Atlasian National Healthcare Bill (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye ftr on the previous Amendment

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't know if anyone said anything about it yet but the main reason this won't work is there aren't enough doctors to go around. There isn't enough as it is now to care for everyone and the number of doctors and nurses is dropping each year. If we pass anything we'll be bringing on rationing in all but name so say bye bye to any care for old people and many others.

I would disagree with that. There are many reasons to oppose this sort of system but to say there is a 'lack of doctors' so therefore it won't work is a bit off field. Cuba has more doctors per head than the UK, but the UK provides a better quality service. We have something like 2.2 per 1000 as opposed to 2.3 in the US and 3.3 in Sweden and 4.1 in Italy. Its not resources that are the issue but how they are best utilised.

Could the honerable Senator explain what he means by "best utilised"? What do you think is a poor utilization of medical resources?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

Could the honerable Senator explain what he means by "best utilised"? What do you think is a poor utilization of medical resources?

Poor utilisation of medical resources would include non reconstructive cosmetic surgery. However the example I was alluding to is that the standard of healthcare is low in Cuba despite a high number of doctors due to poor infrastructure, poor investment in medicine etc. The promotion of good health among the population can also help; encouraging children to brush their teeth, people to eat healthily etc. The government goes not have to support this of course, it can simply be a 'culture of health.'

In doctors work better if they are supported; if they have the tools to do the job. Same goes with any profession.

I agree with what you are saying. Indeed we may be facing the opposite of Cuba were we have shortfalls in the number of certain doctors, especially primary care doctors. This needs to be addressed either here or soon after cause the brunt of the new demand created by this could aggrevate that problem. Despite the fact that so many are uninsured most of the primary care doctors are overbooked.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

Could the honerable Senator explain what he means by "best utilised"? What do you think is a poor utilization of medical resources?

Poor utilisation of medical resources would include non reconstructive cosmetic surgery. However the example I was alluding to is that the standard of healthcare is low in Cuba despite a high number of doctors due to poor infrastructure, poor investment in medicine etc. The promotion of good health among the population can also help; encouraging children to brush their teeth, people to eat healthily etc. The government goes not have to support this of course, it can simply be a 'culture of health.'

In doctors work better if they are supported; if they have the tools to do the job. Same goes with any profession.

I agree with what you are saying. Indeed we may be facing the opposite of Cuba were we have shortfalls in the number of certain doctors, especially primary care doctors. This needs to be addressed either here or soon after cause the brunt of the new demand created by this could aggrevate that problem. Despite the fact that so many are uninsured most of the primary care doctors are overbooked.

Now, I've not actually researched this topic, so I don't know if this country has a shortage of doctors and what relevance that would have on this bill. Still, assuming this is a potential problem, it could easily averted with simple measures. For example, the government could start subsidizing more/all medical school loans. The supply of doctors would then more accurately match the quantity demanded by the nation's healthcare industry.

This is also one issue that has caused me to worry on this bill. With so many new patients, will there be enough doctors to cover them all, and will people who really need to see the Doctor have to be put on a long waiting list, even though they need to see him A.S.A.P.?

Other countries with universal health care don't have this problem, so I don't see why we would, provided we took steps to increase the number of people training to be doctors (as the Vice President suggested), modernized health information systems (as many have suggested), built new hospitals (which can be done with stimulus money), etc.

Its not a big concern but its something that we need to keep an eye on. Increasing number of people who are doctors is always a good thing anyway. Another thing we should look at and I am not sure if this is already dealt with in the bill or not is the reimbursements which create an incentive to become a specialist while disincentivising people to become primary care physicians. This is present both in medicare/aid and in private insurance as well. Since the program will inhereit both Medicare/aid this will become a part of the plan created in the bill and thus it should be dealt with. However this a very complex issue almost as complex as Tort reform.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

Small potatoes can make a big stew when combine with small carrots, small beans and small meat. My biggest fear is this gets passed and other stuff isn't addressed and the Taxpayer ends up getting gouged because of it. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am pleased with the direction this bill is taking. I'll reiterate a few concerns however.

1. There needs to be a way to encourage quality over quantity. Computerizing records will help in that tests won't need to be repeated. Still, more should be done. As to what, I'm not sure.

2. Perhaps this belongs in a separate bill, but I think we need to somehow encourage healthy lifestyles. Getting people to exercise and eat healthier foods, sleep more, among other simple things can cut down on ER visits significantly, which could save lots of money down the road.

3. I realize the public insurance will help with this, but we need to get the insurance companies competing more.

4. Also, we need to ensure that businesses don't drop covering their employees over the public system, especially if their provided plan is superior.

5. I don't believe you've addressed discrimination against people for current, pre-existing, or past conditions. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

I'm very pleased overall, though.

1. We are waiting on that

2. The only thing we could do on that is to raise the Tax on Tobacco, Alcohol, etc considerably like 50% taxation, however I doubt this Senate has a stomach for that option. I am sure there are other things we could do as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

2. The only thing we could do on that is to raise the Tax on Tobacco, Alcohol, etc considerably like 50% taxation, however I doubt this Senate has a stomach for that option. I am sure there are other things we could do as well.

I proposed this in the original bill, but it has since been amended out.

I thought it was still in there but with no mention of the actuall rates.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

We probably already have high tax rates on those things as we should. It seemed like you failed the grasp the whole reasoning behind the proposal in the first place by insinuating it was part the financing. I would argue that poor people are already harming themselves by being addicted to these things and so frankly that is not my concern. My concern is that we not subsidize the irresponsibility of a few on the backs of millions of responsible taxpayers.

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.

Agreed. Another point, if your addicted to something, then I highly doubt a "sin tax" will deter you.

Addictions can indeed be broken you know if properly motivated.

It doesn't matter though. Lets move on.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Is it possible for some brave soul to post the text of the legislation, after all amendments? Pretty please?

I two would like to see the current text.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem is than healthcare should not be an ''industry''. Human lifes are not products than should be affected by the market.

They are in every other aspect. Road repairs are based on cost of repair per probable life saved as a result. It is about time we actually had the conversation about how much life is worth, rather than pussy-footing around it as though it's not something we need to actually consider.

I tend to agree people's lives are indeed within the scope of Business to provide for. Businesses exist to provide the goods and services we need or want. Whenever a business does not provide the product people want or at to high a price people reserve the right to not purchase it from them. In a perfect Free Market other businesses who offer the same product then in theory would work to satiate those demands as long as they are reasonable. The more reasonable the demands, the more people boycotting and going over to competitors, the less customers the "bad" company will have and thus in the desire to make a profit they will also move to satisify those demands as well to save there customer base. There are problems within this system and thats why regulations and consumer protections exist. However the diverging point between Liberalism and Socialism is when people desire to work outside of this system in a certain sector, why Liberals or rather true liberals would in theory prefer to make the current system work better. It is then socialism to seek to completely take over Health care as some Senators have suggested needs to be cause they don't beleive it should be a "Business in the first place".

Businesses are by there very nature flexible. When that isn't is at severe risk. Businesses desire to make a profit by satiating the demands of a certain block of consumers. Businesses are however not inherently bad or good. A business can and should be run both honestly and efficiently. Businesses can however neglect one or two of those things in favor of the other. Some companies prefer efficiency(Profit) over Honestly(Good will). Companies that have done so are the Insurance companies, and the oil companies as well. For those that take a negative view of Free Market business activity and beleive that it inherently acts like the Insurance companies have and should therefore have certain sectors like the Health Care industry be owned and operated by the Gov't.

Gov't has the power to manipulate Business conditions to achieve a desired goal, and this has proven highly successfull in the past, without a full and complete takeover of the said business. That same power has proven highly effective in also working to achieve balance within Businesses to make sure they don't focus completely on profit as there primarily goal is to serve needs and wants of people while making a profit, not just making a profit in short-term.

No one argues that human beings are products, a business that does treat people like that is not operating correctly and the Gov't can intervene with Responsible but not overburdensome regulations to correct those "errors" in the market. The overal goal being to establish and achieve a truly free market.

Don't be confused though. This bill currently falls well within the confines of reform and as such it is not socialist, unlike the bill that was orginally introduced. I do think the market manipulation is a little overdone by the provisions here, but it doesn't fundamentally conflict with my personal views in regards to the gov't role in the economy like it did before. It does however still grate on me in terms of how much that should be. I guess I could say I am really undecided how to vote on this bill. When I first approached this debate, my primarly goal was to make the Private market work as much as possible and only having the Gov't intervene to the extent necessary to make that happen and solve a few problems such as the fate of the Uninsured. Coming in third was not extending the Gov't beyond what I though necessary to achieve this goal.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay


Keep your hands off our Healthcare, and keep your hands off my medicaid.

Sorry but I just can't vote for this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay


Keep your hands off our Healthcare, and keep your hands off my medicaid.

Sorry but I just can't vote for this.

I have to say I am a little suprised! Given this post;

Don't be confused though. This bill currently falls well within the confines of reform and as such it is not socialist, unlike the bill that was orginally introduced. I do think the market manipulation is a little overdone by the provisions here, but it doesn't fundamentally conflict with my personal views in regards to the gov't role in the economy like it did before. It does however still grate on me in terms of how much that should be. I guess I could say I am really undecided how to vote on this bill. When I first approached this debate, my primarly goal was to make the Private market work as much as possible and only having the Gov't intervene to the extent necessary to make that happen and solve a few problems such as the fate of the Uninsured. Coming in third was not extending the Gov't beyond what I though necessary to achieve this goal.

Fair enough on the 'nay'; but the 'hands off!'?

I felt the joke was necessary to cheer myself up after casting what will probably be my hardest vote ever. Granted it doesn't mesh well with that previous post, but thats why its a joke with the smile which happens to be appropriate here to.