I wonder how you'd feel about the nature of liberty, deprivation, and government coercion as a response to health care market failures if you lived a few months in [insert developed country other than USA], where no one has the 'freedom' to opt out of health care and no one is denied life saving treatment because of preexisting conditions or inability to pay.
There are very different ways to be 'free' and for all its faults, I'd argue that government regulation in service of internalizing negative externalities in health care (no, pure markets can't do it) and providing a minimum means of survival for our poorest citizens reflects a far more useful and real understanding of liberty than the narrow abstraction that says freedom means freedom even from coercive mandates to do something that any rational person would do anyway and have no problem with if it weren't called a mandate.
Any government that is more wedded to the semantic abstraction of "liberty" than to the substantive, concrete realities here on planet Earth doesn't know what's up.
And to Justices Scalia and Roberts: I'm even comfortable with the logical extremes of my argument. The federal government can and should compel people to eat broccoli. Whether you like it or not, one's personal life choices have broader economic consequences that the constitution empowers the government to regulate.
