There is so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to start. I'll touch on just one element:

A common trick by socialists in government is to avoid the controversy of having the government provide a universal service by forcing the private sector, under pain of imprisonment and fines, to provide it for them. This is one of the most rotten gimmicks in the "mixed economy."

The politicians hope, usually correctly, that most people will ignore the crippling burdens on businesses and huge economic distortions in the private sector and concentrate on the fact that "tax money" isn't being used for it.

It goes without saying that certain private businesses, which wouldn't know capitalism if it bit them in the ass, are delighted with the prospect of businesses being forced to buy their products at gunpoint, not to mention the possibility of tax money flowing into their coffers. How much money does Blue Shield stand to make on this scheme?

That such a plan would cut the throats of many small businesses--you know, the ones that don't dump lobbyists and contributions into Washington--seems to bother nobody. Nobody will care if a few thousand twenty-person businesses have to close their doors. The Big Boys, who already provide benefits, will notice very little impact. The national economy will be crushed under yet another socialist albatross.

This kind of thing is common. Concern for the "small businessman" is largely phony. I remember when the California environmentalists demanded that every gas station in California...problems or not...rebuild their tank systems at ruinous cost to new specs. Shell, Mobil, and the rest of the large companies paid for it out of petty cash. Locally owned stations closed down, or were forced to sell out to the big oil companies. Nobody in Sacramento cared. These local stations had no clout, and spent no money in Sacramento. Sure as hell the big oil companies do.