[COLO]The Kennedy example is a flawed example. Anyone who wishes to pay and can afford any procedure would certainly be able to get it with or without National Healthcare.
National Healthcare addresses major "pieces" of the healthcare model for everyone in a timely manor.
If you have no heathcare and are just brought in as an indigent does anyone believe that person would get better heathcare services than someone on a National Plan... of course not.
So if you're a person with means like Ted Kennedy you get whatever treatment is available immediately because you can afford it immediately.
People who have nothing now have something with a National Plan that covers one heck of a lot of healthcare services in a timely manor.
If you're financially well off your situation stays the same (excellent). Everyone else's situation improves.[/COLOR]
Not a chance - some socialized systems PROHIBIT private health care (eg canada up till 2005) - the dynamics of such systems is like the government school semi-monopoly in the US - they don't want anyone to escape their wretched system. And the drugs and procedures that Kennedy got would be available to anyone with insurance in the US now, the overwhelming majority of the population, not just the "rich". In the socialized system, such treatments WOULD be super-expensive, as in the boutique tiny private system in the UK, and would be limited to the rich, and prohibited now in the NHS. The "timely manor[sic]" claim is just false, as is widely known. Further, being treated AT ALL, is limited to the the government system's budget for that year, and their current ad hoc rules, as in the NHS. (Example - for a given year, it might be decided that heart transplants are prohibited for people over 55. Why? Because of limitations of medical technology? Nooooooo.... because of a decision made by an unanswerable bureacrat.)