I'd like someone to correct me if I am wrong here, and explain to me exactly what the correct interpretation is. In order to compare "ObamaCare" to compelling people to eat broccoli, logically, one would have to use such an example as compelling a gay man (let's say who is married to another man) to buy insurance that is solely for the purpose of paying for expenses incurred due to a pregnancy. Otherwise, all those of sound mind know that they need to eat some kind of food, but not necessarily broccoli.
Though not exactly like food (since there may be one or two people out of a nation of 300 million who will never use the health care industry in any way), it seems close enough to say that yes, just as one needs food, one also needs basic health care (and it wasn't the bill's supporters who brought up the food example, but rather the detractors). Just about everyone wants food they consider good (and that they can afford), just as everyone wants quality health care that they can afford. Moreover, if someone decides that he will no longer eat food because he would rather save his money, that person might be institutionalized as an insane person (I don't know the legalities of that either), but clearly this has never been any kind of major social issue in human history (that I'm aware of).
Now when we move over to health care, what is the argument against compelling people who can afford it to buy health insurance? Though this is clearly not a very good analogy, considering how inexpensive food is in the USA relative to private health insurance, it seems to me to support ObamaCare rather than undermine it. I'm ready to dismiss it as the usual right wing idiocy, but we have Supreme Court justices using it, not just the Tea Party crowd (or is there hardly any difference?), and so I would like those who follow these things closely to weigh in here and tell me if I'm on the right track.