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

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Nay

I change my vote to Aye.
We might as well debate this some more.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

To reiterate my point from before, there is reason to believe supplemental insurance would be squeezed out by Atlascare.


I think there probably needs to be an expansion or shall we say adjustment to the special populations section to give more clarity as to how healthcare functions for each individual group at the federal level. Though first off I would start with the Department of Internal Affairs.

We had to cover a number of different areas in one bill text and we had to keep it as simple as possible at the same time to have a chance at passage. Frankly, it is amazing that we succeeded in passing R&RPHA.

At the time I envisioned Atlascare being the provider of choice for all such special population groups, and yet at the same time working the nature of Atlascare as a market competing public option in with that means that Atlascare probably has to behave somewhat differently to pull that off. To an extent this was how Part III of R&RPHA was composed, but to be sure completely sure, requires more specificity, specificity we simply couldn't afford to include in 2017, lest the length and complexity kill it.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

You know what? Don't know if I can even do this, but I withdraw my motion for a final vote. I don't know whether this means the suspension vote is cancelled, but on my reading it's probably up to the Speaker to draw their own interpretation.

[Orwell]

Aye

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Aye

[Sherrod Brown Shill]

Aye

[AustralianSwingVoter]

With 5 votes in favour, constituting the necessary 2/3rds of the total members assembled, the objection is overruled, and the First Ministers motion to suspend the rules and continue debate is sustained.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

But can we actually debate and, if necessary, amend this, rather than just twiddle our thumbs and forget about this bill, and leave it by the wayside for yet another week.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I’ll get around to fixing this.

Also, a reminder to the former first minister over his past commitments to amending this legislation.

[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?

[AustralianSwingVoter]

But can we actually debate and, if necessary, amend this, rather than just twiddle our thumbs and forget about this bill, and leave it by the wayside for yet another week.

Just a reminder to the rest of Parliament, the reason the FM suspended the rules was to allow more debate. Now I must ask what exactly happened to the promised debate. I mean, no one has even bothered to answer YE's question. So come on people, can we actually debate this legislation like we said we would.

[Don Vito Corleone]

Banning private health insurance is a bad idea and I oppose this bill.

[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.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Bump

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

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

[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.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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.

[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.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

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.

[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.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

There still hasn't been any debate whatsoever, so let's just get this over and done with, please.
I move for a final vote. 24 hours for objections.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

There still hasn't been any debate whatsoever, so let's just get this over and done with, please.
I move for a final vote. 24 hours for objections.

Members have 24 hours for objections.

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

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.

I don't see why this is being done in such a roundabout way. If you want to specify which insurers are allowed on the exchange, just amend Fremontcare by spelling it out explicitly, preferably in a new section. No need for the ambiguity inherent in this whole "removing the word 'private' from the original bill" thing. If you want to allow nonprofit private insurers but not for-profit ones, just put it directly in the bill, removing the need for any interpretation by the MPs.

[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."

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I assume that "health care provide[rs]" is supposed to mean health insurance companies?  Otherwise this could be construed as doctors and hospitals not being allowed any compensation for their services.