SB 107-02: Hospitals Act (Rejected) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 06, 2024, 04:13:41 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SB 107-02: Hospitals Act (Rejected) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: SB 107-02: Hospitals Act (Rejected)  (Read 2867 times)
West_Midlander
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,012
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.19, S: 1.22

« on: January 11, 2022, 06:41:46 PM »


In truth, I had not considered all aspects of this debate when I made this remark. One constituent PM'd me with a paragraph detailing reasons to oppose this, and one particular point in particular has convinced me this bill is something I should oppose - I hadn't considered it until then, but abolishing all private hospitals would result in even those who can afford superior medial treatment (so they can get better care, avoid waiting for very long, etcetra) do not have an option to do it. Were an amendment added to address this issue, I would consider supporting this bill, but as it currently stands, I am leaning towards opposing it.

Thank you for bringing up this point, CR. I was undecided on the bill but I will oppose it because government typically does a bad job of providing even essential services. Leaving any industry especially something as vital as healthcare wholly up to the government is a bad idea.

As part of the American Dream, people who have fought all their lives to better themselves and their families should be able to pay for premium healthcare. I do believe that there should be free or low-cost care available to low-income people, the disabled, seniors, and children of low-income people, though.
Logged
West_Midlander
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,012
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.19, S: 1.22

« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2022, 07:43:52 PM »

Setting the threshold at 20% seems arbitrary. How is this an acceptable or appropriate percentage and how does one justify relegating the private sector for this industry to just 20% of the market?
Logged
West_Midlander
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,012
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.19, S: 1.22

« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2022, 08:01:23 PM »

I object.
Logged
West_Midlander
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,012
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.19, S: 1.22

« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2022, 06:06:47 AM »

Nay on the amendment. I hope the President vetoes this bill as unnecessary if it passes on a final vote. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Logged
West_Midlander
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,012
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.19, S: 1.22

« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2022, 06:28:57 PM »

I broadly agree with CR's comments. The communist ideal of a classless society has never been achieved but heavy or total state control of the economy is characteristic of repressive, authoritarian regimes during the 20th century which considered themselves true communists.

This bill nationalizes the hospital industry in a country that has already been so badly wracked by nationalization. Industry, by industry, we are on the road toward communism.

However, as far as I understand it, the AtlasCare law is an appropriate, well-intentioned piece of legislation worthy of defending. Truly, there are no changes needed in this area, especially when further nationalization is the "solution."
Logged
West_Midlander
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,012
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.19, S: 1.22

« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2022, 05:44:26 PM »

Nay.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 12 queries.