This is a false dichotomy, which assumes that the only possible alternatives are Obamacare and no insurance at all.

Not to mention that the majority of people who do have Obamacare are getting subsidized by the government (i.e., they're "moochers", in your terminology).

How does making this public subsidy pass through more sets of pockets before it gets to the doctor make it any less "mooching"? Please be specific.

Also, what about the people with expensive preexisting conditions? Virtually all of those people are consuming far more resources than they will ever pay in. Are they also "moochers"?

Note that I'm not saying that those people shouldn't have health care. I'm just objecting to calling it "insurance", because it isn't. Insurance is a bet.

While I don't disagree in principle, this is impossible to enact. Consider the case where this person who has chosen not to have insurance is in a car accident and render incapable of communicating. Responders and those at the hospital must act under the assumption that the victim has insurance and do everything in their power to save them.

In this situation the person in the accident can later claim that they didn't want to be saved and thus owe nothing. We, that is the rest of us who participate, are then forced to carry this cost and they free ride.

because i recognize the futility in expanding my argument which a philosophical one thats been going on for centuries. no ones going to change their minds. if you'd like my expanded argument you should start with 'the road to serfdom' by hayek but i wont attempt to summarize it for you here on HN.

So by choosing not to work, you can effectively choose, but by choosing not to have insurance you cannot?!?

Your logic makes no sense in the current environment. If I'm unemployed and can't afford it, I'm free riding.

So yes, you should be able to choose. If for no other reason than you already can (by not working).