Reforming our views of "Reform"

I think that, like in many other things, in health care our arguments have lost the forest for the trees--we have forgotten the core arguments of our country in trying to address a smaller section of ourselves.
I have heard several arguments for health care that i think are interesting. Many apply to my last post. but I will respond here to some my friends have made that may not.
1) People who do not buy insurance are a burden to society, and therefore a government responsibility. First of all, the idea that these people are going to get cancer treatments paid by the taxpayers is incredibly unlikely. Actually, the only thing that could even possibly be paid for by the government when someone without insurance becomes ill is going to be their emergency room visits, unless you choose to donate to their particular "save _______" fund, but it is not a social cost. In hospitals now, if you do not have the money for a treatment, for the most part, you go without it, or you go into debt. If you go into debt, and you go bankrupt, your cost will be absorbed by banks and creditors, who assume this will happen from time to time, before it is absorbed by the populace as a whole, so the chances of this hitting your average joe are slim at best.
2) Premiums are out of control. We have to do something or all is lost. This is a question of where the government's control is. To be honest, I don't think that the government should have anything to do with health care. My support of tort reform stems from a desire to get it out of the judicial as well as the legislative process. The American government was not meant to be a social institution. It was meant to be a control of peace so that people could solve their own problems. With passage of social bills like health care, we look to government to do something that it was never meant to do--solve our personal insolvencies. If government be expected to do this, government is expected to fundamentally restrict the way you and i live, and it destroys the aims of our constitutional government
3) Shortly I will reply to the idea of coverage under private plans: The current system is set up so that people are grouped into certain risk pools. This is, to my knowledge, one of the only ways that one can make insuring against a universally occurring problem (sickness) economically viable. If, as will soon be the case, a healthy person is charged the same amount as one on his deathbed, or one who takes huge risks in his personal life, the cost will go up and at some point insurers will have to charge more than a policy is worth to anyone to cover their overheads. What we do by forcing companies to accept pre-existing conditions seems like a charitable venture on face, and that is why it has so much support, but by the very nature of economics, this is the death knell for the whole idea of insurance, which is based on you paying a fee for something that may or may not happen to you. tow results will occur. A) people are not going to buy insurance until they are sick. While this is supposedly covered by the mandate for health insurance, such a mandate will have to be pretty steep if it is to entice people to not pay premiums that will rise yearly with the increase in risk. I do not think that the current excise, while it is shocking, would be such an incentive. B) private companies are going to be forced out of the picture. thus limiting competition and further increasing costs to you. this is because the companies, as stated before, no longer have a statistical advantage to working insurance. their bet now has to be that they can get enough people to drive their costs lower than competition. Problem here is that the federal system has a larger pool inherently and is subsidized to the tune of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and Insurance companies get more taxes than they used to so they get undercut by the government and go out of business. Result: A exponentially growing, single payer system, and soon.