Ok, so I guess that means that if those people chose a much less expensive option, it might be fully or substantially covered by their insurance?

What is sounds like, perhaps, is that these insurance companies are saying "enough is enough" as far as how much they are willing to pay out . . .? I presume the reason is that if they didn't, that could ultimately jack up everyone in the pool's premiums (if the insurer still wishes to make the same profit ).

I guess that makes sense, since most any "insurance" coverage includes caps of some sort . . . well at least here they do. For instance, I am allowed $300 every year for eyeglasses, and I can pick whichever kind I want, but if I chose PRADA with sunglass snap-on's, I would have to pay the "extra" $300 that pair might cost. Or, if I get in 5 car accidents a year, which are my "fault", my annual car insurance premiums are going to go up.

It's a "user pays" system, and like it or lump it, insurance is really only helpful for the "average" person.

If all those people on these expensive drugs/treatments say, "hey, I can get this cheaper if I go on the public system", obviously this is going to negatively impact the costs that the government is paying out. That is going to influence taxes (cuz clearly it has to), and then what you have is a "social medical system" well underway.

The only problem is that the public system there probably doesn't offer adequate health care in many other ways, at least not at the moment.

Hey, BTW, if a person can hide their assets (on paper) enough to qualify for public health, how can they take those assets away if a person dies? Can't those assets be hidden forever?

Cherie