Second, the relationship of the various groups with the association is indeed a relationship that has aspects of coercion, stemming from the fact that the association is a monopoly in its field. At the same time, it is doubtful whether it can be said about it, similar to what was said in the Kahani case about the health funds, that "this relationship [...] characterizes the relationship between the citizen and the state" (Cohen case, at para. 36 of the judgment of Justice Y. Amit. emphases in the original).
Third, and further to this, in the Coheni case, the active obligation, which applies to every resident, to register as a member of a health plan (and to register his minor child in it), was emphasized, and on the part of the health funds, the "counter-obligation to accept every resident", without the possibility of restriction or conditioning of registration (the Kahani case, at para. 17 of the judgment of Justice Y. Amit). It was also clarified in the judgment that "the triangle of relations is completed [...] The state, which is responsible for financing the health services from the places listed in section 13 of the law [National Health Insurance Law, R.R.]" (The Cohen case, at para. 17 of the judgment of Justice Y. Amit).
As for the association, all sports associations that deal with soccer and wish to participate in the professional league are members, but its "membership", which is based on a certain field, is more limited than membership based on residency. In addition, unlike the health funds, the association is also entitled to condition its membership on various conditions and to charge its member groups fees as a condition for membership.
Fourth, the responsibility for financing the basic health services provided by the health plans rests entirely on the shoulders of the state. Indeed, some of the funds used to finance the activities of the health funds come from the health insurance premiums paid by the residents (members of the health funds). At the same time, these payments are paid by the residents to the state, which transfers them to the health funds. The state also finances the activities of the health funds through other sources of funding available to the state (see section 13 to the National Health Insurance Law). The Association's budget also includes in part funds originating in the state. At the same time, the law does not obligate the state to budget for all aspects of the association's activity. The Association's budget also consists of funds of private origin, for example, funds received from the sale of broadcasting rights. Moreover, the payments of the members of the association are made directly to the association, and are not "transferred" through the state.
- Despite the existence of these particular differences between the Association and the HMOs, there are also a number of relevant similarities between them:
First, as explained above, the Association, like the health funds, is a corporation with many public characteristics, as a result of which it is classified as a dual entity. These characteristics include its representative action on behalf of the state, the vitality of the service it provides, the reliance of its budget on public funds, its monopolistic status, and the coercive nature of the relationship between it and its members. In addition, there are aspects of the Association's activity that are regulated by law.