Car insurance vs health insurance

Yesterday Hillary justified requiring all Americans to buy her government-mandated health insurance by pointing out that most states require drivers to carry insurance.  And aren't people more important than cars?

This is so insulting to our national intelligence that I hate to point out the falacies.

First of all, drivers are required to carry liability insurance, not collision insurance, which would be the direct analogy to health insurance.  Liability insurance protects other drivers who I might put at risk by my presence on the road.  To be responsible for the potential damage I could do to others by driving, I must have liability insurance.  If I choose not to carry collision insurance, I am only putting myself at risk.  Similarly, if I choose not to carry health insurance I am only subjecting myself to the risk that I might have to pay out of pocket for medical care.  Either risk might be appropriate if my health is good or my car is old, or if I prefer to self-insure and pay out of pocket.

Secondly, Hillary's plan requires insurance companies to cover anyone "at a level, reasonable price" determined by the government, regardless of the risk.  Car insurance is priced based on risk.  If you are a teenage boy with three tickets on your record, you will pay a lot more than a 50-year-old lady with a clean driving record.  Hillary's plan amounts to asking the safe drivers to pay for the accidents caused by the reckless drivers, which is exactly the problem that manditory liability insurance for drivers is intended to avoid.  For most people, Hillary's plan will result in higher costs, lower quality of care, and less availability of care.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, laws requiring drivers to carry liability insurance are STATE laws, not federal laws.  Requiring everyone to carry medical insurance is outside of the scope of the Federal Government as outlined by the Constitution.  The Federal Government has no authority to mandate how people get their health care.