You're framing this within the Constitution and the culture that derives from it, which is a good starting point, especially in contrast with Europe. But the merit and necessity of this act reside in the fact that it goes beyond the Constitutional framework, because the current reality exceeds it too. The Constitution (or rather the Bill of Rights) sets the US apart from other nations because its aim is to limit the government. It correctly identified the Government as a threat to freedom. The problem is that as of today and probably since the mid 20th century, we're way past that starting situation because we (as in "we" the West) have gone full Corporatist State regime, a.k.a. fascism. Not in the Russian propaganda sense of "fascist", but in a very literal definition of it: a mixed system in which property rights exist on paper, but only as long as private actors follow the directives of the central planners and contribute to the ideological goals that they dictate. In the specific case of the US, the health insurance financial sector is one of the cornerstones of this Corporate State, but because the Constitution did not foresee the rise of this hybrid system, and on paper its a private sector, it has carte blanche to operate and individuals and their freedoms are not protected in front of it as much as they are in front of the public sector (which isn't much to begin with anyway). So an act outside the Constitutional framework is granted and just. If you're afraid of the consequences of what is an obvious act of self defense against a tyrannical actor just because it happens to operate from behind the facade of the "private" sector of what really is just another leg of the State, then your support for the 2A as a means to protect the 1A or any other form of private property rights in front of "the government" is completely performative -- if it ever came a time when it was a "public" actor who infringed upon your rights, you wouldn't act either.