Sorry, Kathy. Interstate commerce is that. Not multi-state commerce, and certainly not individual commerce. You cannot justify innumerable federal laws and regulations over every detail of our individual and private lives by referring to the “interstate commerce” clause (as both gun controllers and law-and-order anti-gun-crime-related conservatives in Washington have long wanted to do), with the derisible basis that such acts or behaviors are part of the “national economy.” Simply counting scores of rulings that go your way (whether or not you neglect or omit rulings that don't) doesn't change this.

So you want me to support the assertion that mandatory health insurance is part of interstate commerce w/o referring to the interstate commerce clause?

I did not cite rulings that went my way; I cited entire web sites with a wide variety of relevant information both supportive of and non-supportive of my point. That said, the fact is that in the past half century, courts *have* used a broader definition of “interstate commerce” than in the years prior to the last half century, and those rulings are good law. Until and unless they are overruled, they will continue to be.

Sorry, Kathy.  Interstate commerce is that.  Not multi-state commerce, and certainly not individual commerce.  You cannot justify innumerable federal laws and regulations over every detail of our individual and private lives by referring to the “interstate commerce” clause (as both gun controllers and law-and-order anti-gun-crime-related conservatives in Washington have long wanted to do), with the derisible basis that such acts or behaviors are part of the “national economy.”  Simply counting scores of rulings that go your way (whether or not you neglect or omit rulings that don't) doesn't change this.

You'd be on firmer ground (particularly logically and factually) if you approached the issue from the standpoint of federal citizenship and what laws the federal government may pass on that basis.  (Related in a logical light is the obvious need for compulsory community participation for any universalist scheme to function better economically, which would be stronger still were “community rating” reform made law.)

Steve, glad to see you finally getting with the program!..

I couldn't have said it better, thanks.

The other thing is because of the way it's been framed it may be found unconstitutional. It's not something that can be decided one way or another until it gets to the SC and anyone who thinks there isn't an argument is stupid or lying. After all who really thought abortions were a privacy violation? If this is found to be unconstitutional it would be hoisting big govt on it's own petard, perhaps making huge changes in the way the govt runs…………. interesting idea

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause

http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2009/08/i…

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/21/taking_…

http://www.healthreformwatch.com/author/mark-hall/

However, what's also true, [scowl]

“If it did become an issue, all the feds would have to do is use the old extortion standby and simply pass a law denying federal medicaid or other funding to any state that did not, itself, pass a mandate…”

Of course. Unfunded, too, probably, given the sordid record of the federal (and state and local) government in this light. Or when funded, with lots of strings attached and a huge recycling fee.

If it did become an issue, all the feds would have to do is use the old extortion standby and simply pass a law denying federal medicaid or other funding to any state that did not, itself, pass a mandate. Just like the drinking age, federal speed limit and similar measures, the States would be forced into it or face financial ruin as they are all dependent on the federal trough. The reality is that States have very little de facto power because of their financial dependency to the federal government which is made all the worse because the feds can deficit spend (and have nearly continuously for almost half a century) while the States cannot.

Sadly, this debate on constitutionality is completely irrelevant.

Prevent state restrictions on trade? What the hell are you talking about?

Thus, the original purpose of the commerce clause was primarily a means to eliminate trade barriers among the states.http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/03/abuse.html

Talk about Change [tm]…

What do you mean by “regular” in that context.

Regulate originally meant making things regular, that is, even across the board. How can you include a mandate in as part of the power to prevent state restrictions on trade?

And I don't know what you mean by “making interstate commerce regular.” What do you mean by “regular” in that context.

This, I can understand — although I have to add that the idea of becoming sick or even possibly dying because of being exposed to someone else's illness that wasn't diagnosed or treated for lack of health insurance makes ME *quite* uncomfortable.