honestly don't know interstate commerce well enough to say either way. do know that the law has been consistently extremely broad (to the point where civil rights cases were being argued - and won - on the basis of it) so i'll go with 'probably is' due to how convoluted a system insurance is more than anything else. the forcing your action with a private company is the gripe, however that just strikes me as an extension of 'it's easier and more efficient than if the government were to actively run this ourselves.' but if everyone has access to a hospital and the hospitals must accept them, then healthcare being forced coverage seems like a reasonable step to take since the cost has to come from somewhere and this keeps them ultimately lower than they otherwise would be. 'sides, it strikes me as kinda silly when it being a tax and then the government outsourcing the money from it into insurance would be perfectly fine.... just likely also more inefficient with less active control on the user's end. just one of those 'it's more beneficial than most alternatives so uh...'
--
The King Wang.
Listen up Urinal Cake. I already have something that tells me if I'm too drunk when I pee on it: My friends. - Colbert.