The blend of private insurance and medical services coupled with government standards is a low cost flexible and competitive approach to universal coverage. The use of a two tiered system along with a co pay for visits both gives incentive to the patient to be compliant and helps eliminate unnecessary use of medical services. An escalating co-pay for repeat offenders could also be an incentive to keep costs down. The US under such a system would continue to remain the leader in health care. Giving grants to research centers and training hospitals allows for on going research as well as giving an upward path to those with strange diseases or the need for specialized care. The system in place is a good system. By eliminating the abuses of Medicare and encouraging preventive care the system could operate in a superior fashion at or below what we are currently paying in taxes today.
(All elected officials have to be in the system. They cannot have special treatment. )

I agree with what is said but the system in Australia includes the poor and those on the bread line. If one can't afford insurance, one can still receive similar quality care to those with insurance. There are benefits with insurance and they make the insurance worthwhile. Life threatening situations such as my liver, which is doing much better than expected, needing replacement would cost nothing to everyone.

Just addressing 2 facts: 1) that 30% of ALL Medicare dollars go to support last year of life care and 2)preventive health care would save billions, we'd be very capable of taking care of of those temporarily on the bread line. I guess we need to look at reducing poverty also, huh? On a personal note Tabsey, I'm glad to know you are thriving with a challenging illness. Thanks for your input and be well.