What is it about the federal gov’t requiring this compared to state or local government that makes it dangerous by setting a precedent that would lead to the federal government abusing its power? States have been allowed to do it with education. Why is it okay for states and localities to do it, but not the federal government?

This doesn’t seem to be a question of federalism. Health reform opponents aren’t arguing they want this to be a state’s right issue because they believe it allows the federal government too much power. They hate the model, and don’t want it as pervasive.

So now I ask what is it about a requirement of purchasing a consumer product that makes it any more or less regulation of interstate commerce? If you accept that interstate commerce regulation has been stretched, and you’re okay with it being stretched in some cases as I’ve shown it was used before, how would this be less constitutional?

For instance, drinking ages. I think almost everywhere in the country is 21. That is not because the federal gov’t mandates it, but rather they swayed state gov’ts to make it that age using federal highway funds (i.e. if you don’t make it 21 we aren’t building roads in your state). If the fed gov’t tried to make a national drinking age they might be struck down by a federal court.

All I am really saying that this is the first time that the Federal gov’t is mandating a purchase of a consumer product, and no one can really provide a straight answer as to its constitutionality because it is a case of first impression.

On the question of punishment for inactivity, there are precedents around, much more so by state and local governments, but again, if these laws were unconstitutional according to the US constitution, they’re just as unconstitutional as a federal law, and most opponents of health care reform are usually not genuinely saying only state and local governments should be able to do this instead of the federal government. Examples:

You are compelled to ensure your legal underage dependents an education that meets states’ guidelines.

You are compelled to keep your property up to regulatory code.

You are compelled to complete a draft card, and serve in the military if called.

Finally, you are correct it is a natural thing for people to bring in their personal political beliefs about specific issues into constitutional arguments, but that’s precisely why most people aren’t particularly good at understanding constitutional law and often what the implications are when they believe a particular way about a particular issue. Deeming something unconstitutional has far more implications than simply on that particular issue.

“Since people may seek health care while crossing state lines, or the health care industry is composed of companies in various portions of the whole system that operate in multiple states, regulation of interstate commerce is stretched to include this.”

Will be the counterargument, and at the same time I get that federal regulation already prohibits interstate health care insurance companies…but punishing for inactivity based on those arguments seem questionable.

As far discussing constitutionality and applying personal political views – it kind of seems natural because you already have a gut feeling (which is based at least in part in your education on the subject and in another part political beliefs) as to what is and isn’t constitutional so to apply your personal views seems natural.