Does anyone have a real argument against non-profit health insurance?

Universal health INSURANCE administered by a federally chartered non-profit corporation would relieve employers of paying for health INSURANCE for their employees. As many employers are dropping such coverage anyway, not to mention dropping many of their employees we're going to have to do something. We'd better cut the best deal we can to provide the greatest good for the greatest number or land up no good for anyone. Let's not hear arguments against 'socialized medicine' or 'government health CARE'. Stick with non- profit UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
--------------------
Medicare is a universal single payer system that includes ALL Americans over 65. People chose their own doctors and the Government doesn't assume decision making. Overhead cost is 3%. John Conyers' H.R. 676 - is a favorite of health care reformers who back a single-payer system. This plan would expand Medicare for all Americans. The bill, which will again be H.R. 676, is one of the more elegant to be introduced in the House, clocking in at just a few pages. The plan is simple: everyone is eligible for a version of Medicare under a new U.S. National Health Insurance Program. The program would effectively put private insurers out of business. What to do with all those employees? Hire them, says Conyers' bill. "The Program shall provide that clerical, administrative, and billing personnel in insurance companies, doctors offices, hospitals, nursing facilities, and other facilities whose jobs are eliminated due to reduced administration (1) should have first priority in retraining and job placement in the new system; and (2) shall be eligible to receive 2 years of unemployment benefits." Conyers, a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, last introduced his bill, which garnered 93 cosponsors, in February 2007. It was referred to committee but never given a hearing.
Source