The relationship between your neighbors and you is a matter solely between them and you. The government should not interfere. So, if for example your neighbor were to choose to rob your house, or murder a loved one, clearly, the government should not get involved.

When you're driving, that's a matter between you, your car, and perhaps the road. And your relationship with other drivers or pedestrians is solely up to you and them. You should all be able to do whatever you want and/or work out any disputes between each other as they come up. Laws would be pesky and just be government interference.

And by the way, as to your point about disrupting your insurance for reasons not relevant to your treatment. That's a big whoosh that misses the point of the ACA. The whole core point of the ACA was in reaction to private insurance companies which would deny or drop people who were seriously sick. Thus, effectively denying treatment, or forcing them to rely on rush-to-emergency-room treatment, rather than cheaper and less stressful preventative care, or experience catastrophic costs, which then either bankrupt them and/or get passed on to all other taxpayers and customers, against those others parties wishes, anyway. Making sure more people get more and better treatment, more consistently, is the whole point of the ACA. It's not perfect, nobody claims that. But it has a heck of a lot of objectively good elements which are pro-health.

Some industries do develop systemic defects, and it is appropriate for government to apply regulations to correct those. There is a vast difference between coming up with a regulation amounting to "you cannot drop coverage just because a case proves costly" or "you must accept pre-existing conditions for coverage-transferring customers by accepting them at exactly the same plan/cost as a current customer facing the same treatment costs", vs. taking over the entire industry and compelling a multitude of costly irrelevancies and disruptive non-sequiturs.

And you're missing a heck of a lot of objectively bad elements which are anti-health. The point of a discussion is to address both sides of the issue, not just loudly ignore the opposition's objections.

I have no qualms about using a program I was compelled to paid into, while considering I shouldn't have been compelled to pay into it and that I'm a prime example of what's wrong with the system. And yes, I've said "no" to comparable "here, take even more taxpayer money" programs.