In United States vs Reynolds, the SCOTUS ruled that coercing citizens to enter into a contract (which is what health insurance is) violated the 13th Amendment by creating a “wheel of servitude”.
That's why they fashioned this "healthcare" bill as a tax bill - under tax law, agreement to contractual tax obligations and their associated waiver of rights are presumed by the court.
That's why, for example, you can't claim the 5th to protect yourself against producing evidence against yourself - the court "presumes" that you've freely and knowingly waived your 5th Amendment right, and traded it in for a 5th Amendment privilege that can be limited at the pleasure of the court, solely so that you can enjoy the privilege of being taxed without rights (no joke - that's the actual government assertion and the courts legal presumption).
It's the same for any rights - including those specified by the 13th. Under tax law, they are presumed to be surrendered in favor of privileges limited at the pleasure of the court (which inevitably means "gone").
That sounds right. Taking up the power to force individuals to purchase a product or participate in any endeavor, at least to me, constitutes OWNERSHIP of the individual. Especially if fines and/or incarceration ensue. Otherwise, the individual may simply say, no thanks. It says that the federal government has absolute authority over the individual person, i.e., the total revocation of liberty.
So, clearly it creates a relationship of servitude between the citizen and the government.