B) This is a terrible analogy. Driving is a privilege, not guaranteed to you, that comes with stipulations. I have a right to live without you or anyone else telling me what to buy.
You have a right to live, but do you have a right to life saving healthcare if you can't afford it? That's what is really at the center of this.
Ideally, the exceptionally wealthy would be more philanthropic and provide for those who go without. But they're not. Also, ideally, the only people not buying insurance would be those that can afford health care without it. But that is obviously not true, I went for 5-6 in my early 20's with no insurance.
But, taxpayers get stuck with the bill because of laws and oaths that force practitioners to treat everyone, even those that can't pay. It's a weird mess of varying standards.
Practically, you can't have forced care without forced economic means of payment (insurance/single payer) for a number of reasons that in theory should not exist. I'm fine with practitioners choosing to not treat people based on ability to pay, I realize that sounds cold hearted, but no one should have to perform any service for someone who can't pay. I would have accepted my fate had something happened to me.
But I'm also fine with a single payer system that isn't going to over burden people with outrageous taxes. I'm just extremely skeptical about how that will end up. The US government has a long history of wasting tax dollars in ridiculous amounts.