National Healthcare....

I am not sure that it has had an affect on National Health Care at all. Has it?  Are you asking if people will react to the special treatment that he received?

Fred,

You point out that "non-emergency" care takes months, then go on to compare that to the treatment received by Senator Kennedy.  Since he a) fell down, b) was hospitalized for immediate treatment, and c) diagnosed as having a BRAIN TUMOUR, this is not some silly elective surgery to remove a mole from his ankle. 

If YOU, health insurance or not, had been taken to, just say, for example to Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, you would likely have receive roughly the same treatment. 

For all the vaunted reputation of the surgical team and hospital where Senator Kennedy's tumour was 'removed', their doctors are not significantly better than those of most major hospitals, though they were specialists, neurosurgeons, which requires a higher level of skills than for a common hernia.  Would you have received the same treatment?  Probably not exactly, but it would not have been delayed for months when it was a potentially life threatening brain tumour, either.

 Love and warm wishes,

Stafford "Doc" Williamson

http://winfotech.com/energy/

Ted Kennedy has special priviledges. That family got rich off the prohibiton period when alcohol was illegal and they sold it illegally and were a very political family for ages. Who ever said politics in America were on the up and up? That would be a joke. I met someone from Canada. They said National Health Care wasn't good either because they had to wait so long and even that the standards of care were not good either. I thought it was so great there. Wrong again. Also Massachusetts has made it mandatory to have health insurance and it is hurting many people that cannot afford it as there are financial penalties if they don't. Nice...Signing out.