Having worked for medical insurance companies, government run medical ins, and hospitals, and then also having more ailments than I can count needing care and prescription coverage.... I can see all the sides presented here. I really like my private insurance when I can afford it though I abhor the cost of it. The problem is that a majority of Americans have no insurance is the issue and it is because of the cost; compounding then the emergency and serious illness care, costs more to treat because there is no preventive care as it was not affordable and there is no choice then. The costs are OUT OF CONTROL for ALL of the various reasons already mentioned above by others PLUS research, education, marketing, and malpractice insurance. A vicious cascade. It would be ideal if private insurance continued for those that preferred to keep their private coverage and there was a government insurance for the majority of those who could not afford it.

The pitfalls for us in dealing with any insurance, all insurance is keeping overhead down and minimizing financial losses. Balancing premiums with payouts, and limiting treatments within guidelines, fact, whether privatized or government run. Both have to look at the bottom line to perpetuate themselves and cover the eventualites as we have a significantly growing, aging population; more payouts with more ailments, treatments, and medications. Limits are needed. The extremely high costs of research (and resulting products: equipment and meds), education, and marketing must come down so that fees and premiums passed to providers can come down, the providers need limits too, so fees are contained for the uninsured and insured (whether private or govt).

I think basic health care is a right, not a privilege and should not be profited from. This is where there are diverging views and why I don't see any limits happening any time. Free enterprise and all. Everyone wants their bucks, but it's effects are economics 101.