LGC 10.17 — ChristianMan Care — PASSED

[ZMUN M441]

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT OF 2022

SECTION I — Title
This legislation may be cited as ChristianMan Care

SECTION II--Requirements

1. Places an individual mandate in which every citizen must receive healthcare whether they choose a private or government model.
2. That insurances can not deny coverage for preexisting conditions
3. The government has the right to negotiate prices for medications
4. 80% of insurance funds must be used to provide direct care to clients, rather than reimbursing pharmaceutical companies.
5. Allows patients to have access to non-FDA approved drugs in order to better treat their conditions
6.  Legalizes the use of drugs with medicinal purposes for medicinal purposes  Exceptions for this includes drugs that are deadly including heroin and opiates and patients must receive approval from a medical profession who can prescribe medication.
7.That insurances cannot discriminate on the basis of medicine. In other words, insurance providers cannot refuse to cover medical professionals and if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
8. Mandates saving accounts in which 10% of one's wages are saved for routine care or the care of immediate families. Unused funds can be claimed as inheritance after death.
9 Mandates that insurance must subsidize upwards of 80% of procedures that are life-saving including treatment for addictions and psychiatric treatment for attempted suicide.
10. Implements a drug board for those caught using illicit substances. This board made up of social workers, medical professionals, and drug experts refers people to drug treatment programs, hand out fines or impose community service.

Section III--Implication
There would be paid for with increasing taxes on those making >$400,000.


Section IV- Effective date
This legislation shall take effect immediately.

Occupying: Slot 6 of 10
Sponsor: Christian Man

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Uh, this bill is very vague on what it would actually do.
Point 1 - 'government model' - how would this work precisely? What would the government cover and not cover? I'm not necessarily opposed philosophically but this needs to be fleshed out more.
Point 3 - How does the negotiation work? Is this a soft negotiation where it is just the federal government trying to persuade companies to lower their prices? Or is it a hard negotiation where there are strict caps or penalties?
Point 5 - Is this unlimited access? Or is this just a right to try thing if the patient is dying? I'm definitely opposed if it's the former.
Point 6 - What does deadly mean? Is it limited to just Heroin and Opiates or are there other drugs that could qualify as deadly?
Point 9 - Who defines what life-saving is? This seems very ripe for abuse on either side.

Also given the chronic lack of a Comptroller General federally I am opposed to just generally increasing taxes to some sort of vague 'cost' we must approximate, rather than a standard rate increase that we can more easily figure out.

Hence I'll be opposing this in its current form.

[ZMUN M441]

I'm mostly supportive of this bill, but I'd like to know what exactly 'psychiatric treatment for attempted suicide' in the ninth provision means, as involuntary hospitalization was abolished in Lincoln by LGC 10.6.

[Vice President Christian Man]

I'm mostly supportive of this bill, but I'd like to know what exactly 'psychiatric treatment for attempted suicide' in the ninth provision means, as involuntary hospitalization was abolished in Lincoln by LGC 10.6.

If people were suicidal and voluntarily checked themselves in, insurance would have to cover them. This bill would not bring back involuntary hospitalizations.

[Vice President Christian Man]

Uh, this bill is very vague on what it would actually do.
Point 1 - 'government model' - how would this work precisely? What would the government cover and not cover? I'm not necessarily opposed philosophically but this needs to be fleshed out more.
Point 3 - How does the negotiation work? Is this a soft negotiation where it is just the federal government trying to persuade companies to lower their prices? Or is it a hard negotiation where there are strict caps or penalties?
Point 5 - Is this unlimited access? Or is this just a right to try thing if the patient is dying? I'm definitely opposed if it's the former.
Point 6 - What does deadly mean? Is it limited to just Heroin and Opiates or are there other drugs that could qualify as deadly?
Point 9 - Who defines what life-saving is? This seems very ripe for abuse on either side.

Also given the chronic lack of a Comptroller General federally I am opposed to just generally increasing taxes to some sort of vague 'cost' we must approximate, rather than a standard rate increase that we can more easily figure out.

Hence I'll be opposing this in its current form.

1. It will operate similarly to Obamacare.
3. Soft negotiation
5. Just a right to try thing if the patient is dying
6. It is not just limited to heroin and opiates. Other drugs such as meth and cocaine which can lead to deadly overdoses qualify as well.
9. Life-saving refers to people who are receiving treatment for a life or death situation such as a terminal disease, or life-threatening illness/injury

I am willing to eliminate the increased taxes portion. I support using a standard rate increase to fund it.

[ZMUN M441]

Motioning for a final vote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

How does AtlasCare factor into this?

[ZMUN M441]

A final vote on this bill has been initiated.


Aye

[Vice President Christian Man]

Aye

[Vice President Christian Man]

How does AtlasCare factor into this?

This bill would create a single-payer system at the regional level, similar to how several states have statewide systems in addition to Obamacare.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Nay

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Nay

[nerd73]

Aye

[ZMUN M441]

LGC 10.17 passes, 3-2

[Former President tack50]

X tack50

I am way to the left on healthcare but whatever. I will sign this off the assumption that this will have no negative interactions with the federal healthcare system, but I'm a bit sad that this was not fleshed out further.

Still, I won't be the one lecturing others on activity, I'm just glad you are here