SENATE BILL: Reforming Atlasian Public Health Act of 2014 (Debating)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:22:12 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SENATE BILL: Reforming Atlasian Public Health Act of 2014 (Debating)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10
Author Topic: SENATE BILL: Reforming Atlasian Public Health Act of 2014 (Debating)  (Read 9822 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: May 20, 2014, 04:33:44 PM »

Were are going to, That is what Part II is going to be.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: May 20, 2014, 04:34:59 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

where y is the subsidy (measured in terms of full cost of public option coverage) and x is defined as household income (measured in terms of poverty line).[/quote]

2. Funding for the subsidy shall be derived from the healthcare payroll tax set at 6.1% as amended by Residential Taxation Reform Act of 2014, and the Insurance Tax in established in the Finance Section of the New Atlasian National Healthcare act:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

3. Limits and/or guidelines for premiums, co-pays, deductibles:
a.

b.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Part II - Changes to ANHC
1. Clauses 1 and 3 of the Finance section of The New Atlasian Healthcare Act are stricken with Clause 2 renumbered as Clause 1 and amended as follows:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Part III - Seniors, Veterans, Mentally Ill and Pre-existing Conditions.
[/quote]
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: May 20, 2014, 05:38:57 PM »

I'm still somewhat confused. Is this the whole bill now? Did we scrap the cuts proposed earlier? Shua's new proposal still seems pretty cut-happy to me. What even is the federal poverty line here, the same as in the US?
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: May 21, 2014, 08:23:22 AM »

Not sure what the point of establishing exchanges is when we can solve this whole problem by just adopting single-payer. If that's an amendment, I'm objecting to it.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: May 21, 2014, 09:50:09 AM »

Again, this could be my British parochialism speaking, but I'm deeply uncomfortable with people having to pay directly for any type of essential healthcare, whether they can afford it or not. The same is true for education.

If it were the case that the cost of the government providing healthcare for all was far more expensive than the alternative, I could get behind some sort of graded payment system, but I just  don't think that's the case. An atlasian NHS  would not be any more expensive, in fact it would probably be cheaper, and it just seems so much fairer.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: May 21, 2014, 10:58:21 AM »

Again, this could be my British parochialism speaking, but I'm deeply uncomfortable with people having to pay directly for any type of essential healthcare, whether they can afford it or not. The same is true for education.

If it were the case that the cost of the government providing healthcare for all was far more expensive than the alternative, I could get behind some sort of graded payment system, but I just  don't think that's the case. An atlasian NHS  would not be any more expensive, in fact it would probably be cheaper, and it just seems so much fairer.

I think what we originally had was a 100% free public option that basically served as an NHS, but then under Napoleon (and as IIRC my first vote in the Senate ever) we added a graded payment system up to where the richest paid 90% of the costs. It was a cost issue, I think.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: May 21, 2014, 06:32:58 PM »

I'm still somewhat confused. Is this the whole bill now? Did we scrap the cuts proposed earlier? Shua's new proposal still seems pretty cut-happy to me. What even is the federal poverty line here, the same as in the US?

The current text is still what is in the OP. If we ever get this text above finished, then it will be a full text replacement amendment to that.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: May 21, 2014, 06:36:02 PM »

Not sure what the point of establishing exchanges is when we can solve this whole problem by just adopting single-payer. If that's an amendment, I'm objecting to it.

That is matter of opinion, hence the point.

Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: May 21, 2014, 06:42:19 PM »

Again, this could be my British parochialism speaking, but I'm deeply uncomfortable with people having to pay directly for any type of essential healthcare, whether they can afford it or not. The same is true for education.

If it were the case that the cost of the government providing healthcare for all was far more expensive than the alternative, I could get behind some sort of graded payment system, but I just  don't think that's the case. An atlasian NHS  would not be any more expensive, in fact it would probably be cheaper, and it just seems so much fairer.

I think what we originally had was a 100% free public option that basically served as an NHS, but then under Napoleon (and as IIRC my first vote in the Senate ever) we added a graded payment system up to where the richest paid 90% of the costs. It was a cost issue, I think.

What we had before was an dysfunctional mess, because people threw sum stuff on paper, called it single-payer and got it passed with the bare minimum alterations to make it even semi-functioning. It didn't even have sufficient funding until late in 2011 when we were forced to jack up the payrol tax to escessive levles, becaquse every screams single payer, but no one cared one lick about paying for it or making it work so shua and I proceeded with the only option we had available hoping someone would find another source eventually. Like Nix said the other night, everybody loves single payer so long as passing it doesn't involve more then screaming the term from every rooftop.

Then came 2012, when the system was made to work much like Medicare as Nix has stated. It has a graded coverage scale, not payment system. It is also still a dysfunctional mess.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: May 22, 2014, 10:20:31 AM »

Not sure what the point of establishing exchanges is when we can solve this whole problem by just adopting single-payer. If that's an amendment, I'm objecting to it.

That is matter of opinion, hence the point.



Not amongst the sane.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,021


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -3.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: May 22, 2014, 04:55:11 PM »
« Edited: May 22, 2014, 05:06:24 PM by President Duke »

How about we look at something like Singapore has? A system funded by a payroll tax, where the revenues are places into individual accounts that can be pooled and shared with families, and the government covers 80% of the costs of procedures performed in public hospitals? The remaining cost can be covered with these mandated health savings accounts where employers are mandated to pay into, much like a 401K. The government can also provide a disaster relief insurance plan where you can pay for its premiums using your savings account, if you chose to do so.

No healthcare procedure is "free" like it is under some countries, but adopting this type of system would ensure people don't overspend on health services, which cause the cost of something like this to go through the roof.

There is also an option for private insurance and private hospitals under this system for those who wish to purchase it, and employers can offer private insurance to their employees should they chose to do so. The government sets the prices and policies for these private insurers too.  

This idea appeals to me, but it is said that it could be difficult to replicate in other countries, so it may not work here.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: May 22, 2014, 06:38:51 PM »

Not sure what the point of establishing exchanges is when we can solve this whole problem by just adopting single-payer. If that's an amendment, I'm objecting to it.

That is matter of opinion, hence the point.

Not amongst the sane.

That is also a matter of opinion. Tongue
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: May 22, 2014, 06:41:33 PM »

How about we look at something like Singapore has? A system funded by a payroll tax, where the revenues are places into individual accounts that can be pooled and shared with families, and the government covers 80% of the costs of procedures performed in public hospitals? The remaining cost can be covered with these mandated health savings accounts where employers are mandated to pay into, much like a 401K. The government can also provide a disaster relief insurance plan where you can pay for its premiums using your savings account, if you chose to do so.

No healthcare procedure is "free" like it is under some countries, but adopting this type of system would ensure people don't overspend on health services, which cause the cost of something like this to go through the roof.

There is also an option for private insurance and private hospitals under this system for those who wish to purchase it, and employers can offer private insurance to their employees should they chose to do so. The government sets the prices and policies for these private insurers too.  

This idea appeals to me, but it is said that it could be difficult to replicate in other countries, so it may not work here.

The limi to public hospitals is what worries me for one, that could undrmine those private hospitals for one by creating a closed system that virtually squeezes them out.

Secondly you refer to this as a single payer system, but how is a single payer system defiend as a system where an entity covers 80% and the person the remaining 20%? 
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: May 22, 2014, 07:07:21 PM »

     2012 Fritzcare               Singapore Model    Framework Shua and I are Making.
1. Limited Market/Supplemental Only                           Market Competing Public Option
2. Sliding Scale Benefit        Singular Benefit level        Sliding Scale Premium Subsidy
3. Insurance and Payroll     Payroll                               Payroll and Insurance (subject to change)
4. No Savings Accounts       PSA and OCF                     TBD
5. Fully Covered                  Doesn't Appear to Be        Fully Covered
6. Disaster                          Discourages Private          Doesn't Distinguish                         

1. Insurance Market Structure
2. Benefit Structure.
3. Taxes
4. Savings Accounts Present.
5. Preventative Care.
6. Treatment of Hospitals Private vs. Public.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: May 23, 2014, 09:05:03 AM »

How about we look at something like Singapore has? A system funded by a payroll tax, where the revenues are places into individual accounts that can be pooled and shared with families, and the government covers 80% of the costs of procedures performed in public hospitals? The remaining cost can be covered with these mandated health savings accounts where employers are mandated to pay into, much like a 401K. The government can also provide a disaster relief insurance plan where you can pay for its premiums using your savings account, if you chose to do so.

No healthcare procedure is "free" like it is under some countries, but adopting this type of system would ensure people don't overspend on health services, which cause the cost of something like this to go through the roof.

There is also an option for private insurance and private hospitals under this system for those who wish to purchase it, and employers can offer private insurance to their employees should they chose to do so. The government sets the prices and policies for these private insurers too.  

This idea appeals to me, but it is said that it could be difficult to replicate in other countries, so it may not work here.

The poor and the unemployed just would not be able to pay that 20%.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,021


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -3.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: May 23, 2014, 09:37:55 AM »

How about we look at something like Singapore has? A system funded by a payroll tax, where the revenues are places into individual accounts that can be pooled and shared with families, and the government covers 80% of the costs of procedures performed in public hospitals? The remaining cost can be covered with these mandated health savings accounts where employers are mandated to pay into, much like a 401K. The government can also provide a disaster relief insurance plan where you can pay for its premiums using your savings account, if you chose to do so.

No healthcare procedure is "free" like it is under some countries, but adopting this type of system would ensure people don't overspend on health services, which cause the cost of something like this to go through the roof.

There is also an option for private insurance and private hospitals under this system for those who wish to purchase it, and employers can offer private insurance to their employees should they chose to do so. The government sets the prices and policies for these private insurers too. 

This idea appeals to me, but it is said that it could be difficult to replicate in other countries, so it may not work here.

The poor and the unemployed just would not be able to pay that 20%.

Under the Singapore system, the poor have a windfall much like medicaid, so they would pay nothing. Whatever we do, I would never favor forcing the poor to pay for things they couldn't.

I think I explained the system better in my White House thread. These are just musings though. Tossing out ideas.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: May 23, 2014, 09:53:41 AM »

Better idea:

No market mechanisms whatsoever
Care is free at the point of use
Free medicine for all
Public ownership of all medical facilities and Big Pharma
Medical facilities managed by those who work there
Funded entirely out of general revenues
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,610
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: May 23, 2014, 03:02:20 PM »

Better idea:

No market mechanisms whatsoever
Care is free at the point of use
Free medicine for all
Public ownership of all medical facilities and Big Pharma
Medical facilities managed by those who work there
Funded entirely out of general revenues


We can certainly discuss the theoretical benefits of such a system, but can we really afford the costs involved in those proposals? And furthermore, what would be the point of pushing for nationalization of the health industry? If anything, past events show that we can't sustain or manage something like that. While I am not involved in the discussion as I should be, I support Shua and Yankee's efforts and the framework they are designing.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: May 23, 2014, 06:04:27 PM »

Popping back in here to restate my strong dislike of this bill.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: May 23, 2014, 07:35:47 PM »

Popping back in here to restate my strong dislike of this bill.

Yes, we got that the first time. Tongue

Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: May 23, 2014, 07:42:47 PM »

Better idea:

No market mechanisms whatsoever - Fritzcare has always had a market compenent. NHS allows a market component. Singapore has a market component. I have yet to find one that has no market component whatsover.
Care is free at the point of use - If you are poor I am fine with that, but I see no reason to pay for Bill Gates or Mr. I make $500,000 a year fleecing people and live in Alphretta and don't you dare raise my tax rate. Tongue
Free medicine for all - It is one thing to utilize bargaining power to reduce costs, but this will  definately cut back on research tremendously and reduce quality
Public ownership of all medical facilities and Big Pharma - Too expensive and will certainly lower quality
Medical facilities managed by those who work there - I want them managed by people who know how to get the job done
Funded entirely out of general revenues - Everything is technically funded out of general revenues since there is one gov't and if it is insolvent, it is involsvent. But in terms of what you are discussing that leaves no cost control incentive. And certainly no way to reward responsbility (taking advantage of free preventative care could lead to a reduced premium in our plan).
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: May 23, 2014, 08:39:51 PM »
« Edited: May 23, 2014, 08:43:49 PM by Senator Alfred F. Jones »

Popping back in here to restate my strong dislike of this bill.

Yes, we got that the first time. Tongue

Just checking up - you're the busiest man in Nyman and I'm sure you forget things from time to time.

And I'm not entirely sure we should be letting people get better health care because they can afford it (i.e. private insurance). Do we have things on what the ANHP covers (which I assume would not change under either your proposal or Shua's) vs. a good private health plan? If they're the same, then that's good, but I don't want people getting better care than others because they can afford it (except perhaps things like cosmetic surgery). While I'm pretty sure that banning private companies from offering better care than the ANHP is a) maybe unconstitutional and b) guaranteed to go down in flames, I'm just saying that it's only slightly out of the range of acceptable proposals for my political views.

Tl;dr I'm coming from the same views as the banning-private-insurance people (at least, what I assume their views to be), but I don't support it at this time.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: May 23, 2014, 08:51:15 PM »

And I'm not entirely sure we should be letting people get better health care because they can afford it (i.e. private insurance).

You do realize that NHS, per what bore said, does that very thing.

Do we have things on what the ANHP covers (which I assume would not change under either your proposal or Shua's) vs. a good private health plan?

What is ANHP?  Is that a plan under ANHC I would assume? If so, go back to page three and find a post by bore containing a bunch of links. Find the one that says "New National Healthcare Act and click it. You will then have a list of everything that ANHC covers right now.

The answer to your question is that it would not be possible to know right now because ANHC is a supplemental private model only, wherer as ours would be a parallel private model (private plans competing with ANHC). And I would direct you on my latest version of the outline, you look about towards the top and find a section that is presently empty, called: "Section 2: Mandated Coverage and Other Requirements". What do you think the purpose of that section is for? Tongue
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: May 23, 2014, 09:07:10 PM »

And I'm not entirely sure we should be letting people get better health care because they can afford it (i.e. private insurance).

You do realize that NHS, per what bore said, does that very thing.

Well, my opinion of the NHS has decreased a tad.

Do we have things on what the ANHP covers (which I assume would not change under either your proposal or Shua's) vs. a good private health plan?

What is ANHP?  Is that a plan under ANHC I would assume? If so, go back to page three and find a post by bore containing a bunch of links. Find the one that says "New National Healthcare Act and click it. You will then have a list of everything that ANHC covers right now.

The answer to your question is that it would not be possible to know right now because ANHC is a supplemental private model only, wherer as ours would be a parallel private model (private plans competing with ANHC). And I would direct you on my latest version of the outline, you look about towards the top and find a section that is presently empty, called: "Section 2: Mandated Coverage and Other Requirements". What do you think the purpose of that section is for? Tongue

I made the term "ANHP" up to mean the government plan and standards of coverage thereof (I was thinking of the Physicians for a National Health Program organization when I was typing that, you see), which I have looked at via Bore's link. It seems pretty good to me, although I think we could stand to cover transgender-related health services, but that's another story for another day.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: May 24, 2014, 07:13:28 AM »

I should probably re emphasize what private healthcare is like in the UK. It means you get a nicer room in the hospital, and access to very very expensive but not incredibly effective drugs and a fast track for non essential operations. It's not a case of the rich surviving at the poor's expense. If you have cancer or a heart attack or anything serious, you will be treated by the NHS, private insurance or not. There is no private A and E just to take one example.

If that seems a bit aggressive, I apologize, but you have to remember that the NHS is Britain's national religion Tongue

Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 12 queries.