Atlasian National Healthcare Bill (Law'd)

[Fritz]

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...  I don't see anyone's "way of life" being threatened in countries that already have such plans.

[Fritz]

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 Canada’s.

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 insurer’s 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.

[Fritz]

I want to bring a single payer plan to a vote.  Any amendment that alters this bill such that it is no longer a single payer plan is a complete re-write of my bill, and should be introduced as competing legislation- not as an amendment to this bill.

[Fritz]

I wish you people would specify what is being changed in an amendment.  Since you didn't, I will:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fritz]

My objections are the changes to section 1b.  I believe the health care benefits under this Act must cover ALL medically necessary services, not just "most basic". 
1b point 5: Prescription drugs will only be covered if they are required due to life-threatening illness or injury?  Sorry, but a lot of people need prescription drugs for conditions that are not life-threatening.  My Parkinson's disease is not going to kill me anytime soon, and I would not die without my drugs- but I still need them, they are medically necessary.
I would rather not remove dentistry, but if we have to remove that to pass this, so be it.
Substance abuse treatment: face it, most people who need this don't get it because they cannot afford it, and their insurances won't cover it even if they have insurance.
Why should we say that vision care is medically necessary, and hearing care is not?

The other changes to my bill I can live with, but some of the changes to section 1b described above are unacceptable.

[Fritz]

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

[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?

[Fritz]

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

[Fritz]

I don't know what the rules are on this (I'm a little bit new at this being a Senator thing),  but if I still can, I accept Marokai's amendment as friendly.

[Fritz]

I will now admit to the fact that I am really not the author of this bill.  I used HR 676 as a template, and snipped it down considerably- the original I believe had 6 sections and was 8 pages long.  The amendment proposed by Afleitch addresses much of what I snipped from section 3.  I did this snipping because I was thinking in terms of the context of the game.  I didn't want to add actual offices at the regional level that would need to be filled with actual game participants.

NCYankee, you do nothing to advance your positions by calling someone an SOB or an egotistical bastard.  I find that to be conduct unbecoming of a Senator on the floor of the Senate.  If you have an amendment to propose, please propose it.  With Afleitch and Hashemite on board, we appear to have the necessary votes to bring this to a tie that BK would have to break.

[Fritz]

I believe Marokai's amendment addresses your concern regarding private insurers.

Most of your proposed amendment does not seem to be needed to me, I don't think that insurance companies are discriminating based on race, gender, etc.  Pre-existing conditions, however, may be a valid point.

[Fritz]

Franzl, I am happy to hear your proposals.

[Fritz]

I don't necessarily object to charging a premium, as long as it is affordable.  Myself, being a single man with no children, would have a far easier time paying 5% of my income, than a married couple with 3 children whose income is comparable to mine.  Numbers of dependent children needs to be taken into account in this equation.  I also think the percentages are a little steep.  How about 2.5%, 5%, and 10%, with a reduction for dependents.

[Fritz]

I already agreed to this, so Aye

[Fritz]

Aye

[Fritz]

Aye to the amendment.

[Fritz]

Can we see a current version of the bill? Just so I refer to things correctly in the amendment I plan to introduce.

Amendments by Franzl, Morakai Blue, and Afleitch have passed (although Franzl's was irrelevant due to Morakai's doing the same thing).  Here is the bill as it now stands:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This amendment has been offered, and yet to be voted upon:

Amendment

Section 2 shall read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fritz]

When the Senator making the proposal uses a phrase, such as "I'd like something like...", I think it's pretty clear that this is not the actual amendment being proposed, just a debating point on a potential amendment to be proposed.  Also nowhere in his post did Franzl indicate that this was his proposed amendment.

If we're really voting on this, than nay because it's not worded properly.  I request that MasterJedi abort this vote, as it does not appear to have been Franzl's intention that this be voted upon.

[Fritz]

I don't know if anyone said anything about it yet but the main reason this won't work is there aren't enough doctors to go around. There isn't enough as it is now to care for everyone and the number of doctors and nurses is dropping each year. If we pass anything we'll be bringing on rationing in all but name so say bye bye to any care for old people and many others.

I would disagree with that. There are many reasons to oppose this sort of system but to say there is a 'lack of doctors' so therefore it won't work is a bit off field. Cuba has more doctors per head than the UK, but the UK provides a better quality service. We have something like 2.2 per 1000 as opposed to 2.3 in the US and 3.3 in Sweden and 4.1 in Italy. Its not resources that are the issue but how they are best utilised.

I agree, this is not a sound argument for opposing this.  Back it up with some kind of facts and maybe I will listen.

In the meantime, there are several real amendments out there that should be brought forth for discussion.

[Fritz]

Do you have an amendment to propose to the amendment, Mr. PPT?  I'm inclined to vote in favor of it, but I'd be willing to hold off for a  bit if you have changes you want to propose.

[Fritz]

Do you have an amendment to propose to the amendment, Mr. PPT?  I'm inclined to vote in favor of it, but I'd be willing to hold off for a  bit if you have changes you want to propose.

Oh well, I guess not. 

Aye.

[Fritz]

2. The only thing we could do on that is to raise the Tax on Tobacco, Alcohol, etc considerably like 50% taxation, however I doubt this Senate has a stomach for that option. I am sure there are other things we could do as well.

I proposed this in the original bill, but it has since been amended out.

[Fritz]

Aye

[Fritz]

I appreciate everyone's involvement in amending this important legislation into a package that, I hope, will be acceptable to all parties.  I hope this bill can be passed without any further ado.

[Fritz]

Can we bring this to a vote please?