I don't like government run healthcare of any kind - period. However, we must address those who can't afford insurance or to pay for the medical treatment they need, or the Democrats will come up with another entitlement that the Republicans won't have the guts to stop. Free clinics deal with this issue at much lower cost.
First, free clinics already exist, but on a small scale. Money, even tax dollars, spent for such clinics and the treatment there would be far less than costs incurred in the ER. While working for a hospital in Florida, I built a free clinic nearby for a group of 7 non-profit groups that operated on donations and grants. The result was a 40% decrease in ER visits, a 75% decrease in ER visits by those without insurance, or the indigent, and a $500,000 per month reduction in ER expenses to the hospital.
Second, insurance companies already offer catastrophic-only health insurance policies. What I propose would probably expand this, but I am not suggesting a legal requirement for them to do so.
Nobody should be forced to pay for your health insurance or mine, in a perfect world. But we don't live in a perfect world. I think we will need to accept a certain amount - as small as possible - of government giveaways and tax dollars paying for others.

I don't like govt setting up anything. However, since we seem to be heading for single-payer, govt clinics for the poor seem a small price to pay, and will get them out of our ERs for sniffles. Giving people money will just allow them to use it to buy new Jordans and video games.
2. The catastrophic policies would be sold by insurance companies (I.e. Underwriters). Nobody should be forced to buy these policies, but if you don't and come down with a major health problem, you don't have coverage. If the cost is down even "the poor" should be able to buy a policy. The policy premiums year to year are reset based on the claims history from the prior year. That's how it's done now.
If an uninsured is in an accident and needs surgery, you treat him, and the cost goes into the cost history and adjusted next year.
Young, healthy people don't buy insurance because it's expensive. They can use the free clinics for minor medical problems. If they get a major illness requiring extensive treatment, they can still buy the catestrophic policy, but may have to pay out of pocket through a waiting period. The cost they incur is then factored into their premiums for next year.

The trouble with what you are suggesting is that you assume government or you have the right to dictate terms regarding health insurance and/or health care. Each doctor, nurse, scrub tech, and every other person practicing a medical profession has a individual right to profit from their own knowledge, right? Value for Value, yes?

"free clinics" mean subsidized with tax dollars. Why should anyone else pay for my healthcare?

"would have companies" assumes you or government has the right to dictate to a private business how they should function in order to make money.

I can't agree with your well meaning points for these two reasons.

Sink or swim, fair or foul, you have one life and its yours to do with as you wish.

"I would do two things"
Here are my issues with those.
1. Why does the gov't set them up instead giving money to the poor? If the gov't is going to provide food poor, for example, it does not need to set up a system of grocery stores.
2. Would there be underwriting on the catastrophic plans? If not, people might wait until their sick and then buy the catastrophic plan once they realize they have a serious problem, e.g. heart disease or cancer, that will cost a lot over a long period of time.
How do you handle someone who does not buy the insurance and does not have much wealth if they have an accident requiring expensive emergency surgery?

I would do two things:
1. I would set up a system of free clinics across the country, run by the government, generally for low income people. No insurance required.
2. I would have insurance companies offer catastrophic coverage policies as stand-alone policies. Since the pool is the entire US population, the risk is widely spread, and the premium costs would be low, allowing almost anyone to be able to afford it. if you don't buy it, you don't have catastrophic events covered.

I don't see any other way to do it. Trying to fit everyone into a single program, single payer, will just run costs through the roof due to the idea that everyone would get whatever they need for free. Nothing is free.

Step one. Tax deductible Medical Savings accounts for everyone. Your account is yours for life. You can will to your heirs.

Fair enough!

Did the Saab in the 80s , of the many open hearts I ve handled, none survived, but all were a success. Im contented when my freezers are full. So we re clear, I have a great respect for healers, I owe my life to a surgeon that kept my death from being a permanent condition.

Have you done both?

Didnt think I needed to type the (sarc) on this forum... that s what I get for thinking. Have you ever disassembled a Saab automatic transmission? Makes open heart look like a heat rash.

That raises the issue of government coerced care... Current Federal law is a hospital with an emergency department and is voluntarily a Medicare participant then they must provide "emergency care" until "stabilized". Now the discussion is how voluntary is it if it is a requirement for participation in the Medicare program? Also it appears over time that what is counted as "emergency care" and "stabilized" has increased. Finally IF the government requires care to be offered without concern for payment by Medicare participating hospitals shouldn't it compensate the provider directly for that care if the patient does not pay directly or indirectly? Of course that would require the government payer to be diligent in what payments it makes to prevent mission creep and we know that government is not good at that at all.

Get government out of health care, particularly regulation, eliminate the AMA and open the market. Let nay bright people who can learn basic biology and to pattern match to take care of basic general practitioner work (which a monkey could do).
Initially get insurance companies out of paying for health care directly, and conspiring with the AMA et al to price fix. Make the payments go through the crucible for individual choice for a bit, even if insurance is paying.
Offer basic care to people via government service along with elimination of their right to vote and reproduce, until two periods after they receive the handout. (same for welfare).
Those who can't take care of themselves, can be cared for just like children.

A tad more school? A tad? I wouldn't call 8 to 20 years of schooling a tad.

California has a mandatory laws requiring motor cycle an bicycle riders to wear helmets, always wear seat belts in auto mmobiles (but buses and trucks are excepted), using car seats of various sizea for infants and children by weight and size, having a cell phone in your hand while driving, etc. allof which a responsible person would do anyway. But their argument for laws is that some people are not doing so and if those people are injured or killed, "the rest of society has to bear the cost." I say that its impossible to legislate against stupidity and we all loose our freedoms because of a few idiots,

Doctors, nurses, etc. are basically mechanics - maybe a tad more school... The point is, fee for service, the free market will handle the rest. We are so far down the road of SSD & medicaid, etc., a reasonable care system would be required for the truly needy. Did I mention it would be reserved for the truly needy?

Simple easy change to the flawed structure most countries have...
rename it for what it is the "Disease Care System"

Taking that a step further. The main source of "health" are our food choices,
perhaps the agric dept should be renamed "Health Care System" then
we might remove current subsidies for junk food.

I am not tricked nor am I gullible. I understand the ship has steadily moved away from the pier. The Constitution provides for the course correction. All that needed is the will of the people of the United States to make it so. The Convention of States movement is a good first step. I hope its momentum continues.

btw, the US Corp can declare bankruptcy debt restricting protection and the world economy will plunge.

AJAshinoff you have been tricked into believing the corporate government we have has constitution restraints. It doesn't. Our government services are supplied by the UNITED STATES corporation based in the District of Columbia. It is operating in a Democracy and United States citizens have no rights or protection under the constitution. Check out republicfortheunitedstates,org.

The first thing I would do for healthcare is make contracts for medical services not enforceable unless they provide a price of some sort. A "blank check" promise to pay any and all costs at whatever price the provider charges would not be enforceable.

"It is not a healthcare system it is a health insurance system."
Moreover it should be a market. A system is something I might design. I need to know all the tolerances on the parts to make a model of what output the system will give given any input. People can't be modeled that way. They're people, with their wants and abilities and lives. Maybe they make eyeglasses, and they want to work less in the summer, but if they get OT they'll work more. And they're people need glasses. They have +1.25 with only 0.25 of astigmatism, so they can just buy cheaper readers online, but if they get a job or hobby that requires finely detailed work or they start to need a +1.00 ADD on top of the +1.25 or if there's a sale or a cool new style at the eyeglasses place, maybe they get them there. It's not a system. It's just groups of people helping one another for money. I can't stand that the gov't has turned it into a system.

Because government grown and indoctrinated useful idiots are told only the enlightened elite (government) can fix the problem.

Hear, hear! Government has crept into our lives over the years, and nothing it touches improves. Rather, it gets worse. Why, then, is the answer to give government MORE authority over our lives? < sigh >

Not a government healthcare (mostly finance and regulation) system. Ultimately we have the responsibility for ourselves. We each can decide how much charity we want to provide others.

Getting agencies like the FDA and State licensure boards out of the way will significantly increase the supply of providers and treatments. That will reduce costs. That could also include patent protections. Not sure where to draw that line.

While our genetics play a roll in our health as well as luck but so does out behavior. Take care of yourself, avoid risky behaviors or accept the risk yourself. Using the coercive power of government to confiscate the wealth/income of your neighbor is neither charity or charitable. Something most would not do on their own but are more than happy to have the government do it for them. Few want to talk about what the people who are taxed to pay for it would have done with those dollars, they might have had a use for them that is more important than paying for incompetent and overpaid government bureaucrats to decide what to do with them.

Exactly!

I'd remove government entirely from the health business. Let it be up to the individual consumer to check doctors' credentials if he cares about them; let medical schools graduate as many doctors as they like; let it be up to doctors to perform whatever services people agree to; and above all, let insurers cover only the persons and conditions they agree to cover.

And get government's prying eyes out of people's health decisions, which also means legalizing all drugs and treatments.

But I'd continue to have government regulate insurance to the extent of making sure insurers will be capable of paying the claims they commit to pay, and that they pay in a timely manner and don't commit fraud.

And I'd privatize both the provision and administration of Medicare and all the government-worker and government-retiree health care systems (and split them into competing parts), so that the market can reduce the bureaucracy they impose on doctors and hospitals to be comparable to what private insurers impose.

Finally, I'd enact loser-pays for all courts. That would do away with the malpractice racket that caused most of the high cost of health care before ObamaCare.