Malicious non-sequiturs are not persuasive. Some industries do develop systemic defects, and it is appropriate for government to apply regulations to correct t

Malicious non-sequiturs are not persuasive. Some industries do develop systemic defects, and it is appropriate for government to apply regulations to correct those. There is a vast difference between coming up with a regulation amounting to "you cannot drop coverage just because a case proves costly" or "you must accept pre-existing conditions for coverage-transferring customers by accepting them at exactly the same plan/cost as a current customer facing the same treatment costs", vs. taking over the entire industry and compelling a multitude of costly irrelevancies and disruptive non-sequiturs. And you're missing a heck of a lot of objectively bad elements which are anti-health. The point of a discussion is to address both sides of the issue, not just loudly ignore the opposition's objections.