Not totally. At least not mine. I usually pay cash and go to doctors who are friends. I'll do it this way as long as I can.

But it doesn't solve the overall cost issue...

...because its an add on.

As I read the article it doesn't pay for tests or drugs either just allows access at close to wholesale prices.

Except every single thing about where and how you receive health care is controlled by the government. If the office is in a hospital, OSHPD aproved the design, if a medical office building, OSHPD specified how the local government approved the design.
CDPH licenses your doctor, nurse and their office. They specify how you get you care.
CDPH also regulates how you are billed for your care.
The CA department of insurance regulates your health insurance.

There was a doctor in this area about 8-10 years ago that was doing this successfully, but he wasn't charging a monthly subscription - $200-$250 got you an exam, xrays (if needed) and blood work.

I was looking at what my wife's employer gives her in benefits, and of the $18k per year, something like $15 is healthcare. Why not give us $10k so we can shop for a major med policy (family of 5 with a $25k or $50k deductible) and enroll in a subscription service like these practices are doing? We would still be ahead by at least $2000-$4000 annually, even with my meds, bloodwork and 2 annual doctor's visits for my kidney disease. With that extra savings, we could put that in a tax deductible MSA/HSA for future use, like medical expenditures when my wife and I are older. Seems like a simple idea, but way to complex for that average politician.

I honestly can't think of anything I'd like to control that I don't. What am I missing?

I had really major neurosurgery about 18 months ago...

Tell you what, I'll take your Australian healthcare system if we can also have your immigration policies enacted here as well.



This explains a lot.

http://finance.yahoo.com/...nthly-131907240.html

Now if the Gov. will just let this happen...

Apparently this was tried in NY but the state shut it down. Yay!

Thanks! My parent's primary care physician from NY went this route about 5-6 years ago. I guess he is no longer doing this!

oh hey everyone, duffy's back.

Some of the responses to this thread trip me out. These decisions made between doctors and patients are agreements made by consenting, informed adults. I mentioned here that it isn't something I'd likely choose to do at this point in my life but it seems those who do use this setup like it.

I really fail to see the problem in that.

Nobody is being forced to use this type of arrangement. Maybe that's what people here have a problem with, free people making choices.

Seems like it would work fine for some people, but it doesn't eliminate the need for insurance. So you'd be paying for this and at a minimum some sort of catastrophic health insurance. Maybe that would save some folks money in the long run.

owen. wrote:

That without collectivism and regulation, you're going to get one doc who simply shoots his patiences and another doc who goes bankrupt treating his.

Give it up, your lame ass country has a broken health care system... rather than try reinventing the wheel how about try copying a system that already works?



Merikah!!!!

Seems like it would work fine for some people, but it doesn't eliminate the need for insurance. So you'd be paying for this and at a minimum some sort of catastrophic health insurance. Maybe that would save some folks money in the long run.

Just look at how bad Obamacare is with all the lies and rising cost. We would end up more like Venezuela than Switzerland.

But, but...what if your chicken gets sick? You'll have to just shoot it!!!!!!

I never said it did. I said it was a solution for some.



An add on to something that some people don't need or want.



And that's something that the costumer agrees to in advance. I'm not sure why this is a problem for you. My insurance has prescription drug coverage (by law) and I haven't taken prescription drugs in years. And if I needed them I could just drive to Mexico and get them or order online.

Well, if you read some of the posts in this thread the problem is that that idea doesn't cover everybody in the country equally. And that's obviously a problem because everyone in America has the exact same medical needs as everyone else.

See?

I have a cataract, damnit. Surgery next week (cataract + vitrectomy. blah). And I live in communist un-America.
I'm interested to know what control I am lacking.

A few points:
I chose my surgeon, based on recommendations. He's a world leader in his field. Even google agrees.
He chose the hospital, it's about 25km away from my home. Possibly not my first choice, but if its where he runs his clinic that seems fair enough, and the eye surgery facilities there are very highly regarded, apparently.
I chose the date. No significant waiting time (booked in for 3 weeks after surgery was decided).
My out of pockets will be $0.00. I have no private health insurance, never have done.
Those basic facts were the same as when I had really major neurosurgery about 18 months ago, except then I chose a more local hospital as well.

I honestly can't think of anything I'd like to control that I don't. What am I missing?

Duffy wrote:

Quote:

It's called direct primary care, and it works like this: Instead of accepting insurance for routine visits and drugs, these practices charge a monthly membership fee that covers most of what the average patient needs, including visits and drugs at much lower prices.

http://finance.yahoo.com/...nthly-131907240.html

Now if the Gov. will just let this happen...

Apparently this was tried in NY but the state shut it down. Yay!