A woman I know went into a pharmacy to buy some pills that her husband had to take or his surgeon would not perform a needed operation. The cost of the handful of pills was $1,100.

I needed to get a medical exam at a local hospital. I was in and out in less than an hour. The bill came to just under $900.

So, what lesson do we learn?

Here is what we typically hear in the media and from our friendly politicians who are out buying votes.

1. Health care is too expensive and the average person can no longer afford it without help.

2. No one should ever be without health care and some people cannot afford health care.

3. We must have universal medical insurance. Since many people cannot afford such insurance, the government will somehow have to supply it. If not, then the government must give tax breaks and other incentives so people can afford the insurance.

4. Some people will still fall through the cracks, and everyone should have health care, so the only solution is to have "free" health care paid for by the government.

Not one presidential candidate (with the possible exception of Ron Paul) has suggested anything that isn't some combination of the above.

It is no wonder that none of the candidates have sparked much interest this campaign cycle.

Let's go back to basics. I did the numbers on my hospital test. I added in every cost including salaries, equipment, utilities, insurance, and then gave everyone a 100 percent profit margin. The cost of my test: well under $200.

Prior to the test, I did not call the hospital and ask about the cost.

Suppose that I did not have insurance and health care was sold in a free market. Here is what would have happened.

I would have called the hospital. They would say the cost would be $900.

I would call another. In a free market, some hospital is going to settle for only 300 percent profit and ask for $450. Sooner or later, I would find a hospital that would do the test for $150.

Would I travel 200 miles for $700 in savings? Yes, I would.

The people who demand "free" universal health care maintain that the medical industry is ripping us off. If that is really true, then what would happen to the woman above with the $1,100 bill? If those pills really did cost $100, what would have happened if no one had insurance?

Why wouldn't the pharmacy down the street sell the same pills for $500?

Why wouldn't the next pharmacy offer the woman the pills for $200, especially if they could bring in several customers for that price? OK. But my test would still cost $150, and the pills would have cost $200, and there may be some people who couldn't afford that.

Why does everyone need to have guaranteed health care? We don't apply that standard to anything else: not food, not shelter, not transportation, all of which are necessary, so why health care?

How did one of my relatives still have doctor's care during the Depression when she and her husband had no job? The cost of health care is ultimately paid by you, not by someone else. If my tests cost $200 instead of $900, what am I going to do with the extra money?

Four people could have had the test I had. Why should not one of them be from the bottom 25 percent of income?

Is the human heart so black that we will not help each other unless forced to do so by some government redistribution program?

The fact of the matter is that the health care debate is mostly smoke and mirrors. Universal government health care is the holy grail of modern socialism. When communism showed collectivism to be a very bleak joke, the only part of the temple left standing was the broken wall of universal health care. It is where the faithful go to offer up their sacrifices and dream of a new temple that will stand at the center of a glorious new Eden.

The fact that universal health care is the worst solution to a very bad problem is irrelevant in the face of such devotion and faith.