SB 107-02: Hospitals Act (Rejected)

[Schiff for Senate]

The issue that I would be considered a far-left winger on is healthcare, and I believe that healthcare is a human right which shouldn't be used for the intent of making profit and shouldn't be considered an industry.

Yes, this bill doesn't seem bad in theory, and I'd be open to supporting it, though it would depend on specifics. The particular amendment you just offered seems fairly reasonable.

[Schiff for Senate]

I might support this.

[Schiff for Senate]

I might support this.

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.

[Schiff for Senate]

To be clear - I would support this bill if at least one of two things happened:

a.) a broad majority of respondents to the poll I made indicate they support this bill
b.) an amendment was added to this bill allowing for SOME private hospitals to exist and for the wealthy to seek medical treatment there if they can afford it and want to do so

My office may draw up an amendment regarding the latter in a few days, while the former is ongoing.

[Schiff for Senate]

To be clear - I would support this bill if at least one of two things happened:

a.) a broad majority of respondents to the poll I made indicate they support this bill
b.) an amendment was added to this bill allowing for SOME private hospitals to exist and for the wealthy to seek medical treatment there if they can afford it and want to do so

My office may draw up an amendment regarding the latter in a few days, while the former is ongoing.

Why should the wealthy be the ones who get better healthcare while the masses gets normal healthcare? I support a healthcare system that makes sure that all Atlasian citizens have the same quality of healthcare regardless of their income, and I would be willing to expand the amount allocated towards building new healthcare facilities and I'll introduce an amendment that'll allocate money to renovate/modernize existing healthcare facilities to improve the quality of those facilities.

Then it appears this is where our views on this subject diverge. I believe everyone should have access to healthcare, but I don't necessarily believe everyone needs to have equal access, especially if that access is quite frankly inferior and drags down those who can afford better. I definitely support those who don't have access to healthcare to get healthcare, but I don't think there's any need to force the wealthy to that same level of healthcare if they can afford superior healthcare and want it (and are willing to pay for it). This bill would be unfair to those people under the veil of equality. Everyone should have access to healthcare, but that shouldn't mean that some people are forced into having worse healthcare than they'd otherwise have - seems inferior. I am considering adding an amendment to address this; alternatively, if you want to, you could do it. If the amendment passed (I'd support it), then I would likely back this bill, but without an amendment to protect the wealthy and allow them to retain superior healthcare, I doubt this bill will be getting my vote (on a related note, I am tracking the results from my poll - the people are split about evenly, and I will thus vote my conscience on this bill).

[Schiff for Senate]

I might support this.

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.

There is no evidence that private healthcare is superior to public healthcare. That is a falsehood. Overall, I agree with the sponsor that healthcare should not be an avenue for profit generation and I support this bill.

Unless we plan on creating a very expansive government healthcare program, which I would oppose, no, this simply isn't true. Private industry will always offer better services than the government with regards to healthcare if cost is no object, and if for the wealthy cost is of no object and they are willing to pay a lot of money for better healthcare, I don't see why they need to be forced to settle for - what would inevitibly be inferior - government healthcare.

[Schiff for Senate]

To be clear - I would support this bill if at least one of two things happened:

a.) a broad majority of respondents to the poll I made indicate they support this bill
b.) an amendment was added to this bill allowing for SOME private hospitals to exist and for the wealthy to seek medical treatment there if they can afford it and want to do so

My office may draw up an amendment regarding the latter in a few days, while the former is ongoing.

Why should the wealthy be the ones who get better healthcare while the masses gets normal healthcare? I support a healthcare system that makes sure that all Atlasian citizens have the same quality of healthcare regardless of their income, and I would be willing to expand the amount allocated towards building new healthcare facilities and I'll introduce an amendment that'll allocate money to renovate/modernize existing healthcare facilities to improve the quality of those facilities.

Then it appears this is where our views on this subject diverge. I believe everyone should have access to healthcare, but I don't necessarily believe everyone needs to have equal access, especially if that access is quite frankly inferior and drags down those who can afford better. I definitely support those who don't have access to healthcare to get healthcare, but I don't think there's any need to force the wealthy to that same level of healthcare if they can afford superior healthcare and want it (and are willing to pay for it). This bill would be unfair to those people under the veil of equality. Everyone should have access to healthcare, but that shouldn't mean that some people are forced into having worse healthcare than they'd otherwise have - seems inferior. I am considering adding an amendment to address this; alternatively, if you want to, you could do it. If the amendment passed (I'd support it), then I would likely back this bill, but without an amendment to protect the wealthy and allow them to retain superior healthcare, I doubt this bill will be getting my vote (on a related note, I am tracking the results from my poll - the people are split about evenly, and I will thus vote my conscience on this bill).

But why? I, for one, do not believe you are entitled to better healthcare just because you are financially well off. And you talk about “protecting” the wealthy; why do those who are the most well off need “protection”. This viewpoint of wanting to protect to interests of the wealthy above all else is quite classist, if you ask me. A just society prioritizes and gives to those who are vulnerable and in need.

Everyone is entitled to healthcare. I agree with that statement. But there are then three ways about it:

1.) Everyone is forced into the same, low-to-low-medium-quality government healthcare.
2.) Everyone is forced into the same, high-medium-to-high-quality government healthcare.
3.) Those who cannot afford it are given access to government healthcare, but those who can afford it have the option to opt out and get private medical treatment they pay for themselves.

I believe the second and third options would be theoretically just, though I'd much prefer the third and question the practicality of the second. What's very possibly being proposed here is the first of these, and that I cannot in good conscience support. So I intend on introducing an amendment to change this, and if the amendment passes, I will vote for the bill.

[Schiff for Senate]

This is the Hospitals Act as currently stands:

Hospitals Act

1. All hospitals, clinics, hospice facilities, and nursing homes within the boundaries and under the legal jurisdiction of the Republic of Atlasia shall become property of the Republic of Atlasia effective January 1, 2023.
    1a. The owners of said properties shall be fairly compensated under all relevant law concerning the purchase of said properties.
2. All persons currently employed in the facilities mentioned in Section 1 shall become employees of the Republic of Atlasia effective January 1, 2023.
    2a. Employees covered by this Act shall elect a works council tasked with the day to day operations of the firm in question.
3. $1,000,000,000,000 will be allocated toward the construction of new hospitals, clinics, hospice facilities, and nursing homes over a period of five years, effective January 1, 2023.
4. Upon the passage of this legislation, no privately owned hospital, clinic, hospice facility, or nursing home may be built or opened in the Republic of Atlasia or in any area subject to its jurisdiction.
5. The AtlasCare program shall end on January 1, 2023.
6. Effective January 1, 2023, private hospital companies, insurance agencies, hospice care companies, and nursing home companies shall be placed under public ownership.
    5a. The owners of said properties shall be fairly compensated for any losses incurred as a result of said purchase of facilities.

This is the Hospitals act including the amendment I propose:

Hospitals Act

1. All hospitals, clinics, hospice facilities, and nursing homes within the boundaries and under the legal jurisdiction of the Republic of Atlasia shall become property of the Republic of Atlasia effective January 1, 2023, with the exception of 20% of hospitals/clinics/hospice facilities/nursing homes, which are of the highest quality, as determined by governmental authorities and senators.
    1a. The owners of said properties shall be fairly compensated under all relevant law concerning the purchase of said properties.
2. All persons currently employed in the facilities mentioned in Section 1 shall become employees of the Republic of Atlasia effective January 1, 2023 (with the exception of those employed by the aforementioned 20%).
2a. Employees covered by this Act shall elect a works council tasked with the day to day operations of the firm in question.
3. $1,000,000,000,000 will be allocated toward the construction of new hospitals, clinics, hospice facilities, and nursing homes over a period of five years, effective January 1, 2023.
4. Upon the passage of this legislation, no privately owned hospital, clinic, hospice facility, or nursing home may be built or opened in the Republic of Atlasia or in any area subject to its jurisdiction, unless they have been approved through due process by appropriate governmental authorities and are authorized to proceed. The 20% already existing shall be allowed to remain and function independently.
5. The AtlasCare program shall end on January 1, 2023.
6. Effective January 1, 2023, private hospital companies, insurance agencies, hospice care companies, and nursing home companies shall be placed under public ownership, with exception to the aforementioned 20% of facilities.
    65a. The owners of said properties shall be fairly compensated for any losses incurred as a result of said purchase of facilities.
7. Hereafter, healthcare, health services, etcetra, in the 80% of hospitals and medical facilities owned by the government, shall be the responsibility of the government. The other 20% that are independent of the government will provide care at a cost at their discretion entirely. Anyone who chooses to seek medical treatment from one of these facilities shall be entitled to do so at terms set between them and the facility. The government shall not intervene whatsoever in this, nor set any regulations or restrictions on it, and their ability to intervene shall be restrained to the 80% of hospitals and medical facilities they own.

[Schiff for Senate]

I object.

Frankly, all you are doing is either delaying things further (basically fillibustering) or you are actually opposing something that will allow for a public option of sorts. I'd advise you vote for this amendment when it comes for a vote; because with the amendment, even if the bill passes, the effect won't be as bad (and I'd argue it would actually be positive at that point, but that point is up for debate). The bill might pass anyway, and if it does without my amendment, it will be thanks to this objection. I have been an ally of yours in the past (i.e., the last 2 days, when I began politicking), and have supported your objections when they are reasonable and relevant, and I'd like to continue supporting you...I would honestly advise you join me in supporting this amendment, for the reasons above described. We agree on this issue, I'd remind you.

[Schiff for Senate]

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?

I will logically attempt to answer this. The exact amount is arbitary; theoretically, 20% could be 15% or 25%. The point is, this allows for everyone to have access to the basic right to healthcare, while allowing those who can afford better treatment, to have it (at those 20% of facilities). So the exact number doesn't matter as long as private-owned facilities exist and there are at least a handful of them. Also keep in mind I can't make this number too high, like 30% or 40%, because I fear some left-leaning senators who might be willing to support this amendment would give up support if the number was that high, and above all this amendment must be passed, for this bill to be acceptable in any way (in fact, if you still oppose the final bill, vote against it - but don't vote against this amendment because if the bill becomes law without it, we are done for and all your grandstanding will have had an adverse effect).









EDIT: My amendment is up for a vote, so with that, I vote AYE on it.

[Schiff for Senate]

I hope all conservatives join me in supporting this amendment, which functions as a last resort to make this bill at least bearable; if the bill somehow passes without the amendment (though I trust all conservatives would join me in voting against it in that case), then everyone will be forced into the same healthcare, even if they want and can afford better healthcare. This functions as a way to limit that, and I urge all conservatives to vote for this amendment even if they intend to vote against this bill at a final vote to limit the damage it would potentially cause, if it passed.

[Schiff for Senate]

Nay

I truly don't know why you'd vote down a provision that would help this bill so that even if it passed its effects wouldn't be as bad... I understand liberals opposing this bill, but conservatives (like you) should support it... I hope true conservatives like Yankee and many others will join me in supporting this amendment, even if they plan to vote against the bill at a final vote.

[Schiff for Senate]

It is my belief that liberals who vote nay on this amendment but intend to support the bill later are communists - since they want the government to completely and totally take over this industry, subject everyone to the same treatment and destroy and disallow private industry completely. Truly shameful.

[Schiff for Senate]

It is my belief that liberals who vote nay on this amendment but intend to support the bill later are communists - since they want the government to completely and totally take over this industry, subject everyone to the same treatment and destroy and disallow private industry completely. Truly shameful.

Tbh I am open to private participation in healthcare, but hospitals should be primarily government owned

This amendment did exactly that. Just 20% would be private owned, and 80% would be government owned, so while government would still dominate the industry, there'd be enough room for private practice as well.

[Schiff for Senate]

I suppose I'd vote Aye,

This is your chance to do so.

[Schiff for Senate]

What problem does this bill actually solve better than the existing AtlasCare program does?

Until somebody answers this question, I'm vetoing the bill whether this amendment passes or not.

Talk to Ishan about this; he's the one who wrote the bill. My amendment is good because it stops the government from resorting to literal communism, but very honestly, I don't know very much about AtlasCare, so I can't answer your question.

[Schiff for Senate]

What about this bill is “literal communism”? What do you think communism is?

Since you don't seem to know the meaning of communism, this Wikipedia page should help, particularly this quote (the bolded should be particularly helpful):

[Communism is] a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production [in this case, the healthcare industry] and the absence of social classes [everyone would be forced into the same healthcare regardless of their social class], money, and the state.

If this isn't helpful in your understanding the definition of communism, try Google.

[Schiff for Senate]

By my count, one more nay vote will kill the amendment. Who wants that (dis)honour?

[Schiff for Senate]

What about this bill is “literal communism”? What do you think communism is?

Since you don't seem to know the meaning of communism, this Wikipedia page should help, particularly this quote (the bolded should be particularly helpful):

[Communism is] a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production [in this case, the healthcare industry] and the absence of social classes [everyone would be forced into the same healthcare regardless of their social class], money, and the state.

If this isn't helpful in your understanding the definition of communism, try Google.

This bill works towards none of that. And I know what communism is, thank you very much.

Actually, it does, since it intends to allow public (i.e., common) ownership of the entire healthcare industry (not exactly a means of production, but in essence the same point). It will destroy an entire industry and make it 'publicly owned' and will in fact blunten (though not actually remove) social class by forcing everyone regardless of whether they can afford better healthcare or not into the same healthcare.

[Schiff for Senate]

What about this bill is “literal communism”? What do you think communism is?

Since you don't seem to know the meaning of communism, this Wikipedia page should help, particularly this quote (the bolded should be particularly helpful):

[Communism is] a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production [in this case, the healthcare industry] and the absence of social classes [everyone would be forced into the same healthcare regardless of their social class], money, and the state.

If this isn't helpful in your understanding the definition of communism, try Google.

This bill works towards none of that. And I know what communism is, thank you very much.

Actually, it does, since it intends to allow public (i.e., common) ownership of the entire healthcare industry (not exactly a means of production, but in essence the same point). It will destroy an entire industry and make it 'publicly owned' and will in fact blunten (though not actually remove) social class by forcing everyone regardless of whether they can afford better healthcare or not into the same healthcare.

Social class will exist regardless of the ownership status of the healthcare industry.

That's fair, but what I consider more relevant is the part of public ownership of an entire industry. So if this isn't literal communism, it is the biggest parts of communism without some of the comparatively less important details.

[Schiff for Senate]

Also, hasn't my amendment failed? If not, when will that happen? (I mean, I want it to pass but it's clearly not happening at this point, so technically, at what point would all hope of its passage fail?)

[Schiff for Senate]

What about this bill is “literal communism”? What do you think communism is?

Since you don't seem to know the meaning of communism, this Wikipedia page should help, particularly this quote (the bolded should be particularly helpful):

[Communism is] a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production [in this case, the healthcare industry] and the absence of social classes [everyone would be forced into the same healthcare regardless of their social class], money, and the state.

If this isn't helpful in your understanding the definition of communism, try Google.

This bill works towards none of that. And I know what communism is, thank you very much.

Actually, it does, since it intends to allow public (i.e., common) ownership of the entire healthcare industry (not exactly a means of production, but in essence the same point). It will destroy an entire industry and make it 'publicly owned' and will in fact blunten (though not actually remove) social class by forcing everyone regardless of whether they can afford better healthcare or not into the same healthcare.

Would you say that nationalization of Rail, an industry which were nationalized in the UK for 40 years destroyed rail?

Not all cases of nationalization are created equal. That seems apparent.


Anyway, I appreciate that you were one of just 2 senators other than me to support this amendment, but now that it was struck down, I will definitely oppose this bill (not that it matters since the president plans to veto the bill anyway).

[Schiff for Senate]

I intend to oppose the bill because my amendment failed.

[Schiff for Senate]

I love how polarized the vote is - up until my vote, by my count it's a tie.

I vote nay, obviously.