Politics aside, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson's order granting summary judgment anddeclaring the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Actunconstitutional and Florida's decision to halt its implementation highlights an interesting insuranceconcept: Can the government make people buy insurance?

Judge Vinson supposedly likened the mandate to buy healthinsurance to trying to make this country's citizens eat broccoli —obviously something that the first President Bush would have opposed. But doesn't the government already make usbuy insurance, and lots of it?

State governments make us buy auto insurance, and make employersprovide workers' compensation benefits. But are those really thesame as making everyone buy health insurance?

Read MoreFC&S Blog Posts at the Coverage Cafe!

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

Likewise, employers are required in the vast majority of statesto provide workers' compensation benefits to their workers byeither buying insurance or becoming a qualified self-insurer. Inexchange, they are shielded from liability for all but the mostegregious negligence in operating their workplaces. In bothinstances the insurance requirement is part of an exchange for aprivilege or protection from other liabilities.

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

The obvious response that counters the judge's argument isSocial Security. Did he simply forget that we all (and ouremployers) are forced to pay for that, the most massive socialinsurance system in the country?

Do you think Judge Vinson's reasoning is valid?