>>Errr... your definition of great health care for free only means emergency healthcare. The problem comes with treatment. It interesting to see that one living in the US can be so misinformed about the situation. But I guess you've got nothing better to compare with ....
>
>I have to agree with Walter. The U.S. has excellent emergency healthcare and testing and treatment. The ability to receive (*read afford*) treatment for expensive diseases and long-term illness is another matter. For a start, read this:
>
>http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06339/743713-84.stm

So you agree that "great health care for free only means emergency healthcare"? It means, at minimum, you saying that Medicaid providing healthcare for miliions of families is just an emergency. Do you still persist in this estimate? Are you aware that hundreds of hospitals and zillion medical offices serve primarily medicaid recipients, especially in urban areas?