Maybe I’m late to the game in realizing this, but I think my brain finally landed on my major issue with HCR. If I understand this correctly, part of the moral justification for mandating insurance coverage is so that people will not find themselves unable to pay for medical care when they need it because they were irresponsible and did not pay for coverage when they did not need it (thus putting the burden to care for them on society as a whole). Now, in a just system, if a person was irresponsible, or willing to take the risk of foregoing coverage (and not just suddenly in a bad spot and in need of a social safety net until they could get back on their feet), they would suffer the consequences of that choice (i.e. being sick, or crippled, or dead).
However, under HCR, should they choose to forego coverage, they will instead be fined, and if they don’t pay (because they are broke, which is why they don’t want to pay for insurance), be arrested, convicted, and made a criminal (potentially a felon, thus destroying their chances at a better life), but they will be alive & healthy, and that’s the important thing.
So how are the people who are rabidly in favor of the insurance mandate any different from the Anti-Abortion people?