And, speaking of auto insurance - it is required in most states, I believe.  So, obviously the government can mandate insurance coverage.  I don't think there is any Constitutional issue there. 

The auto insurance analogy is flawed for two reasons: first, owning and operating an automobile is not a necessity, as is healthcare.  Being without a car is an inconvenience, to be sure, but most people can certainly manage.  Secondly, most health insurance covers routine preventative care such as doctor visits, etc.  For your analogy to work, auto insurers would have to start covering such things as brake jobs, safety inspections and oil changes, resulting in substantial rate increases.  Then, the debate would be whether or not the government should be subsidizing that.


Regards,
Scott Perry