You can play semantics all you want, but that doesn't mean you answered the question.

Governments provide services. Services, as you've pointed out, are not free. Unless you want to claim that governments shouldn't exist at all, at some point you have to admit that taxes are required, as the services that the government provides are often not the type of services that are payment-for-services-rendered based. ("Hello, Mr. Government Man? I was calling to find out how much it would cost to repel the foreign hordes storming my village.")

It is perfectly reasonable to make the argument that there are limits on the services that the government should and can provide, as, at some point, there is a breakdown of the cost benefit. For example, I don't think that the government should provide free dirigibles to all US citizens when they pass the age of thirteen. There is no societal benefit.

My question to you is: what is the point at which governments should stop providing services, and how did you reach that conclusion? I mean, you want people to accept personal responsibility, which is a sentiment that I can agree with. But I think that we have a difference of opinion on what people should be required to take responsibility for. For example, to the heart of the current matter, I don't think that it's a person's fault if they develop spongiform encephalopathy. You might argue that they should have been more careful about the beef that they chose to eat, and that FDA regulations on the sale of diseased cows shouldn't exist.

On the other side of the coin, assume someone who is poor. Sometimes this is their fault, oftentimes it is not. If they develop idiopathic cancer, and are unable to pay for treatment, what do you think should happen to them? Should they be allowed to suffer and die, or should someone take care of them? Lots of libertarians claim that charity should be the answer to that question, but there's no restriction on charity now, and people still die of treatable diseases all the time. (I know, I know: if only we weren't taxed so heavily, charity would step up to the plate. Horse pucky.) Anyway, if you agree that these people should not be simply allowed to die, then you have to admit that the government is the one that is ultimately going to take responsibility for them. No profit-based organization is going to systematically eat costs for some random person they have no relationship to. After all, insurance companies regularly find ways to get rid of their clients when they start costing too much. Why would they be more generous toward someone who never paid them a dime? Assuming that the government is going to end up being stuck with the bill in one way or another, wouldn't it make sense to try to reduce the costs associated with that service? And wouldn't one of the ways to do that be to make sure that those people have access to preventative services and lower-cost medications?

I guess, ultimately, what I'm saying is that not only is the newly mandated and subsidized health insurance beneficial to the currently uninsured individuals, it's also beneficial to society, and probably beneficial to each individual through what is likely to be lower taxes.

I understand that you have this idealist notion that every man should take care of himself and deal with the consequences of not doing so. This would be great, if not for the fact that all of us need someone else's help at some point. If you don't want to be part of this society, fine. But if you don't want to pay the costs, don't take any of the benefits, either. Don't drive on my roads, don't call the police when someone is breaking into your home, and don't expect me to protect you from invaders.