The soundest point of your argument here is that the government has the option of trying the public option, but the thing that keeps the mandate limited from a judicial perspective is the fact that this is the only market whereby not purchasing something adversely effects the whole market, being practically the same as an action, and then we move into the fact that this is the only market where the government forcing someone to buy a product is "essential" to the government's ability to regulate the market effectively, due to the nature of the free market.
The non-essentialness comes in the fact that yes, there are other ways they could regulate the market, but it should not be the court's purview to consider the legislation that could be, but rather the legislation that is.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
