Reply #112: You are still wrong even if we accept your incorrect position that there are alternatives.

[BzaDem]

The standard for necessary and proper is extremely broad. It is certainly not "absolutely necessary." Once Congress articulates a constitutionally-permitted end (such as community rating/pre-existing conditions), the mandate only has to be rationally related to that end. That's it. There could be 10 other alternatives (even though there aren't), and it STILL wouldn't matter. The law would be upheld.

Unfortunately, people are jumping from the conclusion that they don't like the mandate to the mandate being unconstitutional. Even though the case law says the exact opposite. From McCulloch vs. Maryland in the early 1800s to United States vs. Comstock just last year, Congress can enact whatever means it wants so long as they are rationally related to any law passed under its enumerated powers (such as the pre-existing clause). Both anti-mandate district court opinions so far have sidestepped the issue (since it was quite inconvenient for their side). If the Supreme Court were to throw out the mandate, it would involve overruling 200 years of necessary-and-proper clause precedent.