It's an analogy. They are not comparing the worth of a human being to a car. They're saying that someone else's high risk should not increase your premium.
I stongly disagree with the premise that someone else's high risk should not increase your premium. How do you control your insurer? How do you know who's in their pool?
Why should your premium be tied to someone else's risk? There will always be some level of connection, the insurer has to stay in business, but that's very different.
Without preexisting conditions your premiums go up only because they can't charge the higher risk individual for that risk. That is no longer insurance at least at the individual level - you're effectively being asked to vouch for, and pay for, someone you never met.
> you're effectively being asked to vouch for, and pay for, someone you never met.
That is the basic premise of insurance. Collectivized risk. That you disagree with a specific detail in the implementation and that part, and that part only is vouching for someone else is undermining your point, not reinforcing it.
Everyone in the developed world has injected government heavily into healthcare, because its the lynchpin of a healthy and efficient workforce. That's the real solution.
No, it isn't. You'd have to define "developed world" here to make your argument more clear, but more importantly you'd have to define insurance in general if the government is stepping in to control those markets.
If we just want healthcare to be covered for the entire population that's fine, but don't call it insurance.
