Your analogies are all faulty. You can avoid paying car insurance by not driving. You can avoid paying homeowner's insurance by renting. There is nothing you can reasonably do to ensure that you won't break your leg, lose your appendix, or develop a lymphoma.

Meanwhile, you can't simply buy health insurance. Under our current system, any insurer can refuse to cover you for any number of reasons, or assign calamitously high premiums to you. The medical pretexts required to do this are numerous and opaque. Ask any 30 year old woman who's tried to buy health insurance if you need convincing.

Many people with families simply cannot start or join startups in this climate, because there is no feasible way for them to cover their family. Without health insurance, you can be bankrupted by relatively minor health events; more importantly, you put your family at risk for receiving inferior care, particularly on the preventative side.

Of course if you are a risk then you should pay more. The correct answer is for those people to rely on public charity to help with their medical bills. What you're advocating is just forcing people to subsidize others. At least with private charity people: 1st are thankful, and realize that others are helping them, and 2nd are controlling how their money is spent.

Insurance shouldn't cover preventive care, it should be insurance. You don't have car insurance that covers getting your oil changed, why should your health insurance cover your doctor visits?

This is incoherent. I literally don't know what you're responding to. Charity? Subsidizing others?

It really sounds like you're arguing against the entire concept of insurance here. The idea of managing risk by pooling it dates back to the 14th century; if you want to argue against it, consider time travel.

As to your second graf --- again, what are you talking about? Oil changes don't mitigate the risk of car accidents, which is why your insurance company will give you a break for not getting tickets or driving a safer car, but won't give you a break for changing your oil.

>>Under our current system, any insurer can refuse to cover you for any number of reasons, or assign calamitously high premiums to you.

If you can't afford insurance, then you rely on charity. To force lower insurance prices than their risk demands is subsidizing them.

Yes the oil, example isn't the best. How about getting the breaks fixed.

You don't think the market would adjust and return to independent groups, companies, systems that organize just like employee groups with employers? Because health insurance is tied to employment some magical force makes insurance companies just cover people?

In my case at least unemployed people or retired people could still keep their healthcare they have always had. Changing jobs and health care is a big pain that prevents innovation and tying healthcare to employment allows price fixing/inflation.

The arguments you put against not tying it to employment are the same arguments for the current setup. They only hide the cost so that it is inflated.

Right and if you notice there is accident medical in auto insurance, because we HAVE to drive and we can't let the heath uninsured drag the whole system down if they get in a wreck.

Lack of universal coverage is also driving up the cost of automobile insurance.