motion.

That is because I was waiting for Senator Yankee to answer my question.  When discussion of the bill resumed you motioned for a final vote anyway, presumably to get the outcome you want.  This is ridiculous.

After I moved for a final vote Encke, YE and Yankee promptly started a debate. But, to be clear, only after I introduced the motion for a final vote.
And furthermore, despite having 24 hours, not a single MP objected to the motion for a final vote, nor even commented until after the Speaker opened the final vote.

Generally votes aren’t opened when there’s discussion ever, MP or not, especially on a bill like this.

[YE]

If the rules suspension vote fails and the bill is rejected it will be reintroduced for the purpose of resuming debate.  This is not the right way to go about this, folks.

There were 6 days with not one debate before I introduced this motion.

That is because I was waiting for Senator Yankee to answer my question.  When discussion of the bill resumed you motioned for a final vote anyway, presumably to get the outcome you want.  This is ridiculous.

After I moved for a final vote Encke, YE and Yankee promptly started a debate. But, to be clear, only after I introduced the motion for a final vote.
And furthermore, despite having 24 hours, not a single MP objected to the motion for a final vote, nor even commented until after the Speaker opened the final vote.

Generally votes aren’t opened when there’s discussion ever, MP or not, especially on an important bill like this.

When I moved for a final vote there hadn't been a single post in 6 days.

Yes only because Yankee forgot to respond to a PM. Context matters when you make statements like that.

[YE]

I am objecting to a final vote until we figure out a way to address cost transparency/reduction for healthcare providers.

What's the status of IRL supplemental Medicare plans post-Atlas Care? Because to be clear I don't think those should be banned but also find the entire profit health care industry IRL in the US to be problematic and I don't want rich guys using private insurance while the poor stays on the government plan.

That's a good question.  The RRPHA absorbed all current Medicare beneficiaries (along with Medicaid recipients) into AtlasCare.  I would think that Medicare enrollees keep their supplemental plans, but I'll confer with NCYankee just to be sure.

If so, would this bill be interpretated as banning those supplemental products as well? Or no since they are not sold on the exchange?

[YE]

So here’s the deal:

I want a clearer picture to how this bill would be interpreted by y’all because I feel like we’re talking in 2 different languages. Would you say this bill seeks to ban Medicare supplemental plans from the Atlascare exchange? Because that wasn’t my intention. I just don’t want government run AtlasCare becoming a high risk pool basically while upper middle class people (who were generally okay with their health plan pre-Atlascare) get these increasingly cheap private plans because the not so well off are bolting to government plans. Unhealthy people’s health care should be paid by the broader public’s tax money, not simply other unhealthy people. That’s how insurance is supposed to work after all.

I am considering regulating supplemental plans in a manner similar to how they were regulated in Sections 7-10 in a separate bill once we get that sorted out.

[YE]

Is this bill going to go anywhere? Should we perhaps table it?

I mean it’s not like we have any other bills in the queue.

[YE]

Okay either can someone get Yankee in here because he was really helpful last time he came here, or can we just end this charade already and table this bill.

This question doesn’t require any answer from anyone aside from the MP’s.

So here’s the deal:

I want a clearer picture to how this bill would be interpreted by y’all because I feel like we’re talking in 2 different languages. Would you say this bill seeks to ban Medicare supplemental plans from the Atlascare exchange? Because that wasn’t my intention. I just don’t want government run AtlasCare becoming a high risk pool basically while upper middle class people (who were generally okay with their health plan pre-Atlascare) get these increasingly cheap private plans because the not so well off are bolting to government plans. Unhealthy people’s health care should be paid by the broader public’s tax money, not simply other unhealthy people. That’s how insurance is supposed to work after all.

I am considering regulating supplemental plans in a manner similar to how they were regulated in Sections 7-10 in a separate bill once we get that sorted out.

[YE]

When I first helped draft the AtlasCare bill in the Senate, one of my goals was to allow private insurance companies provided that they are nonprofit.  This is, after all, one of the features of Germany's healthcare system, which much of the federal healthcare law was based on.  So if the intent of this bill is to outlaw private for-profit insurance companies and allow nonprofit insurance companies, I will support that as long as it doesn't turn AtlasCare into a high-risk pool.

Price gouging still needs to be addressed, but this can be done through separate legislation.  Some states IRL already have laws to make healthcare providers more transparent in their expenditures and federal legislation has been considered for this as well.

Yes, that is the intent, just to confirm.

[YE]

I've been reluctant to modify the explicit text largely because I didn't write the original FremontCare bill.


Procedural Amendment (to clear up the intention):

AN ACT
To get rid of the price gouging middle man known as the for profit health insurance scam make health care non-for profit

Section 1: Title

The long title of this Act shall be, the "People's Medical Care and Insurance Act of 2017." It may be cited as the "Medical Care Act 2.0" or as "FremontCare 2.0."


Section 2: Text
1. Section 3.1 of FremontCare is modified to "All health care provides on the exchange must offer preventative care, be it in the form of a co-op or public health care benefit. Preventive care shall be defined as care related to disease prevention, early diagnosis and health maintenance, including clinical examinations, immunization, prenatal care and medically indicated screenings."