Well, yeah. I'm just saying, that argument is no more or less credible to me than the White House's counter-argument, that the risk you assume by not having health insurance affects all other health consumers. If I refuse to buy a car, the cost of cars doesn't necessarily go up for everyone else. If I refuse to buy health insurance and get into a horrible wreck, you end up paying more for your healthcare to cover my nonpayment. That's the argument.
Theoretically that's only because of the law you mentioned that mandates it. An alternative would be to repeal that law, instead of passing what most think the court is going to find is an unconstitutional mandate.