As for my not caring about healthcare being a right, that's just a typical item of my general moral philosophy. I'm concerned only with outcomes. If it is the optimal approach for providing public utility when we have a universal healthcare system, then we ought to, rights or no rights.
Named for the Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who invented the welfare state as part of the unification of Germany in the 19th century. Despite its European heritage, this system of providing health care would look fairly familiar to Americans. It uses an insurance system — the insurers are called “sickness funds” — usually financed jointly by employers and employees through payroll deduction.
Unlike the U.S. insurance industry, though, Bismarck-type health insurance plans have to cover everybody, and they don’t make a profit. Doctors and hospitals tend to be private in Bismarck countries; Japan has more private hospitals than the U.S. Although this is a multi-payer model — Germany has about 240 different funds — tight regulation gives government much of the cost-control clout that the single-payer Beveridge Model provides.
The Bismarck model is found in Germany, of course, and France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland, and, to a degree, in Latin America.
What exactly are you asking about HMOs? There are Medicare and Medicaid HMOs in which basically they get funding from the government in relation to how many clients they have. Obviously there are HMOs that do not received funding based on these programs.