Forcing you to buy something from someone else is not "intervening in a market," shit face.
Judge Moon disagrees:
The imposition of assessments is a legitimate means of regulating commerce, and "f regulation is the primary purpose of a statute, revenue raised under the statute will be considered a fee rather than a tax." South Carolina ex rel. Tindal V. Block, 717 F.2d 874, 887 (4th Cir. 1983) (exaction on commercially-sold milk not a tax); see also Rodgers v. United States, 138 F.2d 992, 994 (6th Cir. 1943) (cotton marketing quotas not a tax); United States v. Stangland, 242 F.2d 843, 848 (7th Cir. 1957) (wheat marketing quotas not a tax).
None of those other people are proposing individual mandates.
Ryan and Coburn propose auto-enrolling people who lack insurance into plans inside the health insurance exchanges created by their bills. Can the government place you into a default private plan?
But you will be fined for not doing so, or having a car of equal standards.
There are already fines for not meeting CAFE standards. Those fines are on companies, not individuals, but then again in their attack on the ACA Liberty argued against the employer/corporate penalties on the same grounds as they opposed the individual mandate.
What are they going to do with the people that can't affrord insurance but make to much for the free ins?
Give them refundable tax credits (provided their income is below 400% of the federal poverty line) to help them pay their premiums--that's where half the price of the legislation comes from. People without affordable options (that is, if their required contribution for the cheapest plan in their area exceeds 8% of their income) are not required to buy insurance.