Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 23, 2017, 03:41:41 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderator: Gustaf)
| | |-+  Atlasian National Healthcare Bill (Law'd)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13 Print
Author Topic: Atlasian National Healthcare Bill (Law'd)  (Read 23062 times)
MasterJedi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20113
United States


View Profile
« on: July 18, 2009, 09:33:54 am »
Ignore

Atlasian National Healthcare Bill

Section 1- Eligibility and Benefits
a. All individuals residing in Atlasia are covered under the Atlasian National Health Care Program entitling them to a universal, best quality standard of care.
b. The health care benefits under this Act cover all medically necessary services, including at least the following:
1. Primary care and prevention.
2. Inpatient care.
3. Outpatient care.
4. Emergency care.
5. Prescription drugs.
6. Durable medical equipment.
7. Long-term care.
8. Palliative care.
9. Mental health services.
10. The full scope of dental services (other than cosmetic dentistry).
11. Substance abuse treatment services.
12. Chiropractic services.
13. Basic vision care and vision correction (other than laser vision correction for cosmetic purposes).
14. Hearing services, including coverage of hearing aids.
15. Podiatric care.
c. Such benefits are available through any licensed health care clinician anywhere in Atlasia that is legally qualified to provide the benefits.
d. No deductibles, co-payments, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing shall be imposed with respect to covered benefits.
e. No institution may be a participating provider unless it is a public or not-for-profit institution. Private physicians, private clinics, and private health care providers shall continue to operate as private entities, but are prohibited from being investor owned. For-profit providers of care opting to participate shall be required to convert to not-for-profit status. For-profit providers of care that convert to non-profit status shall remain privately owned and operated entities. The owners of such for-profit providers shall be compensated for reasonable financial losses incurred as a result of the conversion from for-profit to non-profit status.
f. It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act.  However, nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the sale of health insurance coverage for any additional benefits not covered by this Act, such as for cosmetic surgery or other services and items that are not medically necessary.

Section 2- Finances
a. The Atlasian National Health Care Program, through its regional offices, shall pay each institutional provider of care a monthly lump sum to cover all operating expenses under a global budget. The global budget of a provider shall be set through negotiations between providers and regional directors, but are subject to the approval of the Director. The budget shall be negotiated annually, based on past expenditures, projected changes in levels of services, wages and input, costs, a provider's maximum capacity to provide care, and proposed new and innovative programs.  Under this Act physicians shall submit bills to the regional director on a simple form, or via computer. Licensed health care clinicians who accept any payment from the Program may not bill any patient for any covered service.
b. Funding for this Act shall be appropriated from existing sources of Federal Government revenues for health care, and from an additional sales tax on all alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana products.

Section 3- Administration
a. This Act shall be administered a Director appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.  The Director may hold other office.

Spon: Sen. Fritz
« Last Edit: August 13, 2009, 04:09:21 pm by Senator MasterJedi, PPT »Logged

Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22345
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2009, 09:36:30 am »
Ignore

I'm sorry...but under no circumstances will I accept an entirely government run single payer healthcare system.

I'm pretty open to discussing a public option, however.
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31744
Colombia



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2009, 09:50:06 am »
Ignore

I support this.
Logged



17:40   oakvale   the people are bad and shouldn't be allowed vote whenever possible
17:40   oakvale   The average voter wants to end austerity, bring back hanging and put all immigrants in death
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18687
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2009, 09:55:03 am »
Ignore

I support this.
SHOCKER

Anyway, this bill is threatening to our way of life and I urge all senators to oppose it
Logged

Gov. Christopher J. Christie
tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19324
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2009, 10:29:09 am »
Ignore

I'm sorry...but under no circumstances will I accept an entirely government run single payer healthcare system.
Logged
Fritz
JLD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5620
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2009, 10:51:15 am »
Ignore

I support this.
Glad to have you on board!

Anyway, this bill is threatening to our way of life and I urge all senators to oppose it

God forbid everyone should have health care...Roll Eyes  I don't see anyone's "way of life" being threatened in countries that already have such plans.
Logged

DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18687
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2009, 10:58:32 am »
Ignore

Anyway, this bill is threatening to our way of life and I urge all senators to oppose it
God forbid everyone should have health care...Roll Eyes  I don't see anyone's "way of life" being threatened in countries that already have such plans.
Health care should be made more affordable through venues like AHPs and other ways of allowing individuals to have discounted rates.  Having the government provide it is placing a huge bandage over the problem and just leading to massive spending.  The massive spending in turn leads to massive debt and/or massive tax increases which destory the economy and/or raise tax which leads to people's way of life being destroyed.
Logged

Gov. Christopher J. Christie
Fritz
JLD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5620
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2009, 12:14:12 pm »
Ignore

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm

The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States

Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.

Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990.

Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960.

Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.

Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana.

Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.

Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation.

Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive

Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care.

Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.

Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.

Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canadaís.

Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money

Myth Three: Universal Health Care Would Deprive Citizens of Needed Services

Fact One: Studies reveal that citizens in universal health care systems have more doctor visits and more hospital days than in the US.

Fact Two: Around 30% of Americans have problem accessing health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country. About 17% of our population is without health insurance. About 75% of ill uninsured people have trouble accessing/paying for health care.

Fact Three: Comparisons of Difficulties Accessing Care Are Shown To Be Greater In The US Than Canada (see graph)

Fact Four: Access to health care is directly related to income and race in the United States. As a result the poor and minorities have poorer health than the wealthy and the whites.

Fact Five: There would be no lines under a universal health care system in the United States because we have about a 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons, whereas demand would increase about 15%.

Conclusion: The US denies access to health care based on the ability to pay. Under a universal health care system all would access care. There would be no lines as in other industrialized countries due to the oversupply in our providers and infrastructure, and the willingness/ability of the United States to spend more on health care than other industrialized nations.

Myth Four: Universal Health Care Would Result In Government Control And Intrusion Into Health Care Resulting In Loss Of Freedom Of Choice

Fact One: There would be free choice of health care providers under a single payer universal health care system, unlike our current managed care system in which people are forced to see providers on the insurerís panel to obtain medical benefits.

Fact Two: There would be no management of care under a single payer, universal health care system unlike the current managed care system which mandates insurer preapproval for services thus undercutting patient confidentiality and taking health care decisions away from the health care provider and consumer.

Fact Three: Although health care providers fees would be set as they are currently in 90% of cases, providers would have a means of negotiating fees unlike the current managed care system in which they are set in corporate board rooms with profits, not patient care, in mind

Fact Four: Taxes, fees and benefits would be decided by the insurer which would be under the control of a diverse board representing consumers, providers, business and government. It would not be a government controlled system, although the government would have to approve the taxes. The system would be run by a public trust, not the government.

Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care administered by a state public health system would be much more democratic and much less intrusive than our current system. Consumers and providers would have a voice in determining benefits, rates and taxes. Problems with free choice, confidentiality and medical decision making would be resolved.

Myth Five: Universal Health Care Is Socialized Medicine And Would Be Unacceptable To The Public

Fact One: Single payer universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care providers would be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of the government, which would be socialized medicine. Single payer health care is not socialized medicine, any more than the public funding of education is socialized education, or the public funding of the defense industry is socialized defense.

Fact Two: Repeated national and state polls have shown that between 60 and 75% of Americans would like a universal health care system (see The Harris Poll #78, October 20, 2005).

Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care is not socialized medicine and would be preferred by the majority of the citizens of this country.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2009, 12:18:34 pm by Senator Fritz »Logged

DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18687
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2009, 12:24:03 pm »
Ignore

Fact: The government sucks at running anything
Logged

Gov. Christopher J. Christie
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22345
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2009, 12:27:28 pm »
Ignore

The poor statistics are likely a result of lack of access to healthcare....for those that have access, the U.S. probably does have the best system in the world.

I think either a public option or direct subsidies are definitely necessary to ensure that all Atlasians are able to get the healthcare they need.

I don't see why we can't reach near-universal coverage without the government having direct control.

Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31744
Colombia



View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2009, 12:49:13 pm »
Ignore

The poor statistics are likely a result of lack of access to healthcare....for those that have access, the U.S. probably does have the best system in the world.

Definitely. For those who have it, it's top 5, if not the best in the world. That's great. But what about those left in the wild with nothing, for who their healthcare is comparable to healthcare in Nigeria, what do we do about them?
Logged



17:40   oakvale   the people are bad and shouldn't be allowed vote whenever possible
17:40   oakvale   The average voter wants to end austerity, bring back hanging and put all immigrants in death
Lief 🐋
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40677
Dominica


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 18, 2009, 03:25:03 pm »
Ignore

This bill has my full support. Like I said during the campaign, it's time that Atlasia joins the rest of the developed world and insures that every citizen has quality healthcare.
Logged

fuck nazis
Vice President PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27147
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2009, 03:48:15 pm »
Ignore

     Someone please introduce an amendment to strike section 1, clause f.
Logged

Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22345
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2009, 03:52:27 pm »
Ignore

     Someone please introduce an amendment to strike section 1, clause f.

Yeah that's my intention.

I introduce the following amendment:

Quote
Section 1, clause f is removed.
Logged
People's Speaker North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 37351
United States


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 18, 2009, 04:31:35 pm »
Ignore

The poor statistics are likely a result of lack of access to healthcare....for those that have access, the U.S. probably does have the best system in the world.

I think either a public option or direct subsidies are definitely necessary to ensure that all Atlasians are able to get the healthcare they need.

I don't see why we can't reach near-universal coverage without the government having direct control.



I would be willing to help the honerable Senator  craft an altnerative to this. I beleive that expanding coverage is definately important and I think that the Gov't has to play a role in that. However to illegalise Health Insurance because it competes with the Federal Gov't is just insane. Also in case no one has noticed this bill makes no provision for paying for itself other then the existing revenue clause.

Here is my basic plan
1. Reduce/simplify regulations that discourage competition
2. Introduce new regulations to break the cartel like relationship between Insurer and Doctor(allow people more flexibility in choosing there doctors and drugs)
3. Introduce and encourage comparison shopping(reduces prices)
4. Create either a Gov't plan or a Gov't subsidation
     a. paid for by premiums paid based on a sliding scale/ make up the cost of covering the poor off the Marijuana, Tobacco, and alcohol tax.
     b. Reduce hospital compensation(since everyone will be insured they won't need as much)
5. Mandate the purchase of Health Insurance(either private or the plan created by clause 4)
6. Create a Health Tax credit for all the middle class people, that get less then 50% of the premium covered by Gov't, to help them buy health care coverage. This should be about $4500.
7. Expand Tax Free Health Savings Accounts
8. Invest heavilly in medical technology. The millions we could save by preventing Cancer, Alzeheimers, Diabetes, Aids, and Parkinson's will far outweight the so called extra costs created by new Technology(remember most new medicines will have to compete with existing treatments due to clause 1 and 2, and any treatments that prevent or reduce the number such ailements as listed above are more then worth there costs due to the savings to the Health Care system at large.)
« Last Edit: July 18, 2009, 04:33:22 pm by Senator North Carolina Yankee »Logged

People's Speaker of the Atlasian House of Representatives

Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22345
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: July 18, 2009, 04:38:51 pm »
Ignore

I really like your ideas, Yankee.

I'm not really informed of the economics of government subsidies as opposed to an outright government plan...but I do believe that one or the other is certainly necessary to guarantee that everyone has coverage.

On one hand I tend to support the creation of a competing government plan, but I'm rather uneasy about what that would do to competition on the healthcare market, assuming that the government has the ability to affect prices and quality of service. Perhaps by mandating that only people under a certain income level be eligible for government healthcare would prevent the goverment from abusing its ability to lure people into its system.

On the other hand, I think subsidies for the purchase of private insurance would be more market friendly, and would make sure that no disadvantages such as lack of incentives for new technology, especially in regards to disease prevention, that might be the result of a government plan, are created.



Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31744
Colombia



View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 18, 2009, 05:03:33 pm »
Ignore

Here is my basic plan
1. Reduce/simplify regulations that discourage competition
2. Introduce new regulations to break the cartel like relationship between Insurer and Doctor(allow people more flexibility in choosing there doctors and drugs)
3. Introduce and encourage comparison shopping(reduces prices)
4. Create either a Gov't plan or a Gov't subsidation
     a. paid for by premiums paid based on a sliding scale/ make up the cost of covering the poor off the Marijuana, Tobacco, and alcohol tax.
     b. Reduce hospital compensation(since everyone will be insured they won't need as much)
5. Mandate the purchase of Health Insurance(either private or the plan created by clause 4)
6. Create a Health Tax credit for all the middle class people, that get less then 50% of the premium covered by Gov't, to help them buy health care coverage. This should be about $4500.
7. Expand Tax Free Health Savings Accounts
8. Invest heavilly in medical technology. The millions we could save by preventing Cancer, Alzeheimers, Diabetes, Aids, and Parkinson's will far outweight the so called extra costs created by new Technology(remember most new medicines will have to compete with existing treatments due to clause 1 and 2, and any treatments that prevent or reduce the number such ailements as listed above are more then worth there costs due to the savings to the Health Care system at large.)

I'm not extremely well informed on the intricacies of public healthcare, but what does your compromise do to ensure that the millions of uninsured get full, quality health coverage?
Logged



17:40   oakvale   the people are bad and shouldn't be allowed vote whenever possible
17:40   oakvale   The average voter wants to end austerity, bring back hanging and put all immigrants in death
People's Speaker North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 37351
United States


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: July 18, 2009, 05:08:55 pm »
Ignore

Here is my basic plan
1. Reduce/simplify regulations that discourage competition
2. Introduce new regulations to break the cartel like relationship between Insurer and Doctor(allow people more flexibility in choosing there doctors and drugs)
3. Introduce and encourage comparison shopping(reduces prices)
4. Create either a Gov't plan or a Gov't subsidation
     a. paid for by premiums paid based on a sliding scale/ make up the cost of covering the poor off the Marijuana, Tobacco, and alcohol tax.
     b. Reduce hospital compensation(since everyone will be insured they won't need as much)

5. Mandate the purchase of Health Insurance(either private or the plan created by clause 4)
6. Create a Health Tax credit for all the middle class people, that get less then 50% of the premium covered by Gov't, to help them buy health care coverage. This should be about $4500.
7. Expand Tax Free Health Savings Accounts
8. Invest heavilly in medical technology. The millions we could save by preventing Cancer, Alzeheimers, Diabetes, Aids, and Parkinson's will far outweight the so called extra costs created by new Technology(remember most new medicines will have to compete with existing treatments due to clause 1 and 2, and any treatments that prevent or reduce the number such ailements as listed above are more then worth there costs due to the savings to the Health Care system at large.)

I'm not extremely well informed on the intricacies of public healthcare, but what does your compromise do to ensure that the millions of uninsured get full, quality health coverage?

Per Clauses 4 and 5, Everyone will have insurance. Clause 2, 3, and 8 will ensure quality.
Logged

People's Speaker of the Atlasian House of Representatives

Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17541
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: July 18, 2009, 06:28:34 pm »
Ignore

Handing out subsidies does nothing to lower costs or solve the inherent problems in healthcare, nor would it give everyone insurance anyway. We would be throwing a money-bandaid at the problem and not properly reforming private insurance. A government program provides much lower administrative costs, doesn't discriminate, and assures people that their costs on an individual basis will be covered, as opposed to handing people a few thousand dollars and hoping that covers everything.

I support single payer, however, I will also support a two-tiered private/public plan, but I hope the President vetoes any legislation that doesn't include some sort of government healthcare program, whether it's single payer or a public option.
Logged
People's Speaker North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 37351
United States


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: July 18, 2009, 06:54:04 pm »
Ignore

Handing out subsidies does nothing to lower costs or solve the inherent problems in healthcare, nor would it give everyone insurance anyway. We would be throwing a money-bandaid at the problem and not properly reforming private insurance. A government program provides much lower administrative costs, doesn't discriminate, and assures people that their costs on an individual basis will be covered, as opposed to handing people a few thousand dollars and hoping that covers everything.

I support single payer, however, I will also support a two-tiered private/public plan, but I hope the President vetoes any legislation that doesn't include some sort of government healthcare program, whether it's single payer or a public option.

Do you have a problem read my posts Marokai? Tongue

If you look back over it you find that 90% of your objections are dealt with. Clause 4 will provide coverage to those who can't afford it and Clause 5 mandates that everyone not covered by Clause 4 namely the rich buy insurance. Clause 1, 2, and 8 together will reduce costs. The Regulations in clause 2 will take care of problems within the industry, I will even let you write part of Clause two to make sure that it does.

The only debate is which path too take in Clause 4 since I laid out two different ways to do it. Either way is paid the same way essentially you charge people premiums and the have a sliding scale based on income of how much you pay(under Gov't plan) or how much the Gov't pays(under a subsidization plan), The costs of the Gov't share in each plan(especially for those below a certain level will have the Gov't cover all of the premium) are taken care of later down in the outline. There are no co-pays in either, or deductible. That debate would be between you and Franzl since he prefers the later and you prefer the former. Personally I like both.



« Last Edit: July 18, 2009, 06:57:58 pm by Senator North Carolina Yankee »Logged

People's Speaker of the Atlasian House of Representatives

Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31744
Colombia



View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 18, 2009, 06:55:11 pm »
Ignore

Here is my basic plan
1. Reduce/simplify regulations that discourage competition
2. Introduce new regulations to break the cartel like relationship between Insurer and Doctor(allow people more flexibility in choosing there doctors and drugs)
3. Introduce and encourage comparison shopping(reduces prices)
4. Create either a Gov't plan or a Gov't subsidation
     a. paid for by premiums paid based on a sliding scale/ make up the cost of covering the poor off the Marijuana, Tobacco, and alcohol tax.
     b. Reduce hospital compensation(since everyone will be insured they won't need as much)

5. Mandate the purchase of Health Insurance(either private or the plan created by clause 4)
6. Create a Health Tax credit for all the middle class people, that get less then 50% of the premium covered by Gov't, to help them buy health care coverage. This should be about $4500.
7. Expand Tax Free Health Savings Accounts
8. Invest heavilly in medical technology. The millions we could save by preventing Cancer, Alzeheimers, Diabetes, Aids, and Parkinson's will far outweight the so called extra costs created by new Technology(remember most new medicines will have to compete with existing treatments due to clause 1 and 2, and any treatments that prevent or reduce the number such ailements as listed above are more then worth there costs due to the savings to the Health Care system at large.)

I'm not extremely well informed on the intricacies of public healthcare, but what does your compromise do to ensure that the millions of uninsured get full, quality health coverage?

Per Clauses 4 and 5, Everyone will have insurance. Clause 2, 3, and 8 will ensure quality.

Fair enough. I actually quite like your compromise here, Yank.
Logged



17:40   oakvale   the people are bad and shouldn't be allowed vote whenever possible
17:40   oakvale   The average voter wants to end austerity, bring back hanging and put all immigrants in death
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17541
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: July 18, 2009, 06:59:45 pm »
Ignore

Handing out subsidies does nothing to lower costs or solve the inherent problems in healthcare, nor would it give everyone insurance anyway. We would be throwing a money-bandaid at the problem and not properly reforming private insurance. A government program provides much lower administrative costs, doesn't discriminate, and assures people that their costs on an individual basis will be covered, as opposed to handing people a few thousand dollars and hoping that covers everything.

I support single payer, however, I will also support a two-tiered private/public plan, but I hope the President vetoes any legislation that doesn't include some sort of government healthcare program, whether it's single payer or a public option.

Do you have a problem read my posts Marokai? Tongue

If you look back over it you find that 90% of your objections are dealt with. Clause 4 will provide coverage to those who can't afford it and Clause 5 mandates that everyone not covered by Clause 4 namely the rich buy insurance. Clause 1, 2, and 8 together will reduce costs. The Regulations in clause 2 will take care of problems within the industry, I will even let you write part of Clause two to make sure that it does.

The only debate is which path too take in Clause 4 since I laid out two different ways to do it. Either way is paid the same way essentially you charge people premiums and the have a sliding scale based on income of how much you pay(under Gov't plan) or how much the Gov't pays(under a subsidization plan), The costs of the Gov't share in each plan(especially for those below a certain level will have the Gov't cover all of the premium) are taken care of later down in the outline. There are no co-pays in either, or deductible. That debate would be between you and Franzl since he prefers the later and you prefer the former. Personally I like both.

I did read it this time, actually Tongue My post was a longwinded way of saying the a government health program is superior to a subsidy check.
Logged
People's Speaker North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 37351
United States


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: July 18, 2009, 07:16:55 pm »
Ignore

Handing out subsidies does nothing to lower costs or solve the inherent problems in healthcare, nor would it give everyone insurance anyway. We would be throwing a money-bandaid at the problem and not properly reforming private insurance. A government program provides much lower administrative costs, doesn't discriminate, and assures people that their costs on an individual basis will be covered, as opposed to handing people a few thousand dollars and hoping that covers everything.

I support single payer, however, I will also support a two-tiered private/public plan, but I hope the President vetoes any legislation that doesn't include some sort of government healthcare program, whether it's single payer or a public option.

Do you have a problem read my posts Marokai? Tongue

If you look back over it you find that 90% of your objections are dealt with. Clause 4 will provide coverage to those who can't afford it and Clause 5 mandates that everyone not covered by Clause 4 namely the rich buy insurance. Clause 1, 2, and 8 together will reduce costs. The Regulations in clause 2 will take care of problems within the industry, I will even let you write part of Clause two to make sure that it does.

The only debate is which path too take in Clause 4 since I laid out two different ways to do it. Either way is paid the same way essentially you charge people premiums and the have a sliding scale based on income of how much you pay(under Gov't plan) or how much the Gov't pays(under a subsidization plan), The costs of the Gov't share in each plan(especially for those below a certain level will have the Gov't cover all of the premium) are taken care of later down in the outline. There are no co-pays in either, or deductible. That debate would be between you and Franzl since he prefers the later and you prefer the former. Personally I like both.

I did read it this time, actually Tongue My post was a longwinded way of saying the a government health program is superior to a subsidy check.

Sure you did, sure Tongue. Does tyhat mean you find the "Regulation clause two" as an exceptable way of changing the Insurance industry. No matter which way we go in Clause 4 I want all the other clauses. Also do you agree that Clause 1(De-Regulatory/Regulatory reform), Clause 2(New Regulations), and Clause 8(research investment) will reduce costs?
Logged

People's Speaker of the Atlasian House of Representatives

Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6747
United States


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2009, 08:45:16 pm »
Ignore

Whoa, I miss a lot on Saturdays.

I support Franzl's amendment. There is no reason to outright ban private health insurance plans.

For the public plan idea, the only way it works without pummeling private health insurance companies is by preventing companies that provide employer-based coverage from switching to the public plan. We also need a mechanism that keeps the public plan competitive, but not unreasonably so to the point where private companies can't lower costs enough to compete.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17541
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: July 18, 2009, 08:51:37 pm »
Ignore

Whoa, I miss a lot on Saturdays.

I support Franzl's amendment. There is no reason to outright ban private health insurance plans.

For the public plan idea, the only way it works without pummeling private health insurance companies is by preventing companies that provide employer-based coverage from switching to the public plan. We also need a mechanism that keeps the public plan competitive, but not unreasonably so to the point where private companies can't lower costs enough to compete.

Is there a reason we should care about that should it happen? There's a reason private insurances costs so much, you know. (Administrative costs being triple or quadruple administrative costs of Medicare, for instance.)

If people choose to turn over to the public plan there's no reason we should just decide to stop them. The only way it will destroy private insurance is if people decide for themselves that it's better. Why are we just arbitrarily deciding to put limits on a public plan?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines