[Blueblaze]

Originally Posted by kkingston57

Had the same ?. Only alternative I could think of was a single payer system, which is used by 99% of the developed world.

Would you like to hear about my personal experience with "single payer" in London?

I sat with an employee all night, writhing and moaning, on a gurney in a ward with about 50 other people writhing and moaning in their little 8x8 cloth cubicals -- while my staff back home tried to raise someone in the middle of the night to get her transferred from the public NHS hospital to the private hospital across the street that the Queen uses.

During all that time, she never did see a doctor. When we finally got her transferred, we learned that she had a ruptured tubal pregnancy and peritonitis. She nearly died, and it was three weeks before she was well enough to travel. She lost the ability to have any future children.

When it comes to "free stuff" from your gooberment, be very, very careful what you wish for -- particularly "free heathcare". They're just liable to give it to you. You won't like it.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Don't those rules only apply to public facilities that accept Medicare?

All patients. In fact, these regulations came about because a pregnant illegal alien in Southern Texas came to the ER of a private hospital and was sent to a public hospital without proper evaluation. For whatever reason she died en route and so the s**tstorm began. Of course, there were so few violations that the "powers that be" started calling improperly filled out paperwork a violation and fined accordingly. As a result, ERs all across the country were reluctant to accept patients from other facilities. The only time we even tried was when we could not provide a needed service or patient request.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I would add that the patient should always be required to make a copay for any medical treatment, to encourage competition among medical providers. Under the current system, patients don't care how much the treatment costs when it is covered 100 percent by insurance.

Yeah - a poor person with an infectious disease, who can't afford a co-pay, should be turned away. Let them infect everyone else, that's fine since everyone else can just pay the co-pay when they get sick.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by kkingston57

Had the same ?. Only alternative I could think of was a single payer system, which is used by 99% of the developed world.

My solution would be a hybrid of commercial for-profit insurance and medicare.

BASIC health care would be covered 100%, no co-pay, no deductible, no max, courtesy of tax dollars. By basic I mean:

Annual physical and routine yearly bloodwork to support the physical and consultation with the patient to go over the results and make recommendations for treatments, if any are needed.

Minor wound care - cuts and scrapes, antibiotic ointments, bandages, and the like.

Prostate exam, mammography, pap smear, routine vaccines (flu, MMR for kids, for example), a full-body skin cancer exam every other year, routine eye test, routine hearing test, one regular dental cleaning per year, one fluoride treatment per year for kids. All of this would be covered - no one would be required to get all this done but if they chose to, it'd cost them nothing out of pocket with no insurance necessary.

Then everything else can be commercial, and people can pick how they pick now, with various types of coverage at various premiums, various deductibles and out of pocket limits, and so on. The 80/20 plans from before the ACA can return if the insurance companies want it again. Employers can benefit from group coverage for their employees, but they can pass on the premium costs to those employees and not have to pay for the coverage unless they want to (or negotiate it into a union contract if applicable).

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by kkingston57

Small part of the problem. In meantime developers including others in the area are building homes for retirees and very little is being developed for the worker bees including professionals. A good new doctor(except for geriatrics) has 0 incentive to work here.

Great point. My son bought a home in Middleton because of the schools. He is a professional who commutes to Orlando everyday while his wife works a clerical job in the Villages. Many like him. The professionals live in the Villages but do not work here. The area does not pay enough. As you stated, zero incentive.

[mntlblok]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

My solution would be a hybrid of commercial for-profit insurance and medicare.

BASIC health care would be covered 100%, no co-pay, no deductible, no max, courtesy of tax dollars. By basic I mean:

Annual physical and routine yearly bloodwork to support the physical and consultation with the patient to go over the results and make recommendations for treatments, if any are needed.

Minor wound care - cuts and scrapes, antibiotic ointments, bandages, and the like.

Prostate exam, mammography, pap smear, routine vaccines (flu, MMR for kids, for example), a full-body skin cancer exam every other year, routine eye test, routine hearing test, one regular dental cleaning per year, one fluoride treatment per year for kids. All of this would be covered - no one would be required to get all this done but if they chose to, it'd cost them nothing out of pocket with no insurance necessary.

Then everything else can be commercial, and people can pick how they pick now, with various types of coverage at various premiums, various deductibles and out of pocket limits, and so on. The 80/20 plans from before the ACA can return if the insurance companies want it again. Employers can benefit from group coverage for their employees, but they can pass on the premium costs to those employees and not have to pay for the coverage unless they want to (or negotiate it into a union contract if applicable).

That doesn't sound particularly unreasonable to me. What are the forces working against such "hybrids". I remember reading gripes about a "two tier" health system decades ago. Never really understood the gripes.

Blueblaze's NHS story is scary and believable, but I coincidentally spoke with my western Canada peer last evening about his new, premature twin granddaughters. I was blown away both by what their system can still offer *and* by the amazing skill and expertise that *any* NICU can apparently pull off *anywhere*. Them's some sharp folks. Guess I don't really know if that level of "service" is available to the "average" Canadian. He *did* mention that the NICU in Red Deer would not accept a transfer of the babies from the apparently fancier place in Edmonton.

Really makes me wonder what kind of spread there is out there amongst "bad" doctors and the elite - and the likely "in between" majority. Reminds me that I had a cardiologist *lie* to me, apparently in order to justify additional, more "profitable" testing. I had enough "medical" background to be suspicious and to ultimately get to the bottom of it, but how does the guy on the street figure any of that kind of stuff out??

So, does a "doctor type", PA, NP and such come out and declare her "tier" level for such a system? Does the legal profession have too much to lose to allow such a system to exist in this country? After all, aren't a majority of legislators trained in said profession - the fox guarding the hen house?

And, why is it so rare in a forum such as this to see an offer of a reasonable suggestion for a "solution"? Guess it *does* sorta go against human nature - least from what *I's* observated. . .