I believe health insurance (really, access to healthcare) is a human right. Life insurance can discriminate against you based on your health current state, and some people cannot get life insurance (or the cost is exceptionally exorbitant, because it is properly pricing the risk of loss). I don't believe someone is entitled to live where ever they want, or drive whatever they want, from an insurability perspective. We might just disagree on this philosophically, my apologies in advance.

> but insurance is about individual level risk

Insurance is about pooled risk, avoiding adverse selection, and balancing the risk of loss with whatever the pool criteria and objectives are. We can insure what should be insurance, and we can cut checks to what should just be aid, support, etc. Knowing which is which is important though if we operate under the assumption that resources are finite.

https://www.actuary.org/sites/default/files/pdf/health/pool_...

These are bad analogies:

> Life insurance high, then what, stop living?

You seem to confuse what life insurance is for - it's not for the person being insured, it's for their dependents (at least with respect to term life). And it already happens all the time that life insurance gets too expensive, so people forego it. It's one reason that financial planners recommend getting life insurance when you're young, when you're healthier and it's cheaper. Also, as you age it becomes less likely that you'll have dependents that need you to have life insurance.

As others have pointed out, the debate over health insurance shouldn't confuse the debate over other types of insurance. Many societies have accepted the viewpoint that everyone should have health insurance as a fundamental right, even if they have a horrible risk profile and it's uneconomic. I don't think anyone can make that argument about someone's "right" to drive a car that is inherently dangerous to other road users and horribly expensive to repair.