And have used it myself.
However, as you can see from some responses here, it is not a very good analogy. In fact there is:
1. Only owners of automobiles who drive them on public roads (a privilege in itself) are required to have auto insurance
2. The penalty for not buying auto insurance is loss of privilege (driving)
3. There is no requirement that one buy health insurance with the ACA. It is a tax.
4. It is also apparently not even enforced as a tax in the usual IRA manner (no wage garnishment, etc.)
5. Finally, the auto insurance laws are generally (varies by state) very regressive in that it is liability and that amount is based upon what other, more well-to-do, drivers are driving. Thus, those with inexpensive cars are subsidizing those with expensive one.
Quite different.
In general, in a representative democracy like we have, taxes must be universally applied (i.e., one cannot simply opt out for selfish reasons). Otherwise, most would opt out but still want the benefit (if there is one).
It is interesting in terms of consensus type systems (e.g., OWS). In theory, a tax could not be levied unless everyone agreed, which would be pretty tough in large numbers. Anyone have any examples where that works?
= new reply since forum marked as read
