I confess. I read but not carefully, because once I saw Anthem, etc., referenced in a post about "free markets" I slightly switched off.

You used a bad counterexample, in my view, precisely because the market these companies deal in is strictly regulated and not open to genuine competition.

I'll try to be less testy. I'll leave it at that.

I read what you posted. Your objection seems to be one of style as well as substance. Let me see if I can rephrase Deregulator's reply slightly, in hopes of at least achieving a bit more clarity (rather than agreement -- I think there is very little hope of that here).

When Deregulator says health care is "hardly a market at all," he means it's more like a cartel like OPEC. The analogy is imperfect today because health insurers cannot collude to set prices the way oil producing countries can. The analogy may be better when federal regulators say what insurers must offer and at what price. But, at any rate, insurers today can and do collude with state regulators to set rates that are favorable to shareholders, if not always the people they insure. I think you recognize this. Certainly the profits you cite are good evidence of it.

Our fundamental disagreement, I think, may be twofold.

First is the size, scope, necessity and propriety of government regulation of health care. My proposition simply is that government meddles too much in health care; that government regulation is bad for consumers; and that the "reforms" Congress just passed and President Obama just signed will result in greater centralization, less freedom and a poorer quality of life for Americans in the long-term.

BUT, it does not follow from my proposition that just because the federal government regulates an industry, that industry cannot make a profit for its shareholders. I believe the term for this is corporatism. Its a species of corporate welfare and a relic of certain discredited European ideologies.

Second, much of the debate surrounding health care reform has been framed in crude public vs. private terms. The truth is, private insurers have become hopelessly corrupted by public subsidies and government is hopelessly bound up with favored private industries and firms (not just in health care, obviously). Democrats argued that Republicans were shilling for the insurance industry. In reality, the bill the Democrats passed is a great law for Aetna, Well Point, and Humana, because they are big enough and profitable enough to get the regulations they need to stay in business.

Where does this leave the consumer? More important, where does this leave the citizen?

The essential case against this monstrous health reform is that the citizen-consumer is left more at the mercy of insurers backed by the power of the state. In an effort to improve access, government will raise taxes and impose penalties, which will take money out of other sectors of the private economy, hamper economic growth by constraining certain businesses, and reduce individual freedom of action.

In an effort to minimize the growth of health care expenses, government will, in fact, place limits on the care people may receive. How government will ration care remains to be seen, but if the goal is to keep costs in check, there is no getting around it.

In an effort to equalize the burden of this new entitlement, government will make purchasing health care a condition and duty of citizenship. With the exception of Selective Service registration -- which is relevant to national defense, a clear and fundamental responsibility of government -- this is unheard of in our history.

There are tens of millions of Americans who either believe the above are positive goods or fail to see the downsides. For example, I was depressed beyond words to hear the audio of thousands of George Mason University students cheering President Obama last week when he told them they could remain covered under their parents' health insurance until the age of 26. What supporters of health reform regard as a helping hand to young people starting out on their careers, many of us see as corrosive to independence and self-government.

At the risk of sounding like a "Chicken Little," we're becoming a nation of subjects, and not just because of this health care law. The change has been a long time coming, and it's far from complete. We had a republic. We chose not to keep it.