BTW, here's something to consider:

When something is not controlled by the government, we're told how we spend too much on it (like healthcare).

But once the government has control, we get told how we're not spending enough on it (like education).

I don't want the same people who have ruined our education system to get their hands on health care. 

Exactly!

The tomatoe story I read on msn about a year or so ago, it was about a fellow who was working to pay off his 5,000.00 bill that he had for treatment for cutting his hand while uninsured. Didn't mean to come across as trying to sensationalize things, sorry if that's how it was interpreted!

The horror stories that everyone trumpets about long wait times are

A) just that, horror stories. They are the rare exception. I live here and am perfectly happy with the healthcare here. I have friends who have needed serious operations and have gotten them in a timely manner. I have never experienced any of the supposed horrors of socialized medicine that are routinely used. This weekend I was curling and a buddy of mine blew his knee out... he had to be carried out of the building, couldn't walk. He was seen right away at the ER and had his knee stabilized, x-rays and all the funky tests done. He is now walking with the aid of a specialized brace and next week he is going in for an operation.

Are due to a shortage of doctors, not money or other resources. This is not a problem with the system, it is a problem with the fact that there aren't enough students going through the years of school it takes to be doctors and nurses. And then of course there's the fact that some med school graduates go down to the States as they can make more money there, further siphoning down the pool of doctors. 

In more privatized systems, these kinds of delays are not due to lack of healthcare but the health insurance provider stalling on agreeing to pay for a procedure. There are plenty of horror stories in which patients have been denied treatments or operations because a bean counter in their HMO has decided they don't need the treatment, the treatment is "experimental" and so therefore won't be covered, or the patient has to seek services in an approved "on network" hospital.

Then of course there is always the health insurance provider deciding that because the treatment you need is too expensive they're going to find a way to get out of it and cancel your policy- they may decide to say that you had a pre-existing condition you didn't disclose which terminates your policy, etc.

In regards to people having to pay in Canada, yes, if you're not a part of the health care system you have to pay. If you are a part of the health care system, you don't. It's pretty cut and dry. This is because healthcare is different on a province by province basis, and each province has different rules etc. But there are no rejections, no pre-approval tests or pre-existing conditions you have to disclose. If you live here and apply, you're in.

I was joking about us all going to the new WalMart clinics for healthcare.  I'm as anti-Walmart as they come.  I won't even mention how horribly the workers in China are treated.  No thanks WalMart, I've decided I'll pay a little more somewhere else.  Every time you spend money you vote for the kind of world you want to live in and I don't want to support WalMart's policies or philosophies.  There are more important things than low prices. 

And who would you blame for WalMart paying their employees crappy wages to increase profits while handing them info on how to apply for government assistance?  Should the government have to subsidize WalMart's profits? 

Okay we're having a chicken/egg debate here.  I have a problem with WalMart giving their employees info on how to apply for government assistance instead of paying them a decent wage.  You obviously think that's peachy.  I guess we're going to have to disagree on this one. 

Regarding why there are long waiting times for serious medical treatments in countries with "universdal" healthcare:

Yes and why do you think that is? Because as soon as the government decides to fix prices, you end up with shortages.

One of my mantras I repeat over and over in these forums is that the people who do stuff are the ones with the power because they can withhold their talents from a society.

People who talk about wanting to "reduce cost" of health care really mean they want to reduce profits for unfavored groups. Profit is not a bad thing. I don't want the salary of doctors set by the government, I want them set by a free market to encourage as many people to go into medicine as possible.

I wouldn't use the word blame. I would use the word credit. Kudos to Walmart for setting up such a structure in the first place.

Should the government have to subsidize Walmart employees? Not at all.  But that's the problem with liberals - they operate on emotion and never seem to figure out the unintended consequences of their policies. 

Even now, liberals are screaming for universal healthcare without any seeming grasp of the logical conclusion should they get their way - lowered costs to businesses. A massive corporate subsidy.

Get rid of government aid to low income families and WalMart would be forced to pay higher.