Universal Healthcare IE "Obamacare". Why Not???

This week the United States Supreme Court will be hearing arguments for and against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) aka "Obamacare" that was passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by President Obama in March of 2010. Side note- I had to look up the origin of the term "Obamacare". It has been used by the right in such a derogatory way and now by people in general when referring to universal health care. In turns out that in March of 2007 a lobbyist used several similar terms in a health care article-"Giuliani-care", "Edwards-care", "McCain-care" and a revamped "Hilary-care" etc. Mitt Romney later described "Hilary-care" and "Obama-care" as socialized medicine. President Obama and Democrats are now trying to "take back the word"  by saying "Yes, Obama Cares". Lol! The point is, why has this idea been met with such criticism? Recent polls show that as many as 60% of Americans are against the "individual mandate" part of the law that requires everyone to pay for and acquire health insurance if not provided by their employer or face a penalty. 26 states have filed lawsuits against the law calling it unconstitutional.
I will not pretend that I have read every page of the PPACA and some of what I have read, I do not understand. I do know that from personal experience, I was shouting from the rooftops that insurance companies cannot deny coverage based on preexisting conditions. Isn't it the sick and disabled that need insurance the most? But what I am most confused about comes from those opposed to "big government" stating that the government should not be able to tell us that we must have health insurance.
But the government has told us that we must do a lot of things and buy a lot of things that people do not seem to be opposed to. For instance,
1) Children are required to go to school. This may be public, private or at home but every child must attend school or parents can be arrested. Well what if parents don't believe in school and would prefer to raise their children without any knowledge and unable to read or write? Hmm, that would be detrimental to society on a whole so it wouldn't be a good idea.
2) Everyone is required to have automobile insurance. Even if you are the safest driver in the history of driving and you have never been in a car accident, you must spend hundreds or thousands of dollars every year for car insurance. Some states have minimums that you must purchase for collision, bodily injury etc. But why? Isn't this wasted money since you don't plan to ever be in an accident? Well, since there is no guarantee that you wont cause or be involved in an accident, you must purchase it or face penalties or arrest. And what about wearing seat belts? Should you be forced to wear one or get a ticket? Why? You will probably only harm yourself if you are in an accident and get thrown the car so why should it matter to anyone else and be made into a law?
3)Home insurance. You are required by your mortgage dealer/banks to have home insurance. Why? What if you plan to take good care of your home therefore nothing bad would ever cause damage to it? And what if you do not live in a hurricane, tornado, mudslide or earthquake area? Why should you have to spend money you may not have paying a home insurance bill every month just in case something happens? I lived in a townhouse on a small lake that had no history of  flooding but I was required to purchase and have flood insurance. It made no sense to me but it was the law.
So now back to universal health care. You could be the healthiest person in your family or state, get a clean bill of health from your doctor, walk out of the doctor's office and be hit by a car. Sad but true. You are then rushed to the hospital and require emergency surgery and a long hospitalization to save your life but you have no health insurance. Who pays for it? Those that DO have health insurance.
Being in the health care industry, everyday I see the drain uninsured "self pay" patients put on the system. Those that have health insurance often pay higher premiums in order to cover the expenses of those that do not. Or, the hospitals and clinics eat up the cost and stay in the red for providing services to those that do not have health insurance.
At the heart of the matter is whether Congress, protected by the Constitution, can regulate "interstate commerce" by enforcing an individual mandate requiring everyone to have minimal health insurance coverage. Again, if it is not covered by your employer, medicaid or medicare, you will have to purchase it. There are subsidies that would be in place to help with such costs and a max that individuals and families would have to spend. Of course both sides have credible arguments for and against the individual mandate but from what I have read, since individuals not having insurance in any state can affect the national economy, I say the government has every right to pass such a law.
In conclusion, I feel the more people learn about the benefits of universal health care and the full details of the PPACA, the term "Obamacare" will elicit much less fear. For more information go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
Also, although Michael Moore's views are far more liberal than mine, I thought his documentary "Sicko" was very informative. Why should prisoners and detainees at Guantanamo Bay be the only ones in this country that have universal health care with medical, dental and visual coverage? To make it worst, they get it for free. But for those that can afford it, let us all contribute to and lessen the costs of health care by all of us having health insurance.
The Supreme Court will render a decision by June. Will the majority say yeah or nay?
Thoughts?