Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius compare Obamacare mandate to auto insurance mandate

I have heard many informed people make this argument that the health insurance mandate is no different than an auto insurance mandate, but I am shocked Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius would trot it out. However, that is exactly what they do in this WaPo opinion piece. There is a huge difference between the health insurance mandate and mandatory automobile insurance. You are only required to buy auto insurance if you own a vehicle and want to drive it on public roads. You are not required to buy a vehicle and insurance it if you don't want or need a vehicle. Many people in large cities don't have any need to own automobiles. With Obamacare, if you are alive and living in America, you are required to purchase health insurance or be fined by the IRS.

The Washington Post reported:

Everyone wants health care to be affordable and available when they need it. But we have to stop imposing extra costs on people who carry insurance, and that means everyone who can afford coverage needs to carry minimum health coverage starting in 2014.

If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, it’s essential that everyone have coverage. Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market.

The same is true for health insurance. Without an individual responsibility provision, controlling costs and ending discrimination against people with preexisting conditions doesn’t work.

The last part of the excerpt, in bold, is very important. Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius admit that a major part of the legislation rests upon the individual mandate. If the mandate is struck down, the whole house of cards falls down. They have made a case for judges to throw out the whole law, not just the individual mandate part.