Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is so true. The insurance companies for health care should be non-profits with set salaries for all the employees. The reason that people buy health insurance is for exactly the reason that the insurance companies drop the insured; They cost more money than they spend.
The latter point isn't entirely true - at its core, buying insurance isn't necessarily about using more than you put in over time, but rather mitigating risks (hedging). That's not necessarily how everyone treats the current system, or for that matter how it's set up, but there's certainly a tension between the "insurance" model and the "health savings account" model (and the current system sort of tries to do both).…
As to your questions: 1 - The gov shouldn't do it because we want multiple of these entities, not just one. We need choice and competition, no single point of failure.
2 - It is common to say that extending home mortgages to higher risk groups, which Freddie played a role, was to further social goals. I simply do not buy it. Everything points to money. Extending these mortgages furthered the goals of the lenders and investment bankers and home builders as well. Look at who gave money to the politicians to make these policies happen. Hint: it was all of the above, except poor people. Yes, people who couldn't afford their homes benefited but they were not the lead players in making these policies happen.
As to your third question, companies that attempt to be more of a coop have to compete in the same market as the for-profit entities. I don't think you can solve this problem without leveling the playing field.