"un-insured" is, as generally used, a bullshit term - intended to deceive rather than enlighten.
I am "un-insured" with respect to floods damaging or destroying my house. It is neither a good thing nor a bad thing. I have chosen to SELF-INSURE the risk of damage to my house by flood, because the risk is slight and I have the wherewithal to deal with such a catastrophe should it occur. I am "un-insured" with respect to collision damage to my third car. If it is destroyed I can deal with that loss myself, and see no need to involve a profit-making insurance company in the situation.
If I were a young, healthy, self-employed individual, I might very well choose to SELF-INSURE my medical expenses. If I have to go to the doctor or the emergency room, I would pay those costs myself, to the extent that they cannot be avoided. Again, not a good thing or a bad thing, just a decision I make based on my assessment of the situation.
Today's Social Justice Warriors of the Left believe that to be un-insured as respects health costs is IRRESPONSIBLE and a CRIME AGAINST SOCIETY, because if I end up in the emergency room need a bazillion dollars worth of care, then EVERYONE ELSE will have to cover that burden.
Unfortunately for them, the United States Constitution ensures that I have the RIGHT to be irresponsible with respect to my own health, and the United States Supreme Court has ruled accordingly. What they did say, however, was that the Congress has the right to impose a TAX on people who are uninsured, with the hope that that onerous tax would induce everyone - even healthy bastards - to buy insurance that they don't want and probably don't need. But Congress MAY NOT demand that I buy health insurance, under penalty of law.
More and more people are now un-insured because they are gradually coming to understand their rights under the law and Constitution. I.e., they don't HAVE TO buy insurance.
