Number 1 is okay, in the same sense that a can of soup should have an accurate list of ingredients listed on it. The rest, while well-meaning, is just more micromanagement of the system.

In a deregulated (except for fraud issues) and more free market oriented health system, the consumer would have a wide variety of choices in insurance and medical courses of action. Non-traditional medicine (again, with an eye on the fraud issue) and methods of health maintenance (including nutrition, supplements, and the like) would not be confined to the ghetto they are now. Insurance companies would not be required to provide specific coverage by law, but could give consumers a wide choice as to coverage and deductibles. I have these kind of choices in home insurance and car insurance.

The object of insurance is to cover, not routine costs, but emergency costs. This has somehow been lost in the noise over the past decades, and it needs to be recovered. If my car insurance covered gasoline fills, it would be a lot more expensive than it is.

At some point, people have to be made responsible for taking care of their own affairs. Forcing them to buy insurance is treating them like pets.

I would have no problem in a free-market health care system with subsidies for the poor and others. Food stamps help people in need buy food without nationalizing the farms and grocery stores.

In an unrelated aside, it's hilarious to see Ted Kennedy griping about HMOs, since he was one of the inventors of the concept.