Assuming you are against the 'individual mandate' clause, would you support it if it were instead passed as an Amendment to the constitution?
My issue with most liberal-based legislation is that it continues to change the interpretation of the words in the constitution to allow for such legislation. The more we change the meaning of clauses, the less important those clauses become (and eventually, anything can be done under the clauses which render them useless). We once thought it necessary to amend the constitution to abolish alcohol. Now look what we get away with!
I'm a constitutionalist. Which does not imply that I don't want to amend it or even that I don't want a bigger government necessarily. But if you don't have 2/3's approval in Congress and 75% of the states ratifying an increase of powers, than such an increase is not appropriate.
I'm personally on the fence about an individual mandate clause, depending on what it says exactly. But I'm absolutely against such a law without a constitutional amendment.