Atlasian National Healthcare Bill (Law'd)

[Marokai Backbeat]

If Marokai will make some changes to 1b back, I might be willing to accept it as friendly.

I changed it back to "all" instead of "most basic." In retrospect that was a silly change.

As for the other clauses, I would be fine with including some of them back in it, but I'm trying to have it written up so such a public plan wouldn't be so broad that it does start to eliminate the private insurance market altogether.

I guess I could change back the section on drugs, but the other sections will have to remain stricken, so private insurance can still exist around those things.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't see why a certain contribution can't be justified.....why can't somebody be expected to pay....let's say, 5-10% of his income in exchange for membership in the national healthcare system. Obviously it would remain free for people with no income.

You complained to me earlier this morning that you hated such a system!

[afleitch]

I fully support Fritz's (welcome!) original bill. I can see that this is a heated debate and it's good to see a bill that splits the Senate this way. I am open to compromise as I believe many of us are, however this bill has my full support as currently tabled.

I cannot see any reason why we cannot have a system as Fritz has proposed, I do not see why we owe anything to the private sector, I cannot see why it infringes on the private sector's ability to attract customers or affect the private sector which continues to thrive and flourish in the UK some 60 years since the creation of the NHS.

Once I have recovered from my holiday I will create an amendment to introduce regional elected health boards to manage resources rather than a centralised body.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I fully support Fritz's (welcome!) original bill. I can see that this is a heated debate and it's good to see a bill that splits the Senate this way. I am open to compromise as I believe many of us are, however this bill has my full support as currently tabled.

I cannot see any reason why we cannot have a system as Fritz has proposed, I do not see why we owe anything to the private sector, I cannot see why it infringes on the private sector's ability to attract customers or affect the private sector which continues to thrive and flourish in the UK some 60 years since the creation of the NHS.

Once I have recovered from my holiday I will create an amendment to introduce regional elected health boards to manage resources rather than a centralised body.

Really? Well, now you're making me consider taking back my amendment

[Marokai Backbeat]

If Marokai will make some changes to 1b back, I might be willing to accept it as friendly.

Let's do this a different way, then:

I'll revoke my amendment if you agree simply to striking out banning private insurance and changing the whole financing section accordingly (or just leaving my part for that in place.)

[afleitch]

I fully support Fritz's (welcome!) original bill. I can see that this is a heated debate and it's good to see a bill that splits the Senate this way. I am open to compromise as I believe many of us are, however this bill has my full support as currently tabled.

I cannot see any reason why we cannot have a system as Fritz has proposed, I do not see why we owe anything to the private sector, I cannot see why it infringes on the private sector's ability to attract customers or affect the private sector which continues to thrive and flourish in the UK some 60 years since the creation of the NHS.

Once I have recovered from my holiday I will create an amendment to introduce regional elected health boards to manage resources rather than a centralised body.

Really? Well, now you're making me consider taking back my amendment

I could have an ideological reason to oppose this, but with personal experience of using such a system I would be hypocritical to oppose a style of system that has treated me well when I was born and throughout my life.

Other than setting a budget (to ensure a fair deal for the taxpayer) centralised government need have little control over what such a system does and how it is organised. Put into the hands of regional elected boards and local people then it becomes a far more democratic system than one driven by market forces and the swagger of pharmaceuticals

[Fritz]

If I'm reading you right, we leave 1b as it was originally written, and amend the other sections as per your amendment.  Correct?

[Marokai Backbeat]

If I'm reading you right, we leave 1b as it was originally written, and amend the other sections as per your amendment.  Correct?

Yes, just take your original bill, strike the part about banning private insurance, keep the changes in the financing and administration sections, and keep everything else.

[Fritz]

Okay, deal.  Write it up and re-present it, and I'll accept as friendly.  (Later, though, I have to run right now))

[Marokai Backbeat]

I withdraw my previous amendment and present the following to be accepted as friendly (I hope )

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Vepres]

A few suggestions:

1. Address the fact that our health industry is not very modernized when it comes to health records and paperwork. Computerize health records and such.

2. Deregulate some things, a doctor spends so much time doing paperwork, much of it caused by unneeded or redundant regulations. I'll let you Senators deal with specifics here .

3. Subsidize health insurance for those who cannot reasonably afford it.

4. Malpractice insurance reform.

5. Provide a public catastrophic insurance program. If a person must pay over x amount for medical care due to something they didn't intentionally cause, then subsidize them for that care only from that point on.

Then you can worry about universal coverage, but deal with these first. Fritz's plan doesn't deal with some of these issues.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Should my new amendment be accepted as friendly, the system will be all well and good, and I'm done listening to any ideas in that regard.

Other minor things such as malpractice reform, or modernizing records, they can be tacked on or dealt with in minor legislation. No problems there.

As for NCY earlier, he asked what we had passed earlier in the Senate, so I just did a quick look for him:

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Health_Care_Access_Expansion_Act

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Health_Care_Reform_Act_of_2004

The latter is especially interesting, because it already de-regulated health insurance boundaries when it comes to state lines. But neither of these dealt with universal coverage.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NCY, stop whining, all you want to do is take the credit. Any issues you have with the bill that haven't been included yet, such as regulations or opening up the private market, are minor and could be easily written up and included.

Oh you better stop right there you SOB. My motivations have nothing to do with credit. I don't won't to write this up. If I were to do so it would take 3 posts just to put on here. I have my own motivations for making sure a realistic program that is actually responsibily funded gets through.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, wah. Then go find them.

I didn't write this bill, Fritz did. Again the precise reason why I don't want to have to write this up. This is your guy's ball and if something needs to be added then do it. I oppose this bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To pretend that any wealthy person would enroll themselves into a basic government healthcare program is not just silly, it's completely ignorant. Wealthy individuals have no reason to sign themselves into a government program that only covers basic procedure and basic care.

Yes they have no motivations, but they still can, and that the problem. The bill is nothing but a Liberals naive wet dream.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sometimes when I'm talking to you, I think you're one of my favorite Senators because you're always so interested in the debate. Other times I wonder how someone made it out of junior high. We're talking about the health of individuals, poor or otherwise, who can't afford any premiums at all. All your asking is for the government to get into the same business as the private market, which is making a business out of people's lives.

Marokai you don't listen, you don't read, you guess, you assume, and then you attack on false pretences. You don't charge the poor premiums. You tier the system with a sliding scale. And the cost of not charging or charging less in premiums is made up using realistic revenue sources. Thats fair, thats how unemployement, Social Security and many other programs are done through premiums known as FICA taxes. You would do the same with the premuims in my proposal. Last time I checked the essential job of Business was to provide people with the Goods and Services they need to survive. That is what Business is about. The Gov't itself is a business and a really big one at that. Business is not good our evil, its job is to provided to those Goods and Services and make a profit for doing it. People as individuals make businesses bad. Businesses in and of themselves are good for society.

So basically you can't stand it when people disagree with you. When I graduate High School next year in the top 25 of my class I will remember that insulting comment you just made you egotisical bastard.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It scraps nothing, does rid of nothing, eliminates nothing, pushes aside nothing. It creats a separate, very basic program, that provides "free" care for all those who need it. Private health insurance will still exist.

Shitloads of other countries have the same basic two-tiered system of what I'm proposing, some of them even go further, and those countries still have a very active and profitable insurance industry. This bill leaves private insurance to continue to exist. It still leaves the room for supplemental insurance programs (such as what exist today to accommodate Medicare users), it leaves the room for dental insurance, vision care insurance, drug insurance.. the list goes on. This bill creates a limited program for basic care, and allows people to get out of it and buy something more lucrative if they so desire it.

Your proposal is to charge people, make an income requirement (so people are still forced to buy into the insurance industry), give people a few thousand dollars in a check, or subsidize huge costs. You live in a fantasy land where simple solutions will solve the problems we're having, that the insurance industry will cut costs themselves, and that if we just open up the private market all our ills will magically solve themselves.

I, on the other hand, am looking across the world at dozens of successful examples, and none of their private markets collapsed. If you want to propose something to deal with the regulation of the private market, I'm all for that, go ahead. But there's nothing wrong with the program that's been proposed, so cease the histrionics.

I never said that the bill didn't allow for insurance to exist, that was already dealt with last night. I am not SPC, so stop assuming this Bullsh**t about me. Would you like me to stereo type you you elist prick.

People over 70,000 will be forced to buy insurance, but I don't see why thats a problem cause if you reduce costs which my plan also does, they should be able to afford it. I don't live in a fanasty land anymore then you do for not even creating a proper way to fund this damn bill. All I see is you ensure everyone and the Gov't gets a little from the taxes Fritz mentione and 99% of it gets dumped on the general fund. If you want to raise income taxes then put in the bill which ones will be raised and how much. You also neglect that I propose massive regulations on Insurance companies as well as Pharma to get costs down. I nevered said the Private market magically solves all ills, you are once again stereotyping me.

You may think there is nothing wrong with this program but when I look at it taking my own partisanship aside I see an incomplete piece of legislation at best. There is just so much past statute that has be changed or modified thats not dealt with, a proper way to actually fund and administer this(looks like Afleitch has a good idea on the Health Boards), and lastly at least something to deal with soaring costs.

[Franzl]

I object to Marokai's amendment being accepted as friendly and request a vote once 24 hours are up.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A few suggestions:

1. Address the fact that our health industry is not very modernized when it comes to health records and paperwork. Computerize health records and such.

2. Deregulate some things, a doctor spends so much time doing paperwork, much of it caused by unneeded or redundant regulations. I'll let you Senators deal with specifics here .

3. Subsidize health insurance for those who cannot reasonably afford it.

4. Malpractice insurance reform.

5. Provide a public catastrophic insurance program. If a person must pay over x amount for medical care due to something they didn't intentionally cause, then subsidize them for that care only from that point on.

Then you can worry about universal coverage, but deal with these first. Fritz's plan doesn't deal with some of these issues.

Glad to know someone actually agrees with me to an extent. There are a lot of things that are just brush aside and pushed under the rug. If anything this bill is what is the unrealistic "simple" solution as Marokai accused mine of being.

[Vepres]

A few suggestions:

1. Address the fact that our health industry is not very modernized when it comes to health records and paperwork. Computerize health records and such.

2. Deregulate some things, a doctor spends so much time doing paperwork, much of it caused by unneeded or redundant regulations. I'll let you Senators deal with specifics here .

3. Subsidize health insurance for those who cannot reasonably afford it.

4. Malpractice insurance reform.

5. Provide a public catastrophic insurance program. If a person must pay over x amount for medical care due to something they didn't intentionally cause, then subsidize them for that care only from that point on.

Then you can worry about universal coverage, but deal with these first. Fritz's plan doesn't deal with some of these issues.

Glad to know someone actually agrees with me to an extent. There are a lot of things that are just brush aside and pushed under the rug. If anything this bill is what is the unrealistic "simple" solution as Marokai accused mine of being.

Yeah, in my opinion, the problem with our health care costs is actually many small problems that together are a big problem. Universal solves the problem of hospitals treating the uninsured and then getting no money for it, thus charging the insured more, but it ignores many of these problems. You just take those problems, and move them from the business area to the government area.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Should my new amendment be accepted as friendly, the system will be all well and good, and I'm done listening to any ideas in that regard.

Other minor things such as malpractice reform, or modernizing records, they can be tacked on or dealt with in minor legislation. No problems there.

As for NCY earlier, he asked what we had passed earlier in the Senate, so I just did a quick look for him:

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Health_Care_Access_Expansion_Act

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Health_Care_Reform_Act_of_2004

The latter is especially interesting, because it already de-regulated health insurance boundaries when it comes to state lines. But neither of these dealt with universal coverage.

The last one should be improved, and incorporated in with an overall program. There is one more thing and it isn't minor but yet it doesn't change the program, and that is the funding. If income taxes are to be raised then put it into the bill which ones and how much. I would also hope that the increase will be realisticly large enough to get the job done.

[Marokai Backbeat]

For heaven's sake, for all of those of you who want this little dinky reforms and market regulation changes, propose them and we can include them. I'm tired of reading the same old proposals over and over again, but nothing formally written. If you want to computerize records, institute malpractice reform, and all these other minor reforms, write them up, don't use them as an excuse to vote against the bill.

Should my new amendment be accepted as friendly, the system will be all well and good, and I'm done listening to any ideas in that regard.

Other minor things such as malpractice reform, or modernizing records, they can be tacked on or dealt with in minor legislation. No problems there.

As for NCY earlier, he asked what we had passed earlier in the Senate, so I just did a quick look for him:

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Health_Care_Access_Expansion_Act

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Health_Care_Reform_Act_of_2004

The latter is especially interesting, because it already de-regulated health insurance boundaries when it comes to state lines. But neither of these dealt with universal coverage.

The last one should be improved, and incorporated in with an overall program. There is one more thing and it isn't minor but yet it doesn't change the program, and that is the funding. If income taxes are to be raised then put it into the bill which ones and how much. I would also hope that the increase will be realisticly large enough to get the job done.

We don't even have a tax code yet. Since the program would take some time to establish, and Medicare and Medicaid personnel and services would be transferred to the new program, we're not going to have a funding crisis for awhile. I was hoping we could deal with a separate Revenue Act which would institute a basic set of income tax brackets to deal with the funding of everything.

[Vepres]

For heaven's sake, for all of those of you who want this little dinky reforms and market regulation changes, propose them and we can include them. I'm tired of reading the same old proposals over and over again, but nothing formally written. If you want to computerize records, institute malpractice reform, and all these other minor reforms, write them up, don't use them as an excuse to vote against the bill.

I just think they should be dealt with simultaneously, the current bill does little control costs, which is the main issue at hand in my opinion.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A few suggestions:

1. Address the fact that our health industry is not very modernized when it comes to health records and paperwork. Computerize health records and such.

2. Deregulate some things, a doctor spends so much time doing paperwork, much of it caused by unneeded or redundant regulations. I'll let you Senators deal with specifics here .

3. Subsidize health insurance for those who cannot reasonably afford it.

4. Malpractice insurance reform.

5. Provide a public catastrophic insurance program. If a person must pay over x amount for medical care due to something they didn't intentionally cause, then subsidize them for that care only from that point on.

Then you can worry about universal coverage, but deal with these first. Fritz's plan doesn't deal with some of these issues.

Glad to know someone actually agrees with me to an extent. There are a lot of things that are just brush aside and pushed under the rug. If anything this bill is what is the unrealistic "simple" solution as Marokai accused mine of being.

Yeah, in my opinion, the problem with our health care costs is actually many small problems that together are a big problem. Universal solves the problem of hospitals treating the uninsured and then getting no money for it, thus charging the insured more, but it ignores many of these problems. You just take those problems, and move them from the business area to the government area.

Our health system is the best in the world in terms of quality, doctors, treatments, technology and protective Regulations. The problem is one of Access. Malpractice, lack of competition, and irresponsiblililty on the part of those buying drugs or getting procedures account for at least 40% to 50% of the problem. Most of the rest is because of the lack of preventive care and the subisidization that already goes on in the current system. Those last two are dealth with in Fritz bill the other 3 are not and should be. There is no reason for a myriad pathwork of  conflicting bills when we can do it all at once in one bill and reduce confusion.

[Vepres]

A few suggestions:

1. Address the fact that our health industry is not very modernized when it comes to health records and paperwork. Computerize health records and such.

2. Deregulate some things, a doctor spends so much time doing paperwork, much of it caused by unneeded or redundant regulations. I'll let you Senators deal with specifics here .

3. Subsidize health insurance for those who cannot reasonably afford it.

4. Malpractice insurance reform.

5. Provide a public catastrophic insurance program. If a person must pay over x amount for medical care due to something they didn't intentionally cause, then subsidize them for that care only from that point on.

Then you can worry about universal coverage, but deal with these first. Fritz's plan doesn't deal with some of these issues.

Glad to know someone actually agrees with me to an extent. There are a lot of things that are just brush aside and pushed under the rug. If anything this bill is what is the unrealistic "simple" solution as Marokai accused mine of being.

Yeah, in my opinion, the problem with our health care costs is actually many small problems that together are a big problem. Universal solves the problem of hospitals treating the uninsured and then getting no money for it, thus charging the insured more, but it ignores many of these problems. You just take those problems, and move them from the business area to the government area.

Our health system is the best in the world in terms of quality, doctors, treatments, technology and protective Regulations. The problem is one of Access. Malpractice, lack of competition, and irresponsiblililty on the part of those buying drugs or getting procedures account for at least 40% to 50% of the problem. Most of the rest is because of the lack of preventive care and the subisidization that already goes on in the current system. Those last two are dealth with in Fritz bill the other 3 are not and should be. There is no reason for a myriad pathwork of  conflicting bills when we can do it all at once in one bill and reduce confusion.

Indeed.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The simple fact of the matter here is that you don't want to compromise, you simply don't want a government program at all, and if you do, you want income requirements and premiums being charges and a host of other conditions. You don't want to propose other ideas because your ideas represent scrapping the current bill almost entirely.

As I said, if you want to mess with these little reforms, propose them and we can talk. The not-so-dirty-little-secret though is that you just want to scrap what Fritz and I have worked on. Your proposal is a system of patchwork changes.

As for costs, which you're apparently whining about, the public program itself does this, and has done so in various other countries. Countries that have a government program in addition to private insurance have much lower costs and spend much less than we do per-capita, and we are an almost entirely private system, and we're being gouged. Saying "more private competition" will not solve the problem.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

For heaven's sake, for all of those of you who want this little dinky reforms and market regulation changes, propose them and we can include them. I'm tired of reading the same old proposals over and over again, but nothing formally written. If you want to computerize records, institute malpractice reform, and all these other minor reforms, write them up, don't use them as an excuse to vote against the bill.

Should my new amendment be accepted as friendly, the system will be all well and good, and I'm done listening to any ideas in that regard.

Other minor things such as malpractice reform, or modernizing records, they can be tacked on or dealt with in minor legislation. No problems there.

As for NCY earlier, he asked what we had passed earlier in the Senate, so I just did a quick look for him:

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Health_Care_Access_Expansion_Act

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Health_Care_Reform_Act_of_2004

The latter is especially interesting, because it already de-regulated health insurance boundaries when it comes to state lines. But neither of these dealt with universal coverage.

The last one should be improved, and incorporated in with an overall program. There is one more thing and it isn't minor but yet it doesn't change the program, and that is the funding. If income taxes are to be raised then put it into the bill which ones and how much. I would also hope that the increase will be realisticly large enough to get the job done.

We don't even have a tax code yet. Since the program would take some time to establish, and Medicare and Medicaid personnel and services would be transferred to the new program, we're not going to have a funding crisis for awhile. I was hoping we could deal with a separate Revenue Act which would institute a basic set of income tax brackets to deal with the funding of everything.

Okay but there must be a set stream of revenue to fund this. This program should have a firm set and specific funding source. If we have to come back later and address this funding issue thats fine. On implementation would be nice if some dates were put in the bill regarding implementation.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The simple fact of the matter here is that you don't want to compromise, you simply don't want a government program at all, and if you do, you want income requirements and premiums being charges and a host of other conditions. You don't want to propose other ideas because your ideas represent scrapping the current bill almost entirely.

As I said, if you want to mess with these little reforms, propose them and we can talk. The not-so-dirty-little-secret though is that you just want to scrap what Fritz and I have worked on. Your proposal is a system of patchwork changes.

As for costs, which you're apparently whining about, the public program itself does this, and has done so in various other countries. Countries that have a government program in addition to private insurance have much lower costs and spend much less than we do per-capita, and we are an almost entirely private system, and we're being gouged. Saying "more private competition" will not solve the problem.

Actually I am willing to compromise. By having a public plan in the first place. If you hate the term "Premium" why don't you just use the word tax instead. I envisioned it being similar to fica taxes. I am willing to give in and accept your guys proposal if you are willing to incorporate some "more" things to get costs done a serious overhaul of regulations.

[Franzl]

As already stated, I don't see why we can't expect premiums to be paid based on income in exchange for government health services.

I'm not sure yet whether the government program should be open to all. I tend to think it should actually...it's not like Bill Gates would take the public care, is it?