M. Simon's mention of drivers licenses reminded me of one of the most annoying features of the health care debate, and that is the false analogy the Democrats make between mandatory auto insurance and mandatory health insurance. Few things insult me more than to be lectured like a child by a lecturer who is demonstrably wrong, yet who has been given the substantial power of the mainstream media microphone.

For starters, driving is not like health, which is an aspect of life. We all live, but we do not all drive. But the most important distinction between Obamacare and mandatory auto insurance is a simple one which goes to the very nature of insurance. Insurance is based on risk, and risk allocation. Poor risks mean more expensive premiums. State governments may mandate auto insurance, but so far as I know, none of them have been so insane as to mandate that an insurance company cannot charge a bad driver more money, or a good driver less. And it would be laughable to imagine mandating that an auto insurance policy cover accidents which happened before the policy. That would bankrupt the industry, right?

Which is why I don't think it is fair to consider the monster that is Obamacare to be "insurance reform" at all. It is nothing less than insurance destruction.

By requiring subsidization of all people regardless of risk, and by requiring insurance companies to insure people regardless of pre-existing conditions, Obamacare turns the definition of insurance on its head and guarantees the bankruptcy of the industry. Might as well mandate that auto insurance companies issue policies which would cover any driver (even unlicensed drivers and drivers without the intention or ability to pay), even covering any previous accidents the driver already had!

A lot of commentators have observed that there is nothing to stop people from just waiting until a health catastrophe strikes, and only then buying insurance. And why not? Once people realize that the companies cannot turn them down, it will become in their interest to wait.

I guess the next step will be making it illegal for life insurance companies to refuse to issue life insurance to people who are on their deathbeds. But why stop there? Isn't it just as unfair to discriminate against people who already died? I mean, for them, death is a pre-existing condition, right?

It is high time we had life insurance for the already dead!

(Seriously, why should their next of kin have to suffer because they weren't lucky enough or rich enough to have life insurance? It is totally unfair! Life insurance is a human right -- and it should not be denied according to the actuarial whims of greedy corporations trying to make a buck.)