1. if you want to REGISTER and DRIVE a vehicle on public roadways, then individual STATES require the purchase of AUTO INSURANCE... however:
a. not so, for farm vehicles (for example)
b. no one forces you to buy a car
c. no one forces you to drive a car
d. some states (VA for example), you can OWN and REGISTER a vehicle and NOT have auto insurance (but you must pay a hefty fee to "register" same, and it is NOT "insured")
2. the Federal gov't mandating that everyone must have health insurance, is not the same as "auto insurance"
a. no one forces you to goto a doctor or hospital (I've personally not been to either since my mandatory "retirement physical" some 21 years ago... and I have no intention of ever seeing a doctor, or going to a hospital ever again)
b. mandating that anyone buy an essentially WORTHLESS HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY (because they simply can NOT afford the "best possible policy") is ridiculous... and, IMO it is also "unconstitutional"
c. mandating that I must purchase a product (any product) from any greed-mongering FOR-PROFIT company is also ridiculous
3. The above said:
If one chooses to view this "health insurance" issue, in the same light as "mandatory retirement programs" (i.e., Social Security, or Railroad / Government retirement programs)... then one should also DEMAND the establishment of a federally managed "Health Care for ALL" program. This would include DISSOLVING all "health insurance companies" ... providing for everyone to PAY into it (on a means tested basis) ... and requiring all U.S. based healthcare & pharmaceutical providers to ACCEPT payment-in-full (i.e., enough of this greed-mongering "supplemental" crap) from such a NATIONAL Health Care Program.
Such a "NATIONAL Health Care Program" would be held within the public trust, would not be subjected to "speculatory investments" which have nothing to do with "health care" and also would not be a "FOR PROFIT" venture.
From this article: 20 states ask judge to throw out Obama health law
...comes the Federal government's argument:
"because everyone needs medical care"
...to which I say BULLSHIT! "Everyone" neither needs medical care nor does "everyone" seek it out even *if* OTHERS think they need it. It's a bogus argument, period!
Read the article, see what the judge says about his own history... and about "regulating commerce" being used as a bogus argument.