Nope, it's not. In a free society, it is up to the individual to provide for himself. It is up to society (government) to insure that no one intrudes upon his/her right to do so.
It is not up to the government to force an employer to provide a type of insurance (tax) that will provide inferior health care to all. It is not up to the State to "subsidize personal responsibility.... promote responsibility and insure the taxpayer that those who can pay, will." That is, unless you are a socialist.
God put you here. The rest is up to you. However I believe that charity is a very, very good thing. True hands-on charity, not 'government mandated - hands in your pocket' charity, teaches humility, thrift, and hard work. Real charity provides benefits to the giver and the reciever. Government theft provides no benefits.
You, like so many others on this thread do not see the bill for what it is but rather are focusing on only one aspect. That is the provision for a minimum level of insurance paid by the individual. The bill's intent, as it was discussed in the local media for several years, is to promote responsible behavior by those who by all accounts are rich and do not presently buy insurance. It is also a tool used to establish identity with respect to the tax law when one seeks treatment. There is a huge underground economy in Massachusetts and there is a growing demand for health care for those who have no insurance. Something is wrong, and this apparently is an attempt to fix it.