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

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

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

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Nay

[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.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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.

That objection was from March 4th.
The motion for the final vote at the moment was introduced yesterday, on March 10th.

Scott's objection that you have quoted related to last weeks motion for a final vote. And as such a final vote was not held last week. but there have been no objection over the last 26 hours, so this final vote is being conducted.

[YE]

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

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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

That objection was for my previous motion for a final vote, which I introduced on March 4th. That objection has no relevance to a motion introduced one week later.
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.

[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.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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.

[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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

As First Minister I motion to suspend the rules and halt the ongoing vote.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

As First Minister I motion to suspend the rules and halt the ongoing vote.

I object to the suspension of the rules, in the strongest possible terms.

2) The First Minister may unilaterally suspend any section of these rules at any time, unless a Member should object within 72 hours. If there is an objection, suspending the rules shall require the consent of two-thirds of the sitting membership.

Per the standing orders, a vote on the suspension shall now be immediately held. A 2/3rds majority is needed to sustain the FM's suspension.
So I ask that the either the Speaker or the First Minister now immediately open a vote on the rule suspension, with a 2/3rds majority required for it to be sustained.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

A vote is now open on the motion to suspend the rules and resume debate.


Aye.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Nay

[Sherrod Brown Shill]

Aye

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Per the standing orders, 5 aye votes are required for the FM's suspension to be sustained.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[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.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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.

[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.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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.

[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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

Yet it was clear that debate on the bill had resumed and opening a final vote at this time was inappropriate.

This bill is not going away simply because one MP is relentlessly opposing it.  It will be reconsidered if need be.