I really do see a parallel.

drive up health care costs and insurance premiums for all. A subsidized health insurance mandate, if it is actually affordable, benefits all within the scope of the current legislation.

The state can make you buy health insurance from a private company (they already do in MA), the federal government? We'll find out.

If you cause a collision with another car, your insurance covers the damage to that car, the medical expenses of anyone injured in the collision, AND keeps you off the hook for those expenses. So your auto insurance does indeed protect you financially, as well as serving a larger public interest in holding down the costs of those inevitable collisions for everyone.

for those who currently refuse to pay for their own. The mandate will make health care less expensive for everyone, including the rich.

Of course single payer would be a better solution but whatever.

The state requires me to purchase a product that covers the risk that I might cause financial damage to others. The state does not require I insure the car; that's what the finance company requires. So the state has determined that innocent people must be protected from the possibility that in the future my actions may cause financial loss to another. Just in the same way that an uninsured person who gets sick or injured and gets medical help from a doctor or hospital caused an economic loss to that doctor or hospital. Who in turn raise rates for all of us, so we all suffer financially, to the tune of $ 1,000 per family policy..

What's the difference?

No car = no need for insurance.