>>>stating something is a right, and then penalizing someone for choosing not to opt out of the "right" as defined by the government.
>
>Rights usually come with responsibilities. In this case, Mitt expressed it best when he said that people who could pay but choose not to, should not be allowed to freeload.

I actually agree with you.

And by the way, you've just identified (aside from more specific accounting/payment scenarios) why "RomneyCare" is fundamentally different than AHCA.

The former said (in essence), "join this and you'll get a small tax credit. But don't join in and try to freeload, and the free ride is over". While that doesn't exactly align with pure libertarian economics, there are elements of "sane and sensible" in the program.

The latter says, "You have to join this or you're penalized"....even if the person is young and healthy and has no pre-existings and statistically unlikely to need a doctor. Much more dictatorial.

I'm paraphrasing, but that is the essence of the two.