/s
I don't see where anyone is trying to say that you can't argue against the idea of mandates. I'm not a big fan of them myself because I don't like the idea of the government telling me to buy something from a for profit private corporation or face penalties. We all have our different reasons, opinions, and politics in these issues.
Acknowledging the conservative origins of RomneyCare and associated legislation is an important aspect of looking at it as a whole. That helps take us from the place of a liberal idea carrying the old "Tax and Spend" mantra to a place where we have more facts on the different politics that went into the idea. Social security, medicaid, medicare, and many other programs that help us today all went through several rounds of reforms to keep them available for future generations. RomneyCare and the associated legislation will be the same.
Just look at the per state tests that are being run as small incubators of potential savings. Arkansas is buying private free market health insurance regulated by their state for the poorest while others are experimenting with various levels of single payer. Arkansas could prove that a well regulated completely private healthcare system is the best available option mirroring Switzerland. Others may prove that a hybrid model like France where the government covers the very basic care and everyone buys supplemental insurance for the "extras" protects R&D investment, encourages responsible healthcare spending, and gives us a control over the growth of future costs. It will all depend on the savings generated by the experiments.
Premium formulas favoring certain classes and having special privileges by gender are other problematic areas within the ACA.
The states that have refused Medicaid expansion have also caused considerable problems under the ACA. That has left millions of the poorest and most vulnerable without healthcare over ideology.
Why is there only a premium surcharge for smokers, but not for the overweight or obese eating McDonald's four times per week?
It is politically impossible. We're there for smoking, but we're not there for obesity. We live in a Republic so everyone who wants to get rid of the guy fat shaming them will vote against that candidate next term. The UK is starting to tackle the issue so it won't be long.
Why are men required to carry insurance which covers hundreds of kinds of birth control for "free" when they're neither the user nor a woman (who is paying her own premium)?
Birth control saves far more money than it costs. Pregnancy, maternity, and the related costs are very steep. Unintentional/unplanned pregnancies are sometimes more complicated with the mother in less than ideal health, not at a "good place" financially, or similar circumstances indirectly causing more potential complications/expensive medical issues. It is in the insurance companies' best financial interests to minimize costs via this and other cost saving measures.
It's a slow-boil approach by Democrats in their push for European-style welfare.
That is a bit of a stretch with Switzerland having a completely private, but highly regulated system. The profit margins for insurance providers are capped, the doctors must justify tests, procedures, and so on as medically necessary or personally reimburse insurance for the costs, and citizens are expected to carry coverage as a matter of living there. The Arkansas experiment where they are buying private free market coverage for their poorest is generating interesting results. We'll see how it goes.