They can still use risk to set rates, it just has to be for the general population instead of specific people. So for example, they can take the risk of an average person needing treatment for childhood leukemia, and adding that risk into the premiums for everyone. What they can't do is discriminate against people who already have those conditions. If they could, then insurance would simply be unaffordable for them.
No.
Several reasons:
1) Those things are far less important to the economy than health insurance. So who cares?
2) Health insurance is an absolute necessity, because you will be financially ruined if you need it and don't have it. No one's forcing you to own a home or a car.
3) If you are considered a high risk for home insurance or car insurance, it's to a large degree due to your own behavior. If you are considered a high risk for health insurance, it's much more difficult to make that connection, especially for age or preexisting conditions.
4) You are inherently able to afford home insurance or car insurance, if you could afford the home/car in the first place. If you aren't, then sell your damn home/car and buy a cheaper one. You can't do that with your health, and there are many people who ARE unable to afford health insurance.
5) If your house is damaged and you don't have insurance, the only one who loses out is you. If your car is damaged and you don't have collision insurance, the only one who loses out is you. If you need health care and you don't have health insurance, the taxpayers pick up the bill. This is also the same reason that most states require at least SOME car insurance...not for you or your car, but to pay the medical bills of other people if you cause an accident.
