Driving is a privilege, not a right. Individuals must pass a driving test and earn a license (except for those who don't) before driving. Part of that deal includes carrying insurance to cover damages caused while exercising that privilege.

Likewise, employers are required in the vast majority of states to provide workers' compensation benefits to their workers by either buying insurance or becoming a qualified self-insurer. In exchange, they are shielded from liability for all but the most egregious negligence in operating their workplaces. In both instances the insurance requirement is part of an exchange for a privilege or protection from other liabilities.

There is no quid pro quo with health insurance. Living is not a privilege (at least not in the U.S.), and health insurance does not touch on the concept of negligence. It is just supposed to pay the bill if we get sick and seek treatment.

The obvious response that counters the judge's argument is Social Security. Did he simply forget that we all (and our employers) are forced to pay for that, the most massive social insurance system in the country?

Do you think Judge Vinson's reasoning is valid?