The French had a similar beginning to what we are seeing:
The founders of the French social security system were largely inspired by the Beveridge report in the United Kingdom, and aimed to create a single system guaranteeing uniform rights for all. However, there was much opposition from certain socio-professional groups who already benefited from the previous insurance coverage that had more favourable terms. These people were allowed to keep their own systems. Today, 95% of the population are covered by 3 main schemes. One for commerce and industry workers and their families, another for agricultural workers and lastly the national insurance fund for self-employed non-agricultural workers.
I find it funny that many of the attacks on the House bill could be applied to the French system:
- It has a mandate (how dare they)
- It doesn't cover 100% of the population (they only cover 95% while the House PO will cover 96%)
- The French still have for-profit insurance (those corporate whores)
- A forced premium is deducted from your pay
- People are allowed to keep their private insurance (yes, they do have private insurance, about 4% of the population chooses it for medical, and as high as 36% choose it for dental, vision and medical hardware).
Worse yet, the French system still applies cots sharing and they don't have preset rates for private providers.
And yet, they have the highest ranked system in the World. Could it be that the Public Option isn't going to be nearly as bad as some make it out to be?
For more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_i... 
