SENATE BILL: The New Atlasian Healthcare Act (Law'd)

[Senator Sbane]

I would support covering cochlear implants. Not sure about speech-language pathology though. I read the wiki and couldn't find anything worth supporting....but maybe you can change my mind. Is this working with people who stutter, have lisps and other speech disorders?

[ilikeverin]

I would support covering cochlear implants. Not sure about speech-language pathology though. I read the wiki and couldn't find anything worth supporting....but maybe you can change my mind. Is this working with people who stutter, have lisps and other speech disorders?

Precisely.  There's no reason why we shouldn't cover SLP if we're covering mental health issues... if Atlasia's progressed to the point that we realize that mental problems aren't just a "character flaw" and deserve treatment and help, why shouldn't we do the same for people who stutter or have even more serious language impairments?

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators have 72 hours to object to Senator Scott's assumption of sponsorship.



How does the new sponsor view my amendment?

[asexual trans victimologist]

I would not support covering cochlear implants because I do not support the biomedical model of disability.

[Governor Scott]

The amendment is unfriendly.

[Senator Sbane]

I would support covering cochlear implants. Not sure about speech-language pathology though. I read the wiki and couldn't find anything worth supporting....but maybe you can change my mind. Is this working with people who stutter, have lisps and other speech disorders?

Precisely.  There's no reason why we shouldn't cover SLP if we're covering mental health issues... if Atlasia's progressed to the point that we realize that mental problems aren't just a "character flaw" and deserve treatment and help, why shouldn't we do the same for people who stutter or have even more serious language impairments?

Ok, yeah that sounds like something worthwhile of funding. Though I should ask, is there evidence of these therapies working?

Also Nathan, can you further explain why you don't support cochlear implants? Just not believing in disability is hardly adequate.

[asexual trans victimologist]

I would support covering cochlear implants. Not sure about speech-language pathology though. I read the wiki and couldn't find anything worth supporting....but maybe you can change my mind. Is this working with people who stutter, have lisps and other speech disorders?

Precisely.  There's no reason why we shouldn't cover SLP if we're covering mental health issues... if Atlasia's progressed to the point that we realize that mental problems aren't just a "character flaw" and deserve treatment and help, why shouldn't we do the same for people who stutter or have even more serious language impairments?

Ok, yeah that sounds like something worthwhile of funding. Though I should ask, is there evidence of these therapies working?

Also Nathan, can you further explain why you don't support cochlear implants? Just not believing in disability is hardly adequate.

It's not that I disbelieve in disability per se, but my first instinct is to oppose this because of personal connections, through friends, to Deaf culture (as opposed to simply deaf people), so I would need to know whether or not we're funding schools for the deaf/schools for the blind/whatever and other such things before I would be able to rationally alter that instinctual position. If we might fund social programs for disabled people, to be run by and for disabled people, then I would drop my objections to funding what I personally view as a falsely 'corrective' medical attitude towards these things for those people who might want it.

[Senator Sbane]

I need to understand a bit more about Deaf culture. Are they saying that being deaf is alright? I mean it's definitely fine and they are just normal human beings but I would think being able to hear, or being able to hear better would be preferable......

[ilikeverin]

I need to understand a bit more about Deaf culture. Are they saying that being deaf is alright? I mean it's definitely fine and they are just normal human beings but I would think being able to hear, or being able to hear better would be preferable......

Don't let the Deaf community hear you say that.  I think the community is pretty awesome, personally, so if we also want to fund deaf schools, etc. some in this bill, I'd be fine with it.  I think it's important that we give families a choice.  While, like I said, I do appreciate the Deaf community and its contributions, I also think both sides of the CI debate need to realize that hearing need not prevent you from being Deaf.

[Senator Sbane]

Well, I'm baffled why one would not want to have all five senses but regardless I support funding deaf schools. Maybe in a separate bill though, lest we go down the path of the US congress.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Well, I'm baffled why one would not want to have all five senses but regardless I support funding deaf schools. Maybe in a separate bill though, lest we go down the path of the US congress.

If one's been deaf for a very long time one apparently doesn't perceive it as a loss. I'm not sure what precise perceived benefits it would bring, but I assume they're mostly cultural vis-a-vis other deaf people. Hence the idea of a Deaf culture.

I'll work on rustling up some sort of deaf schools bill next week.

[Senator Sbane]

Well, it would help deaf people in the workplace and school one would imagine. I understand why from the perspective of someone who is deaf it might not seem like a loss, but I think it's apparent they would benefit in the larger society if they were able to hear.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The below amendment is now at vote, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

I can't update the Noticeboard or the tracker till later.

Section 1 clause b is amended as follows:

(b.) The health care benefits under this Act cover all medically necessary services, including at least the following:

            Primary care and prevention.
            Inpatient care.
            Outpatient care.
            Emergency care.
            Prescription drugs.
            Durable medical equipment.
            Long-term care.
            Palliative care.
            Mental health services.
            The full scope of dental services (other than cosmetic dentistry).
            Substance abuse treatment services.
            Chiropractic services.           
            Basic vision care and vision correction (other than laser vision correction for cosmetic purposes).
            Hearing services, including coverage of hearing aids.
            Podiatric care.

[TJ in Wisco]

Nay

[Senator Sbane]

Abstain

[ilikeverin]

Yup

[Governor Scott]

Nay.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Comrade Shmoo]

Abstain.

[Senator Clarence]

Aye

[shua]

I suggest mentioning the health payroll part of the funding in the text of this bill (whether you keep it as is, change it or repeal/replace it), so that it is comprehensive.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Nay.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Amendment 48:20:

Aye (3): Clarence, Ilikeverin, and NC Yankee
Nay (3): Nathan, Scott, and TJ in Cleve
Abstain (2): Alfred F. Jones and Sbane

Didn't Vote (1): Pingvin99 (Lame duck Senators are Lame, that goes for Nathan too. Alfred keeps voting thank god. I should of gone with my "anime instincts" and voted for him. )

With three votes in the affirmative, three votes in the negative and two abstentions, the vote is tied. Vice President is required to break the tie.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I suggest mentioning the health payroll part of the funding in the text of this bill (whether you keep it as is, change it or repeal/replace it), so that it is comprehensive.

It would be appreciated if the sponsor, Senator Scott, could respond to this point and soon.

[Jayhawker]

I'm here. I will be reviewing the amendment carefully and will make a final decision by the end of the night.