I’m no healthcare expert. Just trying to apply some of my simple-minded sense to your items #2 and 5

garfields item # 2
The ability for insurance companies to deny applications for pre-existing conditions or to cancel an existing policy because a policy-holder became sick should never have been allowed in the first place. The new health reform law should specifically state that insurance policies shall constitute a LEGAL and binding CONTRACT between the the insurance provider and policyholder as long as the premium is current. Thus, in my view, an insurance provider would never attempt to break this portion of the law, because they would realize that policyholders would hire lawyers (who would offer a “no-cost” feature) to take the case against the insurance company. The “no-cost” feature guarantees that the plaintiff would not be charged any fees by the law firm. If the Lawyer wins the case, he collects his fee as part of the settlement from the insurance company. If the lawyer loses the case, he does not collect a fee from anyone. The “no-cost” feature is a double-play. It discourages insurance companies from dis-obeying the Law in the first place, and if they are bold enough to do it anyway, the plaintiff would be encouraged to seek proper justice, while the law firm would be discouraged from taking a frivolous or unfounded case. Why it does NOT work like this now is beyond me.

garfields item # 5
Just some food for thought on insurance “pools”.
In just the private sector, we have employer provided insurance pools, retiree insurance pools, various self-employed group pools and then we have individuals who are for some reason prohibited from purchasing group plans (none available or prohibited by State law, etc).

Where people can get into insurance pools, insurance premiums are greatly reduced compared to individual policy premiums due to high volume, however the “pool” negotiator receives a fee which increases costs.
Then, you have individual policy holders who pay higher premiums than do groups.
Then you have the un-insured, whose health care costs are astronomically reduced compared to both the above. (No insurance or govt compliance forms for hospital & insurance company beaurocrats to deal with). Its a cash for service transaction, plain and simple. Smart consumers can further reduce costs by negotiating with providers, asking for generic med prescriptions and arranging for the patient to report the service to his own family physician, thus subtracting that cost from the providers fee. (this is, of course, in the case of a responsible paying citizen).
Then you have the un-insured, non-paying consumers of health care, (Nancy Pelosi’s “free-riders). Gee, I thought she was soooo in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens. Utter hypocrisy! The costs for non-paying recipients of health care translate back to all of us paying citizens in the form of HIGHER insurance premiums.

But what if we eliminated ALL the pools and allowed ONLY individual policies across the entire spectrum. It would eliminate the pools (middle-man) and reduce some of the cost and it would even out policy premium costs across the spectrum, rather than the current vast disparity. Now couple this with allowing insurance companies to sell policies across State lines, and I believe you would realize a significant cost reduction.

If doing all these things could end up making health-care more affordable, you might see more people entering the ranks of the insured (which would further saturate the insurance industry with funds and SHOULD further reduce premium costs) in theory.