Maybe we evolve along the path of supposedly what's going on in Massachusetts ... where the mandatory insurance legislation of a few years back led to cost overruns ... and now the politicians are supposedly working to cut/cap services.
My understanding during the Presidential campaign was that Obama was going w/a "pay or play" system ... wherein the employer, if a certain size or bigger, was gonna have to provide insurance to employees OR pay a fee/tax to the Feds. The fee/tax would be used by the Feds to pay (partially) for insuring the aggregate group of workers of employers that didn't choose to insure them ... those that chose to pay the fee/tax.
Stop right there and it doesn't necessarily sound like a lot of change. BUT what if the fee/tax isn't very costly? That means the employers would cut their employees loose so to speak ... pay the fee/tax and let the gov't take over the insurance. So price set by the gov't on the fee/tax would determine what type of system we end up with. Set the fee/tax low ... get more gov't insured ... set the fee/tax low ... you probably get cost overruns (deficit in the program). You get cost overruns ... you get in the position of having the politicians call for cuts/caps on services. Some would call that socialized medicine. I probably would assuming it happens along this path.
Mass is our current example. See how it plays out this year.