[sportsfan1]

I along with probably everyone in the world wish that all people had terrific healthcare. That's not what this discussion is about. It is what is practical for our country and state governments to do to help people, without destroying our healthcare system. Would you like to be refused healthcare because you are older? Would you like to sit around and have a board of directors decide if you or someone else will get the open-heart surgery required to save your life? This is what will become of our healthcare system if we goto a universal coverage. Unless we require employers to carry insurance, which is very unlikely. Now if we require employers to carry insurance whether an employee is part-time, full-time, or a temp. Along with government assistance, btw the government will have to restrict gouging by insurance companies who make billions every year. If that is how it was done, it could possibly work. Although if everyone was insured, hospitals would be packed with everyone who has a runny nose or a sore back.

Would still probably sink most mom and pop stores.

Most top doctors would also go into large groups, and require patients to make large cash deposits every year for their services. For these doctors there would be no lines, and terrific healthcare. Most people would not be able to see these doctors.

Of the bolded, insurance companies are doing that very thing right now. My understanding of Obama's health care proposal is that everybody will have the option of taking the same coverage that is already given to the congressmen senators, etc. Just like an insurance company does there would be a list printed out that would let people know which doctors accept that coverage. So, if this universal coverage is going to act just like insurance companies do now, (cost aside) what's the difference?