Since things are heading another direction, I won't spend time discussing your whole post, but I did want to address one argument:

Should Not Include Abortions:
This private health care plan should not pay for abortions since other people with differing views contribute to these large groups. Abortions should be born by the two people involved, or additional insurance!

The mere fact that people with differing views contribute to something is not generally seen as justification for saying that it can't include a certain service. For example, Jehova's Witnesses disapprove of blood transfusions. Should blood transfusions not be covered? Christian Scientists disapprove of most drugs. Should medicine not be covered? The Amish disapprove of high technology. Should high technoology medical procedures like MRIs not be covered? Catholics disapprove of birth control. Should birth control pills and vascectomies not be covered? Environmentalists disapprove of large families. Should only the first pregnancy be covered? Scientologists disapprove of psychology and psychiatry. Should those mental health services not be covered? Quakers disapprove of the use of violence. Should treatment of injuries sustained violently (a concussion for a boxer, a bullet wound for a soldier) not be covered? Seventh Day Adventists disapprove of eating any meat and Vegans object to using animal products. Should treatments deriving from meat and other animal products not be covered? Members of PETA disapprove of anything that harms animals. Should treatments that involve harming animals not be covered? I've even heard raving lunatics who think AIDS is God's whole plan for punishing gay people and fornicators. Should HIV prevention and AIDS treatment not be covered?

If health insurance only covered things on which there were no "differing views," then it would cover nothing whatsoever. Unfortunately, there are people in this country who think that it's perfectly OK if the government ignores the religious convictions of everyone others, but that it has to pay attention to their own religious convictions. So, it's fine for government health insurance to cover blood transfusions, because they're not Jehova's Witnesses, but that it would be wrong for government health insurance to cover abortion, because their own religion is against it. But I've met people who think blood transfusions are an insult to God, and who are convinced the Bible clearly forbids them. Why is it OK to ignore them if we must bow and scrape before those who've decided that the Bible says abortion is wrong?