quote:

Originally posted by Shakka It's a scary scenario isn't it?! And like you pointed out, the rich would pay more and receive the same level or service while those with less would likely continue to receive less. The other question is: What happens when the pool dries up in April and there is no more "public" healthcare funding to go around for the rest of the fiscal year? Whatever you want to call it, it still sounds like a socialist/communalist program.

It is scary, and I think part of the solution would be to give doctors more power. Allow an ER doc to turn away someone with a cold that is a burden on the system. Allow the doctors to dictate what treatments and tests they think are neccesary while not being forced to perform more than neccesary for fear of being sued. At the same time, cut the beaurocracy found in hospitals (more are employed today to do paperwork than acutal health care in the industry) and as I eluded to before, tort reform and HMO reform are both needed. Health care will be expensive, but it will be affordable. However, if you want the best, while having easy access to it, it's going to cost you something. I don't expect a plasma tv for ten bucks a month, and I shouldn't expect quality health care for that little either.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So I guess the next step would be hiring a billion dollar beaurocracy to determine what is "necessary" and what is "unnecessary" and therefore not covered. I'm not talking about "unnecessary" plastic surgery, rather a lot of discretionary services that enhance medical care, but that aren't necessarily obligatory to provide adequate service.

I think that would be up to the doctor/hospital to judge, if a person begs for somet test that the doctor don't find necesarily, then they inform the patient that he must pay for that himself in that case. Or something else quite obvious, i don't think it would be that hard to judge.