[link|http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070914/belinda_Stronach_070914/20070914?hub=Health|http://www.ctv.ca/se...070914?hub=Health]

I heard a pretty good description concerning the extremes of the US system.

#1 - We are one of the the worst places to be if you don't have decent insurance. No preventitive care, and will only do a minimal amount to keep you alive in an emergency. Once the emergency is over, we'll let you die quietly.

#2 - We are the best place for you to be if you have good insurance. The best people, the best hospitals, the best equipment, all waiting to serve you with a minimal amount of delay.

I would expect this 2 class system to evolve a bit under Hillary.

The #1 group will be given / expected to contribute somewhat to access to the health care system. They will get better treatment than they have right now, but not as good as Canada's or British entry level. But they will be in long lines for the more expensive stuff.

This WILL cost the average tax payer more, no doubt about it. The question is how much? Something tells me it'll be far less than the bullshit war(s) that Bush is currently fighting, but then again, you knew that.

The #2 group will continue pretty much as it is. If not, it'll give the right wing some serious ammunition for the next election swing.

And as far as the "proof of insurance for work" compared to immunizations. If the insurance costs the same as immunizations then the gov (us) will pay for it, just like emgergency care is "free" right now. It just means the person is registered in the system, has the chance of seeing a regular Dr before a simple infection that can be treated for $2 of anti-biotics blows into a hospital visit.

If it costs a lot more, and people simply can't afford it, then of course it is silly. You've simply grabbed onto a sound bite and hammered away at it.