Also it falls apart at "There are other constitutional legislative ways to accomplish the goal."
You say you think that shouldn't be considered... when it's the entire basis of your argument.
Of course it should be considered.
"There is no other way to do this... well there is but we didn't write it that way therefore approve it this way" is just... a hugely stupid claim.
Well that and
"Congress is guranteed to "keep the markets how they want" when the regulate something."
That basically gives congress the power to do anything they want to equaliberate markets that they change by their own actions.
That they want to force everyone to be covered, and that it will rapidly raise the prices everywhere... is a result of their law.
Not the market... nor any special circumstance of the market. Where in the constitution or the commerce clause does it say congress has the right to have any regulation have the exact desired outcomes, through whatever means, no matter how unconstituional.
What if congress passes a law that says everybody who wants food must be sold it, even if they don't have the money to pay?
