Tom, why is it when someone talks about government picking up the role of healthcare, that you assume they mean all of it? Government (and all us taxpayers) already pay for catestrophic health care, just after the fact and in a very inefficient way. Let's say some blue collar worker with a wonderful work ethic, without adequate health care from their employer and no real extra money to provide their own, has a terrible accident or serious illness. Their resources rapidly disappear. More than likely they begin defaulting on their loans and mortgages. Bankruptcy is likely. Government assistance is probable to keep their family going. No hospital (under federal guidelines) can turn this man away. He can run up hundreds of thousands of dollars of health care costs that will get paid eventually by you and me.

Or take the case of a secretary in a small firm that also has no health care coverage (and you certainly can't fault her firm for not paying the exhorbitant costs of today). She wants to be responsible and not have any more children because she simply can't make enough money to support them. However, the costs of birth control pills is out the roof. It's either buy them or food for her other children. She chooses the more responsible of the two and takes her chances with sex. When she loses at that risk, she has to use public assistance to deal with her pregnancy and childbirth care. Now there's another kid that society needs to provide an education for, more population to build roads and provide police for. Seems a small investment up front to cut down on larger costs down the road.

So in the end you're going to end up paying for people that have no health care and it's my contention that if it's done right up front that the costs are less than if you simply deal with it after the fact. Does the system need to have real restrictions on it against abuse? You bet.