There was a moment in the last debate between John McCain and Barack Obama when the Republican candidate took Obama to task for his health care plan, calling it a "single payer system." "If you like that, you'll love Canada and England," McCain shot.

I would love Canada and England! I recently left my cushy job with benefits to hit the freelance lifestyle, with its attendant flexibility in spending waking hours with my three young children. I'm the primary breadwinner in my household, to boot, so I've been hemming and hawing over what I need in my budget. Cable's out, and I'm considering saying goodbye to the Blackberry (ohhh!). We don't drive, but I have a little in the budget for bike lights and the occasional replacement inner tube. I'll be honest: I wasn't thinking that much about health care costs. Maybe it was one of those fingers-in-the-ears moments, squeezing my eyes shut and saying "nahnahnahnahnah!" every time the topic came up.

I got my COBRA paperwork today, and just for health care, I'd be spending $1,036 a month; more than my mortgage payment (if you exclude taxes). I wrote about this on a local mamas' site, threatening to go without insurance and pay out of pocket for well baby visits and such, and was immediately begged (literally "please please PLEASE") to buy health insurance. I started griping about the costs and the cheated feeling I have: essentially I'm being asked to pay thousands each year to protect me from total bankruptcy, should there be a health crisis in my family. Tracy Coenen suggested I post here about what I'd like instead.

It turns out, neither Obama's nor McCain's plan would be ideal (though, for the record, McCain's would be completely unhelpful, especially for parents who work for small businesses). Instead, here is how I'd structure the health care system:

This weekend, my 14-month-old, Monroe, had a terrible accident. I'd just finished taking out the recycling, and he and his brothers were playing. I heard glass bumping against glass. Strange, I thought, I got it all, didn't I? A moment later, a sound of broken glass, then my oldest son yelling, then screams. Really, really serious screams. Then there was blood. Lots, and lots of blood.

One 911 call and an ambulance ride later, I was thanking all applicable heavenly bodies that, firstly, the enormous gaping cut to his eyelid was not life- or vision-threatening and second, that I had two weeks left of health care insurance. I'm leaving full-time employment to do the freelance thing, and along with it will go my full complement of benefits. I had considered going without for a few months, but this weekend's excitement and the realization that I have three of these danger-prone little boys has me decided to buy emergency health insurance, that will pay out for extreme costs. I'll pay out-of-pocket for regular well-baby visits and my own extremely rare visits to the doctor.

And then I'll be taking the Great American Risk along with dozens of my friends and millions of other Americans: gambling that my kids' health needs aren't more than a $100 here and there. I can't really afford the enormous cost of individual health insurance for my family; depending on the plan the cost starts at $400 a month and skyrocket from there. $5,000 a year plus I have to pay $1,500 to $5,000 deductible? No way man. I'm rolling the dice, hoping my family doesn't end up with any life-threatening diseases, hoping I don't get pregnant again. Forget penny stocks or mortgage-backed securities; the stakes are way higher here in the living rooms and basements of the Regular American. I'd love to hear from other freelancers and part-time parents out there: what have you done?

When my sister Ella first started having liver problems in December 2007, I went out to visit her. When I got to her hospital room, she was trying to be brave, but was deeply worried. In addition to her fears about treatment, Ella was terrified about her finances. As a graduate teaching assistant, she didn't have very much money, and she wasn't insured; frankly, she had no idea how she was going to pay for the drugs and medical care that she needed to save her life.

A few days later, when the hospital released Ella, they gave her prescriptions for Ciprofloxacin, an antibiotic, and Percocet, a painkiller. While we were in Wal-Mart picking up a huge pile of assorted health-care paraphernalia, she dropped off her order at the pharmacy counter. When we picked it up a half-hour later, we had a huge surprise: Ella's medications came to less than $15.

Later on, discussing this with Ella's doctors, we realized that the low cost of her meds wasn't an accident. Understanding her financial situation, her health-care team had carefully chosen Ella's drugs. Taking into account both efficacy and cost, they had determined that Cipro and Percocet would not only do the job medically, but would also minimize the strain on my sister's wallet. Apparently, the Geisinger clinic had consulted with Wal-Mart, determined which medications were less expensive, and was careful to prescribe them whenever possible.

My 6-year-old daughter was at a Super Bowl party less than 10 minutes when she jumped off a foot-high trampoline and twisted her ankle, causing it to swell. First thing monday morning, we headed to the orthopedic surgeon's office to confirm that Katie had a small fracture. She thinks the neon pink cast is really cool and she loved looking at the x-rays, but so far, her little spill cost me $1,000, which our health insurance, Anthem, should cover.

Aside from being relieved that the break wasn't worse, I can't help but think about what it must be like for the 45 million Americans without health insurance who must worry incessantly that an accident or illness could set them back tens of thousands of dollars.

Just last week, I watched a CNN newscast by medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta, who reported that health costs are the number one reason Americans file for bankruptcy. Voters' views on the healthcare crisis will likely play a role in the outcome on SuperTuesday, when 24 states hold primaries or caucuses to elect presidential nominees.

Last month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) handed down a ruling that will allow employers to treat younger and older retirees differently. What once might have been seen as age discrimination is now OK, according to the EEOC.

What does this mean to the retirees? Well, some workers retire from their jobs with promises of ongoing healthcare benefits. This ruling allows employers to cut off those benefits (even if they were promised) for the older retirees who are eligible for Medicare.

Since there are some things that Medicare doesn't cover, it is often preferable for a retiree to stay on a company health insurance plan as long as possible. But the employers argued that the cost of covering older retirees is too expensive. Rather than cease providing health care to all retirees because of this cost, the employers successfully argued to the EEOC that they should be allowed to drop coverage for those eligible for Medicare (and who are typically the most expensive to insure).