Trieste: I am well aware you're in the US - apart from anything else, prescription co-pays are much lower than that in England, and zero in Scotland. Yes, your extra 9% doesn't make up for their lost $400 - so either you or their other customers will be making up that shortfall somewhere else - higher copays on other things, higher premiums again next year, service cuts. Economically speaking, there are good reasons for copayments existing, and eliminating them really is a short-sighted "saving" measure overall.
RubySlippers: Turn up at an NHS hospital as an emergency case (i.e. ER), you will get necessary life-saving treatment to stabilise your condition for discharge - much as you would in the US; for anything else, you need to go through your GP to see if you can get funding approval for it, just as you would with an HMO plan in the US only with longer waits and less recourse if denied treatment. (The test they apply here is not 'generally accepted' care, but a cost figure set and assessed by a government committee named NICE: essentially, treatment must cost less than X thousand per quality-adjusted year of life expectancy, which is why certain treatments to save eyesight got denied funding.) The $5k bill for an IV and antibiotic does sound stupid - but as you said, you know part of that is to pay for that unfunded mandate to provide treatment to people who can't pay.
Lustful: Yes, they try to avoid spending money where possible - hardly a shock, the NHS does too. Your complaint sounds more like an argument for reforming and expanding Medicaid - in particular, improving the unfunded mandate which causes the problems RubySlippers noted and inflates costs for other people - but "ObamaCare" actually does precisely the opposite, as Illinois discovered to their cost when they wanted to check people's Medicaid entitlement and were blocked by the federal government. What "cap" on income tax are you thinking should be removed?