LOTF: An American Political Roleplay (116th Congress)

[Agarntrop]

Sen. Bob Warrick: "Objection!"

Sen. B Anderson (R-MO): "Seconded."

[Meelducan]

US Senate - President Pro Tempore

“With both a Second and an Objection, the motion shall be put to a vote. The question is whether to proceed with the docket and take up the Medicare Choice Act. The Senate shall move into voting procedure.”

[Agarntrop]

US Senate - President Pro Tempore

“With both a Second and an Objection, the motion shall be put to a vote. The question is whether to proceed with the docket and take up the Medicare Choice Act. The Senate shall move into voting procedure.”

Sen. B Anderson (R-MO): "Nay"

[Imperial Esplanade]

Sen. Warrick: "Nay."

[Puertollano]

Sen Levi Murphy (D/MN): Aye

[Dentali]

US Senate - President Pro Tempore

“With both a Second and an Objection, the motion shall be put to a vote. The question is whether to proceed with the docket and take up the Medicare Choice Act. The Senate shall move into voting procedure.”

Moore: Aye

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Rep. Julia Piotrowska [D-IL-05]: "Mr. Speaker, I second the motion."

Speaker: Without objections the bill proceeds to debate, the Speaker would look favorably on speakers for and against

Theodore Vohoffsky (R-CA45): "Mister Speaker, I wish to speak against the resolution."

[Bruke]

US Senate - President Pro Tempore

“With both a Second and an Objection, the motion shall be put to a vote. The question is whether to proceed with the docket and take up the Medicare Choice Act. The Senate shall move into voting procedure.”

Volek: “Aye.”

[Dentali]

Speaker: Without objections the bill proceeds to debate, the Speaker would look favorably on speakers for and against

Theodore Vohoffsky (R-CA45): "Mister Speaker, I wish to speak against the resolution."

Speaker of the House: Rep. Julia Piotrowska, Rep. Caroline Simone and Rep. Kathleen Nez will be speaking for and Rep. Theodore Vohoffsky will be speaking against. You may address the House when ready.

[Meelducan]

US Senate - President Pro Tempore

“With with present majority of Senators voting in favour, the motion is agreed to.”

“The Chair invites the Senator from Michigan to lay out the Medicare Choice Act.“

[Dentali]

US Senate - President Pro Tempore

“With with present majority of Senators voting in favour, the motion is agreed to.”

“The Chair invites the Senator from Michigan to lay out the Medicare Choice Act.“

Moore rises to speak "Thank you Mr. President... Progress comes with slow incremental steps, and the issue of our times right now... of this coming decade... the issue the American people most want us to address is healthcare. Ladies and Gentlemen the American people have demanded we act and act with speed."

"I firmly believe healthcare is a human right, not just for those lucky enough to afford it and we should strive to make coverage universal. Our next step to that is the Medicare Choice Act, establishing a public option. The implementation will be gradual starting in 2021 in priority areas, those areas in the country where only 1 health insurance issuer is available and eventually covering the whole country."

"I don't know who decided that healthcare would be the most partisan issue of our times, I don't know who decided it would be the litmus test and that you had to pick sides... I reject that view. I respect everyone with a solution to combat the rising costs or healthcare, anyone who wants to make it more available. We should acknowledge as a body the status quo can't continue and that we should rigorously debate and vet a range of ideas."

"This bill specifically increases the supply of healthcare in the country and as we all know, increasing the supply of a product or service increases the demand. It doesn't not nationalize healthcare, or get rid of private insurance, it just gives people an option and if a private insurers can't compete with a public option then I think that says something about the value of your service."

"Its been too long that Big Pharma and Insurance companies have been able to profit off the backs of those most vulnerable and most desperate. This plan empowers Americans not only the 28.3 million Americans without insurance but those with insurance already, forcing those industries to actually compete and lower prices or provide better services. And that's what Americans want, lower premiums and out of pocket costs, more insurers to compete."

"So lets start today, put aside the partisanship and the ideology and start discussing solutions. Lets work together and make healthcare affordable and accessible to all Americans. I welcome your questions."

[Gordano and Lysandus]

Speaker of the House: Rep. Julia Piotrowska, Rep. Caroline Simone and Rep. Kathleen Nez will be speaking for and Rep. Theodore Vohoffsky will be speaking against. You may address the House when ready.

Representative Caroline Simone (D-NY-12)

"Mister Speaker,

The importance of the draft Twenty-Eighth Amendment before us today cannot be overstated. An NPR/Marist poll last year found that thirty-eight percent of respondents did not believe U.S. elections are fair. That's over a third of respondents. Part of what enables a democratic system of government to function is whether the people for whom that government speaks and acts has faith in it and its legitimacy to rule on their behalf. That places a duty on us, as legislators, to restore that faith. If we do not do so, then the relationship between the government and the governed will be irreparably harmed, and we - as a nation - bear the scars of the national trauma that can result when civil means of resolving domestic disputes expire.

Seventy-five percent of voters in battleground districts in the midterm elections listed 'ending the culture of corruption in Washington' as the most important issue to them entering that election, according to polling taken by the End Citizens United Political Action Committee. That same poll shows eighty-two percent of voters demand action on corruption. Why then has the Congress been so unwilling to move forward on a resolution of this issue? What justification can the Congress offer to those who are justly outraged by the debasement of our elections by the Citizens United decision?

Of course, the one argument I am expecting from my colleagues opposite is that this will lead to some manner of assault on free speech, that there will be some manner of dictatorial misapplication of the powers restored to the federal and state governments by Representative Davenport's amendment. Yet, the same can functionally be said of any power invested in any government. We have an established network of checks and balances, most particularly in the Supreme Court, which is empowered to interpret the text of the amendment so as to ensure its most just and constitutional application. Therefore, the key word in Representative Davenport's amendment is 'reasonable'. The Supreme Court will have to establish, in the inevitable case law to follow this amendment, what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable regulation of campaign finance. The judicial branch exercises tests of reasonableness all the time, with regards to the application of almost all constitutional rights. I say almost all as - as far as I know - the Court has not ever had to handle a case regarding the Third Amendment.

But nuances have been applied in First Amendment cases, Fourth Amendment cases - six times over the (not-Rehnquist) and (not-Roberts) Courts, even in contentious Second Amendment cases. Speaking about the Heller case from 2008, Justice (not-Scalia) said 'What the opinion Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases. What limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are, because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor. So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed.' If the Supreme Court's most originalist justice can concede that limitations can be established to a reasonable degree on the Second Amendment, one of the most contentious issues of our age, then I do not believe it unreasonable to believe that limitations can be placed on the First Amendment, purely on the matter of campaign finance in this Amendment's narrow purview, within a frame of judicially arbitrated reasonableness.

No other part of the First Amendment is affected by this. Not petition, not assembly, not freedom of religious exercise, nor freedom of the press - Representative Davenport's amendment even goes so far as to explicitly address that matter. The pure and clear purpose of the draft Twenty-Eighth Amendment is to extricate money from the constitutional and legal definition of 'free speech'. Money, not words. No gags are to be applied, no words stricken, no viewpoint quashed. As such, any attempt to imply that the Amendment before us is part of some wider attempt to dismantle the First Amendment, as some have implied, is alarmist and erroneous. In fact, it is my belief that in lessening the amplifying effect of finance on political speech, it will enhance the free exercise of speech and thus enhance the First Amendment, as a political marketplace of ideas is encouraged and achieved in our Republic.

Republican Senator (not-Olympia Snowe) once said that 'Money in politics is an insidious thing.' Republican President Theodore Roosevelt said that 'It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes.' Paraphrasing Founding Father John Adams: 'Government is instituted for the common good ... not for any one man, family or class of men.' It is clear that across the generations who have founded, shaped and had custody of this - our American Republic - the ill of the undue financial influence of our politics through campaign finance has been recognized and condemned for what it is. Bribery. Political simony. Fraud. In all cases, an appalling conduct which degrades our political society and stains the legacy and prestige of our political institutions, weakens the integrity of our laws and justice, and erodes the most important constitutional bonds of our nation. It is for that reason that I support this draft Amendment, and urge my colleagues from every corner of this nation and from whatever side of the aisle on which they sit to join me in doing so."

[Azekopolaltion]

]
"So lets start today, put aside the partisanship and the ideology and start discussing solutions. Lets work together and make healthcare affordable and accessible to all Americans. I welcome your questions."

Senator Westra (D-NJ):

Mr. President, I am rising to ask the Senator from Michigan a question pertinent to the Medicare Choice Act. Senator, the bill states in Section. 2202. Availability and Eligibility, and I quote:

A. Individuals within the meaning of section 1312 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and who are not eligible under the Medicare program under title XVIII are qualified for the Medicare Exchange health plan.

B. The Secretary may promulgate regulations as may be necessary to carry out this act, including enrollment periods totaling no less than 9 months of the year.

So, that leaves me with several questions. Firstly, is there a guarantee that this plan will be purchased by the 28 million people you mentioned who are uninsured? Because, since the Medicare Exchange plan is extended as an option only to the people eligible to participate in the ACA exchanges, and since premium and cost-sharing are both maintained, but at a level that the bill describes as "low-cost," how can we be sure that this leads to universal healthcare? In simpler terms, how can we be sure that this doesn't become a "Medicare for All Who Can Afford It" plan, rather than a "Medicare Choice" plan. Because the ACA also didn't attract everyone, despite providing generous subsidies.

Second, the portion I just read mentioned that this plan will only extend to ACA-eligible Americans who "are not eligible under the Medicare program." Are you envisioning this program to be separate from Medicare for seniors. If so, I have two queries:

1) Do you plan to transition enrollees on this plan into Medicare once they are 65?
2) Are you envisioning the rates under Medicare Exchange to be different from Medicare? If so, higher or lower?

Lastly, I would ask how much the Senator expects administrative costs for this bill to be, and whether he envisions the $1 billion this bill allocates for the first year of the plan to be moved from another area of expenditure, or will it be spent via deficit spending?

[Dentali]

]
"So lets start today, put aside the partisanship and the ideology and start discussing solutions. Lets work together and make healthcare affordable and accessible to all Americans. I welcome your questions."

Senator Westra (D-NJ):

Mr. President, I am rising to ask the Senator from Michigan a question pertinent to the Medicare Choice Act. Senator, the bill states in Section. 2202. Availability and Eligibility, and I quote:

A. Individuals within the meaning of section 1312 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and who are not eligible under the Medicare program under title XVIII are qualified for the Medicare Exchange health plan.

B. The Secretary may promulgate regulations as may be necessary to carry out this act, including enrollment periods totaling no less than 9 months of the year.

So, that leaves me with several questions. Firstly, is there a guarantee that this plan will be purchased by the 28 million people you mentioned who are uninsured? Because, since the Medicare Exchange plan is extended as an option only to the people eligible to participate in the ACA exchanges, and since premium and cost-sharing are both maintained, but at a level that the bill describes as "low-cost," how can we be sure that this leads to universal healthcare? In simpler terms, how can we be sure that this doesn't become a "Medicare for All Who Can Afford It" plan, rather than a "Medicare Choice" plan. Because the ACA also didn't attract everyone, despite providing generous subsidies.

Second, the portion I just read mentioned that this plan will only extend to ACA-eligible Americans who "are not eligible under the Medicare program." Are you envisioning this program to be separate from Medicare for seniors. If so, I have two queries:

1) Do you plan to transition enrollees on this plan into Medicare once they are 65?
2) Are you envisioning the rates under Medicare Exchange to be different from Medicare? If so, higher or lower?

Lastly, I would ask how much the Senator expects administrative costs for this bill to be, and whether he envisions the $1 billion this bill allocates for the first year of the plan to be moved from another area of expenditure, or will it be spent via deficit spending?

Moore: "Senator Westra I support ending the Wolf Tax Cuts and increasing taxes on the rich to pay for this, however that is firmly under the purview of the house to start the process on. I have no desire to increase the deficit. We have projected administrative costs based on current Medicare administrative costs with a bit of a buffer to cover the startup aspect."

Moore considered a number of snide comments regarding Westra actively supporting the modern monetary theory but decided against it.

"Regarding those uninsured, no there is no guarantee they will purchase the insurance... the goal is not universal healthcare all at once, this just gets us one step closer to it. This provides a cheap and competitive alternative based around current medicare rates which will bring down prices in the private markets and provide a buy in if people want the plan. Now when it comes to seniors it will be up to the Secretary to create such regulations regarding the transfer, if you wish to amend the bill to outline some specifics you are more than welcome to do so. In general I would prefer they be enrolled into Medicare when turning 65 so they are not in the same pool."

[Dentali]

Speaker of the House: Rep. Julia Piotrowska, Rep. Caroline Simone and Rep. Kathleen Nez will be speaking for and Rep. Theodore Vohoffsky will be speaking against. You may address the House when ready.

Representative Caroline Simone (D-NY-12)

"Mister Speaker,

The importance of the draft Twenty-Eighth Amendment before us today cannot be overstated. An NPR/Marist poll last year found that thirty-eight percent of respondents did not believe U.S. elections are fair. That's over a third of respondents. Part of what enables a democratic system of government to function is whether the people for whom that government speaks and acts has faith in it and its legitimacy to rule on their behalf. That places a duty on us, as legislators, to restore that faith. If we do not do so, then the relationship between the government and the governed will be irreparably harmed, and we - as a nation - bear the scars of the national trauma that can result when civil means of resolving domestic disputes expire.

Seventy-five percent of voters in battleground districts in the midterm elections listed 'ending the culture of corruption in Washington' as the most important issue to them entering that election, according to polling taken by the End Citizens United Political Action Committee. That same poll shows eighty-two percent of voters demand action on corruption. Why then has the Congress been so unwilling to move forward on a resolution of this issue? What justification can the Congress offer to those who are justly outraged by the debasement of our elections by the Citizens United decision?

Of course, the one argument I am expecting from my colleagues opposite is that this will lead to some manner of assault on free speech, that there will be some manner of dictatorial misapplication of the powers restored to the federal and state governments by Representative Davenport's amendment. Yet, the same can functionally be said of any power invested in any government. We have an established network of checks and balances, most particularly in the Supreme Court, which is empowered to interpret the text of the amendment so as to ensure its most just and constitutional application. Therefore, the key word in Representative Davenport's amendment is 'reasonable'. The Supreme Court will have to establish, in the inevitable case law to follow this amendment, what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable regulation of campaign finance. The judicial branch exercises tests of reasonableness all the time, with regards to the application of almost all constitutional rights. I say almost all as - as far as I know - the Court has not ever had to handle a case regarding the Third Amendment.

But nuances have been applied in First Amendment cases, Fourth Amendment cases - six times over the (not-Rehnquist) and (not-Roberts) Courts, even in contentious Second Amendment cases. Speaking about the Heller case from 2008, Justice (not-Scalia) said 'What the opinion Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases. What limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are, because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor. So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed.' If the Supreme Court's most originalist justice can concede that limitations can be established to a reasonable degree on the Second Amendment, one of the most contentious issues of our age, then I do not believe it unreasonable to believe that limitations can be placed on the First Amendment, purely on the matter of campaign finance in this Amendment's narrow purview, within a frame of judicially arbitrated reasonableness.

No other part of the First Amendment is affected by this. Not petition, not assembly, not freedom of religious exercise, nor freedom of the press - Representative Davenport's amendment even goes so far as to explicitly address that matter. The pure and clear purpose of the draft Twenty-Eighth Amendment is to extricate money from the constitutional and legal definition of 'free speech'. Money, not words. No gags are to be applied, no words stricken, no viewpoint quashed. As such, any attempt to imply that the Amendment before us is part of some wider attempt to dismantle the First Amendment, as some have implied, is alarmist and erroneous. In fact, it is my belief that in lessening the amplifying effect of finance on political speech, it will enhance the free exercise of speech and thus enhance the First Amendment, as a political marketplace of ideas is encouraged and achieved in our Republic.

Republican Senator (not-Olympia Snowe) once said that 'Money in politics is an insidious thing.' Republican President Theodore Roosevelt said that 'It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes.' Paraphrasing Founding Father John Adams: 'Government is instituted for the common good ... not for any one man, family or class of men.' It is clear that across the generations who have founded, shaped and had custody of this - our American Republic - the ill of the undue financial influence of our politics through campaign finance has been recognized and condemned for what it is. Bribery. Political simony. Fraud. In all cases, an appalling conduct which degrades our political society and stains the legacy and prestige of our political institutions, weakens the integrity of our laws and justice, and erodes the most important constitutional bonds of our nation. It is for that reason that I support this draft Amendment, and urge my colleagues from every corner of this nation and from whatever side of the aisle on which they sit to join me in doing so."

Speaker: I the others wish to not debate we would look favorably on a motion to proceed

[Silverblade]

Senator William Stuart:(R-AZ) Mr. President, motion to proceed with a vote on the Medicare Choice Act.

[Dentali]

Senator William Stuart:(R-AZ) Mr. President, motion to proceed with a vote on the Medicare Choice Act.

Moore: Seconded

[Meelducan]

Senate Floor - President Pro Tempore

"Without objection the motion passes. The clerk will call the role."

[Silverblade]

Senate Floor - President Pro Tempore

"Without objection the motion passes. The clerk will call the role."

Clerk:
Mr. Stuart?

Senator William Stuart [R-AZ] : Nay!

[Dentali]

Senate Floor - President Pro Tempore

"Without objection the motion passes. The clerk will call the role."

Moore: Aye

[Jovuistan]

Senate Floor - President Pro Tempore

"Without objection the motion passes. The clerk will call the role."

Slater (R-AR): "Nay!"

[Agarntrop]

Senate Floor - President Pro Tempore

"Without objection the motion passes. The clerk will call the role."

Sen B. Anderson (R-MO) : Nay!

[Gordano and Lysandus]

Speaker: I the others wish to not debate we would look favorably on a motion to proceed

Representative Caroline Simone (D-NY-12)

"Mister Speaker, I move to vote on the resolution."

[Agarntrop]

Speaker: I the others wish to not debate we would look favorably on a motion to proceed

Representative Caroline Simone (D-NY-12)

"Mister Speaker, I move to vote on the resolution."

Rep J Atang (R-MO): "Seconded"

[Bruke]

Senate Floor - President Pro Tempore

"Without objection the motion passes. The clerk will call the role."

Volek: “Aye.”