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

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Also, I object to a final vote.  Let's get this amendment straightened out and then we'll bring this to a vote.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

The motion for a final vote is automatically withdrawn and superseded by the introduced amendment.

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

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.

Yes, this needs to be amended. The section of R&RPH that this is copied from (quoted below) makes it clear that 'providers' refers to health insurance providers, while the new amendment does not:

a. Preventative Care: Every exchange must offer at least one provider that covers preventative care, be it in the form of a private insurer, 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]

Amendment to YE's amendment:

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 insurance providers 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."

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

If the intention is to allow nonprofit private health insurers, then that really needs to be specified in the bill. As I mentioned before, the only thing that this does is remove the word 'private' from the amended section, while keeping the word in sections 3(ii) and 3(iv-vi). Changing the little blurb at the top doesn't solve the problem. I still don't see why YE is so reluctant to offer a beefier amendment. Perhaps Truman can weigh in here, but I doubt he would be offended by a more extensive amendment to his bill (so long as the syntax is impeccable ).

Amendment to YE's amendment:

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 insurance providers 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."

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Just looking this over, I don't see what this bill changes really about the nature of Frémontcare, beyond expanding on what "those services laid out by Section 2.1(b) of the Federal Act" (the current text of 3.1) actually refers to. If the intent is to allow only not-for-profit providers on the exchange, then I would just say that? I'm happy to help, but not sure I understand what the source of the confusion is here.

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

Just looking this over, I don't see what this bill changes really about the nature of Frémontcare, beyond expanding on what "those services laid out by Section 2.1(b) of the Federal Act" (the current text of 3.1) actually refers to. If the intent is to allow only not-for-profit providers on the exchange, then I would just say that? I'm happy to help, but not sure I understand what the source of the confusion is here.

YE's original intent was to 'ban' private insurers from the exchange in a rather dubious way by substituting section 3.1 with a copy of Section 2.1(b) of the R&RPH but with the word 'private' removed. This is silly for a number of reasons that have already been discussed.

Then he decided he wanted to allow non-profit private insurers on the exchange, but didn't actually change anything in the amendment except for the introductory statement at the top, and gave this as reasoning:

I've been reluctant to modify the explicit text largely because I didn't write the original FremontCare bill.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Bump.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Here is a rough draft of the anti-price gouging bill I mentioned earlier.  It is intended to be introduced to Parliament in the next session.  Parts of the bill are taken from the South's healthcare bills here and here.  It will likely be added to over the next week.

[YE]

Here is where we are at:

AN ACT
To 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 insurance providers 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."

[YE]

Just to clarify, my intent was always to ban for profit insurance and for some reason, I thought that was implied in some of my earlier statements. Is that too invasive for the rest of the body? I won’t have time for about a week after this afternoon to really debate this but this has been neglected for far too long, and that’s on me.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Who knew healthcare could be so complicated.

At face value and as a matter of principle, I have no objection to barring for-profit insurers from the exchange. Of course, we'll need an amendment to achieve that.

Since I assume we don't want to throw people who have purchased insurance from for-profit providers overnight, after what period of time do we want such a ban to take effect?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Mr. Speaker, after your LOA would you be able to answer MP Truman's question?

[YE]

Who knew healthcare could be so complicated.

At face value and as a matter of principle, I have no objection to barring for-profit insurers from the exchange. Of course, we'll need an amendment to achieve that.

Since I assume we don't want to throw people who have purchased insurance from for-profit providers overnight, after what period of time do we want such a ban to take effect?

1/1/2020 perhaps?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This should have a more descriptive title like "Getting Rid of Health Insurance Options Act"

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Right, I offer the following amendment:

AN ACT
to make health care not-for-profit

Section 1 (Title)
i. The long title of this Act shall be, the "People's Medical Care and Insurance Act of 2019." It may be cited as the "Medical Care Act 2.0" or as "FrémontCare 2.0."


Section 2 (Barring for-profit insurers)
i. No for-profit provider shall be eligible for licensure to sell insurance on the Frémontian Healthcare Exchange.
ii. All licenses granted to for-profit providers under the People's Medical Care and Insurance Act of 2017 are hereby revoked.

Section 3 (Execution)
i. This Act shall take effect 1 January 2020.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Can the first minister confirm that the amendment is adopted?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Hearing no objection, the amendment is adopted.

[YE]

I motion for a final vote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I motion for a final vote.

Second.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

A final vote is now open.

AN ACT
to make health care not-for-profit

Section 1 (Title)
i. The long title of this Act shall be, the "People's Medical Care and Insurance Act of 2019." It may be cited as the "Medical Care Act 2.0" or as "FrémontCare 2.0."


Section 2 (Barring for-profit insurers)
i. No for-profit provider shall be eligible for licensure to sell insurance on the Frémontian Healthcare Exchange.
ii. All licenses granted to for-profit providers under the People's Medical Care and Insurance Act of 2017 are hereby revoked.

Section 3 (Execution)
i. This Act shall take effect 1 January 2020.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Aye

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Aye.

[YE]

Aye

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

With three votes in favor, the bill passes.

AN ACT
to make health care not-for-profit

Section 1 (Title)
i. The long title of this Act shall be, the "People's Medical Care and Insurance Act of 2019." It may be cited as the "Medical Care Act 2.0" or as "FrémontCare 2.0."


Section 2 (Barring for-profit insurers)
i. No for-profit provider shall be eligible for licensure to sell insurance on the Frémontian Healthcare Exchange.
ii. All licenses granted to for-profit providers under the People's Medical Care and Insurance Act of 2017 are hereby revoked.

Section 3 (Execution)
i. This Act shall take effect 1 January 2020.