Frank, most eventually get care of course. Our hospitals and doctors are sworn not to turn anyone away in an emergency.

Here's the problem though. Waiting until a person or family gets to the emergency stage to deal with their health problems is grossly inefficient and guess who gets to pay for this poorly run mess? All of us including the very people that are against the notion of universal health care.

Ask any legitimate doctor or health care worker which costs more - catastrophic care or lifetime health maintenance to prevent the emergencies and I believe you'd have an overwhelming consensus that the lifetime and timely access to basic services for all families would cut costs in the long run and result in a much healthier and more productive nation.

Now, as far as my own feelings go, any program must have shared responsibility for that health care burden. If you want to continue on with your government-supplied care and you've pumped out 4 babies without ensuring you have the financial means to raise them, perhaps you must be sterilized to continue. If you keep coming to the hospital for drug-related problems, maybe there's a forced visit to a rehab clinic. If you continue creating the problem there might be some magic number where you no longer have eligibility for services anymore. If you're 200 pounds overweight and coming into the system for your diabetes treatment, perhaps there's a mandatory exercise and diet program you must take part in to continue participation.

I also believe that Americans should be free to suplement their government supplied health care plan if they have the financial resources available. What I don't want to see continue is the burden placed on employers. How we ever linked health care to employment is beyond me. It's a classic case of deep pocket syndrome.

Art