And how is 'government' stopping that?
When it's functioning properly it isn't. It's necessary to protect it. It's when we expand the role of government beyond protecting freedom that we run into problems.
The primary function of government is to enforce conformity. Some of that is necessary to make a free society viable. Sometimes, everyone doing their own thing is intolerable, so we pass laws that require everyone to follow the same norms of behavior. But, if our goal is a free society, we must recognize that as a loss of freedom, and indulge it only when truly necessary.
When we enlist government to solve problems that we can otherwise solve ourselves, we're trading freedom for convenience and we should stop to ask ourselves whether it's truly worth it. When the consensus is very high, and the cost relatively low, it's often worth it to go for the convenience. (Even most ardent libertartians are ok with stop signs, for example, even though one might argue we could get by without them.) But when there is not a strong consensus, or the cost, either in loss of liberty or finances, is high, we should resist the urge to give up our freedom for expedience.
And whether you will admit or not, health care was screaming for government intervention.
The point is, a large portion of the nation won't "admit it". There is NOT wide consensus, and the price - both in terms of loss of freedom and tax dollars - is very high. Forcing such a change on society is an abuse of the social contract and bad government.