Mike's right, I didn't really intend for this to be a healthcare debate, but I thought I'd put in a quick word on that. moy has the insurance concept correct (more than a 2 cent comment BTW). Insurance for anything, at least conceptually, is designed to replace or repair something that you can't afford on your own. Most people cannot afford to replace their home or pay for liability for hurting others on their property. Same with auto replacement. When you buy an extended warranty on a product, you are essentially buying insurance (same exact method of funding and setting costs, complete with actuarial tables for projected losses). A generally sound fiscal rule is never insure anything you can afford to replace.
Prices for healthcare are not market-based, but are cost-based. What I mean by that is that providers set their rates based on their operating costs plus a margin for overhead and profit (as they should). There is upward price pressure based on many factors, such as research and development, salaries, regulations, malpractice insurance, taxes, and fixed pricing for Medicare/Medicaid (which is generally made up for with pricing for the "rest of us"). Since the end-user is not the actual customer, the end-user does not exert downward price pressure by being able to shop normally for the service like they do in other industries. Most end-users are captive to their employer-sponsored group plans and generally only see out-of-pocket costs, not true costs. Even then, the "shopping" of prices is secondary since the bulk of the cost is paid by the insurance company. Providers, who are increasingly worried about jackpot justice lawsuits, order many unnecessary procedures so they can cover their backsides to the best extent possible. All of these things drive prices up.
Much more to say about that, but since Obamacare mandates coverage, dictates pricing (to some extent) and regulates procedures, the providers and the customers cannot exert market forces on the industry. Since many providers will no longer be able to remain profitable accepting Medicare rates (and later, Obamacare rates), they will either no longer be doctors because it is not profitable, or they will simply refuse service to Medicare patients (as some are already doing) or Obamacare patients. If they are forced to accept that, there will ultimately be a provider shortage.
Insurance against healthcare emergencies is important, and I think would be more affordable with more competition, portability, and tort reform (I know they sound like right-wing talking points, but they make economic sense). For those that cannot afford this insurance, a safety net of some kind makes sense - something that already exists BTW in Medicaid and the fact that providers cannot deny service in an emergency regardless of ability to pay.
As far as tackling the problem up front, insurance providers can provide discounts to those who take certain healthy actions, like annual wellness checkups and screenings, etc. None of these are terribly cost prohibitive. They can be incentivized, but the end user/customer has to have a stake. Expecting everything to be "covered" or "free" only exacerbates the cost issue.
If I was undecided, Obamacare would be a major reason to vote against him. There are, however, many reasons why I'm voing for Romney....I'll get into later.