A few thoughts.

Many comparisons are made between the near-universal requirement to purchase auto insurance and the proposed "individual mandate" to purchase health insurance. Both are profit-oriented industries, but there the comparison ends.

Prima Facie, one has no obligation to purchase auto insurance if one chooses not to own and operate a motor vehicle. There is no similar distinction with health. One has no choice in the matter of their existence, save suicide.

Moreover, the very predication of the concept of insurance relies on the proposition of assumed risk vs. statistical probability. Within the fields of insurance that rely on probability analysis, those that cover random "Acts of God" or accidental happenstance conform to this model.

Health does not. Because it is an inevitability that one will either become injured and/or get sick and eventually die.

These are absolute truisms. No one is exempt.

So, given that the decline in one's health is both inevitable and irreversible, does it make any sense at all for an industry to exist that proposes to "insure" you against the inevitable?

Furthermore, given the onerousness of the obligation that the insurance company assumes, the responsibility for the health, the well-being, the very LIVES of their customers...

How could they possibly serve all of their customers adequately and still make a profit?