Virtual Congress Vote. This bill is brought to the floor by President Trepidhickory (I). The Affordable Medicine Act is available in the comments of this poll.
On this vote the Yeas are 41%, the Nays are 59%. The bill is not passed.
This poll has been open over 24 hours. There's currently 188 votes with 59% nay. I assume it fell.
No funding for foreign students. The rest is broad but acceptable.
Mr. President I think you had a good idea here but it is too broad for many to support. I would suggest voting on the individual sections as a way of incorporating as much as possible into law.
I agree with Skinner. But, since it came for vote this way, I say yea
I will try that next
I think the whole thing expect the paying for foreign students' schooling is great. Why are we paying for foreign students before we pay for Americans' schooling? It penalizes American students. Take that out and I'm all for it.
Seriously republicans I don't believe any of you have stated reasons for voting nay at least libertarians are giving reasons
49% of 45 independents is almost as much as 85% of 33 Repubs. There's even a good number of Dems saying no.
I support every part of this bill except the 10 year contract to work in the United States, is this constitutional, and is this right, I'm on the fence, I'll sway depending on the argument.
Its like a loan with no interest
the person can refuse the aid or they can accept amd sign an agreement to work 10 years in America, if they do they pay nothing but if they leave then they pay 10% back per year they didn't work
They work for the practice of their choosing
That sounds like a good compromise, I guess I'll be one of the only libertarians to vote yay lol
I do not understand how sec 01.02 works. We vote to pass it and then find out later which regulations are going to be removed?
In actual congress this would be decided beforehand
howver I don't have a group of experts to decide what is to be cut
can I ask why?
I have had a couple libertarians explain their problems and I expected that what I'm not getting is why Republicans are against this and I don't think any republicans have stated their problem
Section 01.02 without part (a) is the only section I support. Am I correct when it would mean abolishing the FDA? Everything else is unnecessary regulation on the medical industry.
1.02 without section A would in effect do that
it still will limit government regulation but keep enough to keep us safe
I'm surprised you haven't included anything about it should be handled by the states :-)
How about 1.3. The way it was explained to me just above the proposal, it makes sense, I think it should go further but at least it's a step.
I don't think the government should regulate the medical industry or education. Or even touch them with a 10 foot pole.
The education part is only extended to schools that recieve federal funding
The government shouldn't be funding them in the first place, let alone deciding how many students are admitted.
Trepid I TOLD you someone would say that!
I think some people read that it was a healthcare bill and voted nay
I urge you to read the bill in full, a couple of conservatives have already voiced agreement with the bill
I am among them. This bill isn't perfect but it's a compromise and we do need healthcare reform in this country.
As party leader, I urge all democratic congress,en to vote for this bill
You can be party leader and Justice?
So who will replace you? Beth?
Can I ask why?
Why do you vote nay? This limits federal bureaucratic red tape amd frivolous malpractice suits
01.01 is terrible for many reasons.
I agree with 01.02 in sentiment, but is poorly written.
I disagree with .03 and .04.
I like .05.
What's wrong with 1.01?
Paying companies to delay the release of products does nothing but hurt our health and our wallets
1.03 merely raises the cap it does not force schools to accept more students
Morally, it is wrong to use force to make a company release a product.
Practically, it is wide open for abuse through forcing companies to release products prematurely for fear of persecution.
If a company releases a products too soon, it could harm its customers.
If a company is overly cautious, and releases a product a little later, it has now invited additional scrutiny.
It's a lose-lose proposition.
No it is not forcing them to release any product it is stopping companies from paying them not to
if there is no proof they were paid by another company they won't be persecuted
they can sit on the product by their owm choice if they so choose
The only way they would invite scrutiny is if there is reason to believe they were paid to not release the product
for instance if they finished the product and finished testing and didn't release it but somehow still were makong money
Look at SEC and IRS investigations. Merely being *suspect* can ruin lives.
I was hoping to work to limit bull crap on the part of those organizations
I know, but you've got to think about things and how they will pan out before passing "feel-good" legislation. Otherwise, we end up like real congress.
Why do you want to give scholarships to foreign people?
To bring them into America to practice medicine instead of them practicing it abroad
Yeah Steve currently many foreigners come to America to get an education and then leave the country. We need to encourage them to stay and use their skills here.
I don't like you want to make it a scholarship. If anything it should be a loan program like people in the US can get. Otherwise I think foreigners get an advantage over locals.
Technically it is a loan since they pay it back in years of medical care to Americans or in money if they leave
Then I think it should be called a government guaranteed loan program. I'm not a big supporter of those programs, but since there is a shortage of doctors and it looks like it could get a lot worse in the future, I will support that.
Scholarship was just the wording I used in this instance thay was my fault
OK, no problem. It looks like it's going to be close here. I'm still considering.
Yea with the exception of section 01.04
The scholarship will be paid back in years of medical service to American citizens or in money paid if they don't practice in America
But if they were to pay back that fee and not stay, then they just got a premiere education for way cheaper that normal. That fee should equal that of the cost of their education or more so by choosing not to stay.
I mean, I agree with and would vote yes for this bill. However this section, 01.04, breaks it for me.
if they leave immediately they pay back all the money if they stay a year they pay back 90% of they stay 2 years 80%
So the whole point is they either pay us back in medical service or in money if they leave
Most probably won't leave after 10 years practicing medicine
With that specified, I agree with the bill. A suggested amendment to this bill should also give more prospective medical students who are American, like me, more financial assistance and educational help from high school, college and med school.
I plan to include that in a later education bill
Can I ask why republicans don't support this bill?
I thought you would love cutting government red tape and malpractice suits
I also want to know
I myself am interested in why they don't like it.
This bill cuts government red tape and stops price fixing
it will also lower medical costs for our citizens and get more trained doctors in our country to help lower prices and help our citizens
Bte everyone: I had to get a new Skype account. I am now Mattwall1 SOH so please add me
No. I don't have to
I know you don't. But for others who haven't
Ok, will do.
May I dub this TrepidCare?
What did you vote btw?
I don't see anything wrong with it so I voted yay. Unless someone can convince me otherwise. My views on healthcare are not very strong so I'm probably going to change my vote after a conservative explains to me why it's bad.
Tbis bill cuts bureaucratic red tape and malpractice suits
the only "liberal" parts are the scholarship and anti price fixing sections
Amd even then the scholarship will be paid back in (profitable) years of service as a medical practitioner or by paying it back if they leave the country
Trepid: Whats the reasoning behind the section prohibiting people from paying others to not release medical technology? Btw thanks for not making good on your single payer idea.
that was vincere who supported single payer not me :P
currently brand name pharmaceutical companies pay generic companies to delay releasing the same product so they cam charge severely marked up prices
in my mind this is a form of price fixing and needs to be stopped
Trepid, should there be price regulations in medications in your opinion?
Not government price limiting no
To limit the number of practicing doctors so their services will be worth more
Ok. I hope prices don't go too high, although they are already, I still support this either way though
Nay to 1.03 some schools cannot fit anymore students
Nay to A what if the student wants to change his major?
They can apply for more scholarships if they switch their major this scholsrship is for medical srudents only there are thousands of scholarships made for inly certain majors
and the schools can have more students in the programs but they put a cap to keep the number of active doctors low
And just because the cap is raised doesn't mean they need to use all of it
Can you explain the purpose of 1.3 to me please?
Right now public medical schools have a cap on the number of students they can accept into the program in order to keep the number of doctors low which raises prices
this will raise the cap but does not force them to accept students
I was not aware of that rule, that's just crazy. Can I ask why they have that rule?
It limits the number of practicing doctors which raises the value of their services
But that's just crazy. No wonder healthcare is so expensive.
That's just a single reason
insurance for doctors is high due to malpractice suits
drugs/medical equipment cost more due to delayed release of generic prodcuts
No. Medicine product is too general.
A medical product is any product made to be used for medical purposes
Section 01.01 It is hereby illegal to pay a person/company to not release a medical product.
(a) If you are found guilty of attempting to delay the release of a medical product both parties will face charges to be determined, but they will include a
fine not exceeding 120% of the offer made to delay the product, and not below 80% for each party.
Section 01.02 Federal red tape concerning the creation and manufacture of medical products shall be removed.
(a) A panel of medical professionals, private sector experts, and government representatives will determine what shall be removed in order to more quickly and cheaply manufacture medical goods while still keeping our citizens safe.
Section 01.03 Medical Schools that receive government funding must raise the cap on medical students per year to a level agreed upon by a panel of the heads of medical schools both public and private.
Section 01.04 A federal scholarship will be created to pay for eligible foreign students to attend American medical schools in full.
(a) To receive the scholarship the student must sign a form promising to practice medicine in the United States for at least 10 years after graduation.
(i) In cases of emergencies the scholarship receivers may move back home, however if they do not plan to return to America they must pay a portion of the scholarship not to exceed -10% per year of
to exceed -10% per year of medicine practiced in the United States. (if they practice medicine for 5 years after gradutation the payment back cannot exceed 50%, 60% for 4 years practiced, 40% for 6 years practiced, etc.
Section 01.05 Frivolous malpractice suits will be cracked down upon.
(a) A board of medical professionals, and medical law experts will determine cases of righteous malpractice and frivolous malpractice suits that judges will use to determine the
validity of malpractice cases.