Reply #153: "The fact that a literal purchase mandate wasn't at issue there is quite irrelevant."

[coti]

No, that's entirely relevant. Forcing those who don't have health insurance to buy it is the most relevant aspect of the issue, in fact.

Actually, it's so relevant that Congress passed a law forcing those who haven't purchased insurance to do so. It's the whole damned thing.


With your argument, you're trying to bring nearly every single American who has made the financial choice not to buy health insurance- every American who has chosen NOT to engage in commerce in the area being regulated- under the umbrella of the Commerce Clause, portraying them as being engaged in interstate commerce, by comparing them to a farmer who WAS directly involved in the agricultural good being regulated in the Wickard case.

That Congress regulated wheat. Filburn was growing wheat, though (purportedly) not selling it. It was a stretch for the court- and they knew it that was the edge of the jurisprudence they were creating- but he was involved in the wheat business and they decided he was subject to those regulations too (i.e., in addition to all of the other farmers, those who were selling wheat, who were already subject to the regulation).

They did NOT take someone who previously had NOTHING TO DO WITH WHEAT and FORCE THEM TO BUY WHEAT because they decided to impose some weak regulations on wheat and the person's lack of previous wholesale wheat purchases was not doing the economy well.

THAT would be the analogous situation to be used as comparable precedent under the Commerce Clause.

Your case gives basis for mandating no PURCHASES, CERTAINLY not by nearly every single American. Nor is it applicable to people who are not engaged in any business with health insurance companies and pay for whatever healthcare they receive out of their pocket.