I do agree that personal choice and decision is the most important part of belonging to a good society. I grew up (until I was 10) in a dictatorship, and saw plenty of abuse of power by a government.
In my case it was a right wing government, with troops clearing out universities by gunfire, TV anchors being dragged off the air, my cousin having to hide under a car from police death squads (he and my grandmother argued quite often - he was a socialist, she was a centrist). So the ability to make my own choices is treasured to me. It could easily be a left wing dictatorship (which is what is there now), so to my eyes it's just the same devil changing colors.
I think that in any good society, we accept some limits to what we choose to do so that we can all profit. I drive on the right here, so I don't interfere with folks coming the other way (this worked against me in Bermuda). I can choose, through my votes and support for different parts of the system which constraints I can live with and which not. If my preferences lose, I'm not happy but I respect the process.
Given my earlier experience with totalitarianism, I have a healthy disrespect for the sticky parts of politics, but have seen the alternative and it is bleak. So I'm willing to compromise on some things I may like to produce a whole that is better than before.
I think this is what is happening with this legislation (again my opinion only), in that at least it is on the table and the issues with large insurance companies holding a huge stick and eating the carrot, the crushing load of uninsured people using emergency rooms for care and the marginalization of people who have health problems due to their cutting into insurance companies profits are being addressed.
I supported Obama in his run, and still do, despite thinking he's too conservative in some things (economy) and not conservative enough in others (defense). I am happy to see this effort begin in health care, though - for so long it was suppressed and is now being dealt with without being suffocated by the health care lobbies. I see many things I like and some I really don't in this legislation, but we have time to make it better through feelings like yours, Chuck - I like people who stand up and try to fix the issues instead of trying to put the whole problem under the rug, and then try to convince everyone that the lump is flat.
I do agree that the idea of $95 penalty for not having insurance (or 1% of income) may be a bad precedent, but the establishment of affordable insurance pools, the ability of States to set up their own insurance programs and be excluded from the Federal requirements and the ability to waive this fee due to religious beliefs are reasonable alternatives. The support of preventative care and the overall stress of patients rights is something I agree with, so I'll take the limit while keeping a close eye on the whole deal. Politicians, surprisingly enough have screwed up before.
Sorry to ramble, your post got me to thinking, Chuck.