>Same here. No matter what, whether or not you'd be able to pay, your life would be saved if at al possible.

Not sure with that assumption in a private medical system. Don't forget that the main target for a private corporation is profit. Now let's take this scenario: only one operating room is available and 2 patients comes in. One has a heart problem and the other one had an appointment for a knee operation. The logic is that the first one get the room because of his situation, but will the logic be followed if he as no Medicare and doesn't have the money but the second one have? A well known American lawyer (I forgot his name) that militate for homeless and was interviewed in the last issue of L'Actualité (www.lactualite.com) is not so sure.

>Everyone receives care here as well. The US press seems to be foisting an image on the unsuspecting that we here starve our children and force them to live in the streets with no health care. Usually when this happens it's a direct result of an irresponsible parent. The care is always available at many many free clinics that are in all states and readily available. Plus, there is a law on the books here that makes it illegal to refuse care to an indigent. So, the only ones who do not receive care here are those who have a greater procilivity for placing themselves in harm's way than others.

Again, from the interview, about 20 millions Americans are not covered by Medicare or Medicaid (because they make too much money (more than 12 000$...) or they are younger than 65), they don't have medical insurances and doesn't live near a free clinic. Their life expectancy is far bellow the national average.