Hi Sylvain,

I've been very busy. Sorry for the response delay...

>>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.

Well, here in the states emergency rooms are mandated by law to provide care for true emergencies. That individual will not (cannot, actually) (notwithstanding human error) be denied.

What has happened here is that the federal government has implemnented socialistic-type rules that prohibit (for example) medical doctors that receive Medicare payments from receiving cash payments. ?? So, if you have the $$$ for an operation from a doctor that accepts Medicare apparently you cannot receive services from that doctor even though you can pay cash. The penalty apparently is losing the Medicare funding.

>
>>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.

Here's an example I am aware of... My niece's husband has leukemia. He is going to die, and more likely sooner rather than later. He's at the end of a four year battle with no options left. They are not allowed to make money as this will remove them from the Medicare/Medicade roles - as you suggest. This is not capitalism at work. Rather, this is socialism at work. His prior work has kept him on their books in order to allow him to take advantage of their insurance plan. They did this to get around the socialized rules I suppose.

You point out the flaws of socialized thinking, not capitalistic thinking it seems. IOW, you make my point. <s>