The first URL seems to attack Obama's ad, which is accurate, except not really germane. My argument was that I didn't care for Clinton's mandates, not that I thought Obama's ads were perfect. As to your point:

So, I don't see how you could legally force companies to lose money. Are you expecting the government to make up the difference out of, say, the defense budget?

Both plans contain clauses that could be read as you stated. From Hillary:

Insurance companies won't be able to deny you coverage or drop you because their computer model says you're not worth it. They will have to offer and renew coverage to anyone who applies and pays their premium.

From Obama:

Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status.

Both policies result in people who would not be insured before due to high cost being insured now. That's legally forcing an insurance company to lose money.

But now onto the more salient point: adverse selection. The advised Google led me to the wiki, which states in the insurance section that "Whether examples of this sort apply in reality is an open question". Of course, wiki is about as reputable as scribbling on a bathroom wall. So let's look at what happens when mandates pass.

-All of those who would have gone without health insurance get insurance from some cut-throat "we'll give you a sticker that says your covered" company. The 1-800-SAFE-AUTO of the insurance agency (I'll call them 1-800-SAFE-BODY).
-At some point, the 1-800-SAFE-BODY clients get sick. Their health insurance is bare-bones minimal that doesn't cover the full cost of the expenses or puts prohibitive restrictions on it (only covered for the hospital on the other side of the state, for instance, which is an actual problem I have with my current student health insurance when I leave campus.)
-They switch into big insurance, let's say Blue Cross Blue Shield, paying a higher rate but getting coverage.
-They get better.
-They switch back to 1-800-SAFE-BODY.

It's still adverse selection. The only difference is that your bottom rung is slightly higher and you've propped up the lowest tier of insurance.

There are bits and pieces from both plans that I like (repealing the tax cuts to cap premiums from Hillary's plan, for instance). But, like I said, punishing people for not having health insurance is something that makes me instinctively recoil. If you want everyone, everywhere to have health insurance, you need to scrap the current system and go single-payer. Otherwise, all these half-measures attempting to prop up and mold our current system will always have fundamental flaws that leave people out.