How does one pay for that lengthy hospital stay or all those expensive tests when you're out of work and the health insurance has expired?
National Health Service bashers make me sick
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
How does one pay for that lengthy hospital stay or all those expensive tests when you're out of work and the health insurance has expired?
Either the patient pays, or the taxpayer, either way it will get paid or the debt will go on forever. They will not lose a roof over their head over it.
Sen. Lieberman wants Obama to just slow down and make sure what ever healthplan we get is the best at the time. Stop ramming it down out throats.
Sen. Lieberman: Postpone Universal Healthcare
Sunday, August 23, 2009 2:18 PM
One of the Senate's most powerful Democrats said Sunday that President Obama should take an "incremental" approach to fixing health care and argued that the country should postpone adding nearly 50 million new patients to the government system until after the recession is over.
"We morally, every one of us, would like to cover every American with health insurance," Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, told CNN's John King on the "State of the Union" program.
"But that's where you spend most of the $1 trillion plus, a little less that is estimated, the estimate said this healthcare plan will cost," he said.
"I'm afraid we've got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy's out of recession," he added.
"There's no reason we have to do it all now, but we do have to get started. And I think the place to start is health delivery reform and insurance market reforms."
John King asked Lieberman if it was "time for the president to hit the reset button? Forget sweeping healthcare reform this year, do three or four incremental things that are less costly?"
Lieberman responded: "In a word, yes. I don't think -- I give the president tremendous credit for taking on the healthcare problem. And it really is a problem that we've got to deal with. But he took it on at a very difficult time that was not of his making.
"In other words, we're in a recession. People are very worried about their jobs, about the economic future. They've watched us add to the debt of this country. We're projected to run a $1.8 trillion deficit this year, September 30th, more than $1 trillion next year. You mentioned the 10-year numbers. People are nervous, I think the protests coming out at the public meetings around the country this month are as much to do with that larger environment as they are with questions about healthcare reform. I think great changes in our country often have come in steps. The civil rights movement occurred — changes occurred in steps. Let's focus now on how to reduce costs. That's been a central theme of the president.
"Let's talk about how to change the way health care is delivered. Let's talk about protecting people from not getting insurance because of pre-existing illness. Let's take off the caps on the amount of insurance coverage you can get over the years. Let's pay for preventive services for health from the first dollar. Here's the tough one. We morally, every one of us, would like to cover every American with health insurance. But that's where you spend most of the $1 trillion plus, a little less that is estimated, the estimate said this healthcare plan will cost."
Lieberman also said he oppose any attempt his colleagues to use a Senate maneuver called "reconciliation," in which only 51 votes — rather than 60 — would be needed to overcome opposition to a health care bill.
"I think it's a real mistake to try to jam through the total health insurance reform, healthcare reform plan that the public is either opposed to or of very, very passionate mixed minds about," he said. "It's just not good for the system, frankly, it won't be good for the Obama presidency."
© 2009
Sen. Lieberman: Postpone Universal Healthcare
Sunday, August 23, 2009 2:18 PM
One of the Senate's most powerful Democrats said Sunday that President Obama should take an "incremental" approach to fixing health care and argued that the country should postpone adding nearly 50 million new patients to the government system until after the recession is over.
"We morally, every one of us, would like to cover every American with health insurance," Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, told CNN's John King on the "State of the Union" program.
"But that's where you spend most of the $1 trillion plus, a little less that is estimated, the estimate said this healthcare plan will cost," he said.
"I'm afraid we've got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy's out of recession," he added.
"There's no reason we have to do it all now, but we do have to get started. And I think the place to start is health delivery reform and insurance market reforms."
John King asked Lieberman if it was "time for the president to hit the reset button? Forget sweeping healthcare reform this year, do three or four incremental things that are less costly?"
Lieberman responded: "In a word, yes. I don't think -- I give the president tremendous credit for taking on the healthcare problem. And it really is a problem that we've got to deal with. But he took it on at a very difficult time that was not of his making.
"In other words, we're in a recession. People are very worried about their jobs, about the economic future. They've watched us add to the debt of this country. We're projected to run a $1.8 trillion deficit this year, September 30th, more than $1 trillion next year. You mentioned the 10-year numbers. People are nervous, I think the protests coming out at the public meetings around the country this month are as much to do with that larger environment as they are with questions about healthcare reform. I think great changes in our country often have come in steps. The civil rights movement occurred — changes occurred in steps. Let's focus now on how to reduce costs. That's been a central theme of the president.
"Let's talk about how to change the way health care is delivered. Let's talk about protecting people from not getting insurance because of pre-existing illness. Let's take off the caps on the amount of insurance coverage you can get over the years. Let's pay for preventive services for health from the first dollar. Here's the tough one. We morally, every one of us, would like to cover every American with health insurance. But that's where you spend most of the $1 trillion plus, a little less that is estimated, the estimate said this healthcare plan will cost."
Lieberman also said he oppose any attempt his colleagues to use a Senate maneuver called "reconciliation," in which only 51 votes — rather than 60 — would be needed to overcome opposition to a health care bill.
"I think it's a real mistake to try to jam through the total health insurance reform, healthcare reform plan that the public is either opposed to or of very, very passionate mixed minds about," he said. "It's just not good for the system, frankly, it won't be good for the Obama presidency."
© 2009
If I was diagnosed on a Monday needing cataract surgery it could be done by Friday and I would be home Friday afternoon. (Happened to a friend of mine.)
Ironsides, I understand that is how it works in USA. But then I also understand that in USA the pot of money for health care is (presumably) bottomless. It is not in other countries, so some compromises have to be made somewhere. And modest waiting list is such a compromise (as long as they don’t become excessive).
Both cataract and a hip replacement I would not consider cosmetic surgery, they are done ASAP here.
They are not considered cosmetic surgery here either, but are they not considered emergency surgeries either. There is nothing wrong with modest waiting lists for non essential surgeries.
There is a so called waiting list, but nothing like you have up there. As soon as the operating room is available you go in. Wait times do not make a operation any easier or better, just causes more anxiety and tension to the patient. Tell the patient that it is good that their operation is being done at a cheaper price.
Again, that is the reality. If you have a bottomless pot of money, no problem. But the pot is not bottomless in Canada or indeed in any country except USA When a country is trying to provide universal health care for a modest amount of money, some compromises are in order and modest waiting lists is such a compromise..
Ironsides, I understand that is how it works in USA. But then I also understand that in USA the pot of money for health care is (presumably) bottomless. It is not in other countries, so some compromises have to be made somewhere. And modest waiting list is such a compromise (as long as they don’t become excessive).
Both cataract and a hip replacement I would not consider cosmetic surgery, they are done ASAP here.
They are not considered cosmetic surgery here either, but are they not considered emergency surgeries either. There is nothing wrong with modest waiting lists for non essential surgeries.
There is a so called waiting list, but nothing like you have up there. As soon as the operating room is available you go in. Wait times do not make a operation any easier or better, just causes more anxiety and tension to the patient. Tell the patient that it is good that their operation is being done at a cheaper price.
Again, that is the reality. If you have a bottomless pot of money, no problem. But the pot is not bottomless in Canada or indeed in any country except USA When a country is trying to provide universal health care for a modest amount of money, some compromises are in order and modest waiting lists is such a compromise..
Gopher, I know you are an American, and I hate to say this. But usually Americans don’t like to think that anybody else has got a better idea. That is why in spite of the overwhelming evidence (US spends much more than any other country, has lower life expectance, higher infant mortality etc.) many of them continue to insist that their health care is the best in the world.
Are you telling me that if you take out a mortgage to pay the hospital bill - because the health insurance people deemed you had assets - and default on the mortgage due to unemployment, the mortgagor will not foreclose?... or you when you go to refinance or sell, you won't have to clear the lien if the house was used as collateral?
Last edited:
Machjo, you keep touting the Singapore model and it may be a very good model for all I know. However, you forget a couple of things about Singapore. It is just one city with a population of 4.6 million people (a little bigger than Toronto). What works for one city may not work for the whole country.
But even more important, Singapore is not a democracy, it is practically a dictatorship. The ruling party uses censorship, gerrymandering and other dirty tricks to stay in power and it has been in power since the formation of Singapore. The state can take any heavy handed measures in a dictatorship, with nobody to question the actions. And that is really why Singaporean model may not be applicable in the rest of the world.
Thus China adopted one child policy and it was successful to some extent. Such a policy can only be implemented in a dictatorship. When in India the Gandhi government tried to implement that policy using similar heave handed methods, that was one of the major factors why she experience a crushing defeat in the late 70s (I think that is when it was).
So one must look at Singapore model with extreme caution and question whether what they are doing can be implemented in a democracy.
Really ironsides? Then how do you explain all those bankruptcies caused by health care expenses?
Agreed. That's why I'd mentioned before that the Swedish model has a few things to teach too. In Sweden, municipal and county health departments are elected locally at the same time as the national government every national election, with the national ministry of health establishing basic principles by which the local boards are to abide, with the lcoal boards responsible for filling in much of the details. That makes their system quite decentralized and democratic too, and that's something I think we could learn from the Swedish model.
1. Singapore is not a dictatorship but a parliamentary system of government. Though the accusations you make above are common, they have not been proven. Is it not possible in theory for one party to win election after election over a significant period of time? As far as I'm concerned, until the accusations are proven, then the government is innocent of them for the time being.
2. Even if Singapore were a dictatorship, what in the world does that have to do with the administrative structure, funding, payment schemes, and other aspects of a health care model?:-?
The one child policy in China has had to be watered down significantly over the years, but that's anotehr matter. Again, how did we go from health care to dictatorship to family planning?:-? We're jumping by leaps and bounds.
Seeing that they are generally accepted as a democracy as is, it would seem that that's a moot point. Now as for cultural factors, that might be something worth discussing, as are administrative structures designed for geographical regions of different sizes.
A point about wait times.
Economically, they are not necessarily bad. For example, the only way to ensure no wait times at all, ever, under any circumstance, even when hospitals are at their busiest, and even for non-essential services, would be to ensure a bloated overstaffed health care system at its slowest times with physicians playing cards in the cafeteria waiting for it to get busy.
One way to solve this within an economic context is multitasking, whereby we have enough staff to ensure no more than 2-weeks wait in busy times, so that when hospitals are busy, physicians who normally specialize in non-essential services can drop their non-essential work temporarily for a few days to deal with the essential services, after which they can go back to their non-essential services a few days later. This way, there is never any significant wait time for emergencies though wait times for non-emergencies could range from minutes to two weeks. This ensures that phsicians are less likely to be idle at any given time.
Also, this is not likely to be so unique to a universal health care system, as I'm sure no hospital in the US would hire enough physicians for them to be idle too often, meaning that at busy times, there are bound to be minor wait times.
The problem of course is when this is taken to an extreme. Looking at it this way, wait times per se are not bad. The problems start only when they get out of hand.
Singapore is not a democracy, Machjo. It may be so in theory, in constitution (but in theory many Communist countries also claim to be democracies). In practice, it is little removed from dictatorship. This is what Wikipedia says about Singapore.
There are no jury trials and there are laws restricting the freedom of speech that may breed ill will or cause disharmony within Singapore's multiracial, multi-religious society. Criminal activity is often punished with heavy penalties including heavy fines or caning and there are laws which allow capital punishment in Singapore for first-degree murder and drug trafficking.
There is no free speech, no jury trials. Courts cannot rule laws passed by the Parliament unconstitutional, nor can they rule if any law is being implemented properly. It is the dictatorship of the Parliament. And since one party is perpetually in power, in effect it is a dictatorship.
I remember a few years ago, the dictator (or the PM) of Singapore did not like long hair on men. So the Singapore Parliament passed a law saying that men with long hair will be served last in public offices. I don’t’ know if the law stands today (I don’t know how the current dictator feels about long hair).
I don’t know if you remember, but a few years ago there was an international incidence, when an American citizen was sentenced to caning in Singapore for some minor offense. That is not really any different from the lashes they administer in Saudi Arabia.
Singapore lacks several elements essential to democracy. By no stretch of imagination can it be considered a democracy.
There are no jury trials and there are laws restricting the freedom of speech that may breed ill will or cause disharmony within Singapore's multiracial, multi-religious society. Criminal activity is often punished with heavy penalties including heavy fines or caning and there are laws which allow capital punishment in Singapore for first-degree murder and drug trafficking.
There is no free speech, no jury trials. Courts cannot rule laws passed by the Parliament unconstitutional, nor can they rule if any law is being implemented properly. It is the dictatorship of the Parliament. And since one party is perpetually in power, in effect it is a dictatorship.
I remember a few years ago, the dictator (or the PM) of Singapore did not like long hair on men. So the Singapore Parliament passed a law saying that men with long hair will be served last in public offices. I don’t’ know if the law stands today (I don’t know how the current dictator feels about long hair).
I don’t know if you remember, but a few years ago there was an international incidence, when an American citizen was sentenced to caning in Singapore for some minor offense. That is not really any different from the lashes they administer in Saudi Arabia.
Singapore lacks several elements essential to democracy. By no stretch of imagination can it be considered a democracy.
Indeed there are some restrictions to Singaporean democracy, and so we can debate whether it is a dictatorship. The same Wikipedia article acknowledges as much, that it is a hybrid between democracy and dictatorship.
However, the quote above has little to do with democracy. The US and Japan are democratic yet have capital punishment too. A stiff legal system is not proof of lack of democracy since it is possible for a democratic government to legislate such stiff penalties in accordance with the will of the people.
Again, you're taking that article way too far, the same article you're basing your arguments on:
Singapore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And we ban smoking in public too. We can't impose our culture on theirs. According tot eh same article you cited, there is a certain level of democracy in Singapore, meaning that at the very least, power is not concentrated in one man. Some cultures may tend to be more strict than others. We are certainly free to agree or disagree with them, but those laws in and of themselves do not prove lack of democracy if the people support it.
And no different than capital punishment in the US orJapan.
To a certain degree you're right. Yet even by the same article you quoted, it's not a full-fledged dictatorship either. It's a hybrid of sorts. But agian, in the end, what does it have to do with health care. Even if the health care system under the Nazi regime were a well-designed system (whether it was, I dn't know, but just to make a point), why should we not consider it just because of the regime it functioned under? A health care system has little in common with the government above it.
that it is a hybrid between democracy and dictatorship.
I think that accurately describes Singapore, Machjo.
I think that accurately describes Singapore, Machjo.
Actually, as I look through the info on Singapore, I can find a few points to criticize about the country, none of which have much to do with health care though.
Perhaps nothing. However, one has to wonder, can a system developed for a ‘non democracy’ (let us call that) be transported into a democracy? Maybe yes and maybe no, it depends upon the details. With a country like Sweden such a question wouldn’t even arise.
This question is equal to the one of Opbama's system being similar to that of Nazi Germany. It's neither here nor there. Government is government; health care is ehalth care. Sure there can be certain questions such as:
1. Would people here vote for such a system (whether peopel voted there is irrelevent).
2. What are the government's motives for adopting such a system? (two governments with different motives could adopt similar systems with just a few major differences, minus which the two systems may be identical)
So yes, the government is relevent to some degree, but when we disparage the Singaporean model because of its government, or Obama's model because it bears similarities with the Nazi one, are quite irrlevent and are cheap ways of having to actually look at the models on their own merit.
''usually Americans don’t like to think that anybody else has got a better idea.''
True. But there are a great many who know the truth. Unfortunately, they are just too silent and too passive.
True. But there are a great many who know the truth. Unfortunately, they are just too silent and too passive.
SirJosephPorter: You having been living in a world where wait times are the norm. Here is the U.S. we are not used to waiting, we have the money and want it done now. When it comes to treating illnesses and emergencies, fast is definitely better. Who wants to wait weeks of months for treatment? Get it over and get better faster.
Whether a country is a democracy or not means little, if they have a decent healthcare system, you don't ignore them.
As for Americans having the better ideas, we usually do.
Whether a country is a democracy or not means little, if they have a decent healthcare system, you don't ignore them.
As for Americans having the better ideas, we usually do.
Nothing. Joey simply loves to nitpick about side issues rather than sticking to the topics.