1 Yup, and it's just economics at work. When you imply that something is "free", it creates more demand. When you try to cap the price artificially, you create less supply, as would-be caregivers say "forget it, I'm not playing". This leads to shortages and rationing. A socialistic, top-down system also saddles caregivers with excessive paperwork and regulations, making their jobs miserable and far less effective. The bottom line here is that a place in line does not guarantee quality health care. Another fundamental question comes up as well: Should goods and services be provided under the threat of violence, even if the intentions are apparently good? ...Even if it is to help people? Even if it is "for the children"? Threats of violence? Make no mistake about it, if you don't want to participate, if you want to get your own healthcare in your own way, in time, people with guns will come to your house and take you away - That's the reality. "Universal Healthcare" is just another use of force to centrally plan the economy. Is this right approach? Isn't this idea contrary to what America is about? IMHO, the only way to fix the healthcare mess is to put healthcare back in the hands of the consumer, restoring the traditional doctor-patient relationship. The middlemen industries who are currently stealing most of the money have used their political influence to enact laws to weasel their way in between the two primary parties in the transaction, creating grossly overpriced products and services. Nobody even knows how much anything costs anymore... Not until you get the bill. How can consumers shop for the best price and quality without price information? Neither the present corporatist system nor socialism offers this vital information to the marketplace. For more on the subject, check out John Stossel's TV Special from last September, "Sick In America". It can be found on YouTube.