I realize my response here will only cover a few items, but I see no reason ro repeat what has been covered already. Instead, I'll briefly touch a few reasons why I'm not opposed to the reform.[quote name='James][font=franklin gothic medium]So it is in the interests of shareholders and insurers to provide as little coverage as possible.[/font][/QUOTE]This, a thousand times over. I've lost count of the times that friends, family and even myself have had to FIGHT the insurance companies to get coverage on procedures. Sooner or later, you get exasperated, and give up on fighting it. You still have to pay the bill anyway, regardless of whether or not your insurance will finally pay like they should. Hell, even when my father passed away recently, his insurance attempted to bail on covering nearly $100,000 worth of procedures that were done while he was in the hospital during his final week.[QUOTE=James][font=franklin gothic medium']If you really didn't want to have a public alternative though, it would be necessary to at least radically reform the private system - and I doubt that will happen anytime soon.[/font][/quote]I don't see this happening anytime soon either. It takes massive effort and actually suing the insurance companies over not providing coverage to get it changed. No matter how people spin it, denying coverage over preexisting conditions, among other things, needs to end. In my opinion, reform is long overdue.