For your first paragraph, I think you're mistating the purpose (although not necessarily the effect). The argument here isn't that the government is forcing you into economic activity in order to regulate that economic activity, it's that economic activity is essentially already happening (the distribution of health care costs from the uninsured consumer to the hospital), and that these regulations are merely extending regulation to this hitherto unregulated arena. I would find your arguments more persuasive if this was about a purely optional activity, but because every American who does not live and die as a hermit in the woods will someday need some form of health care (and the longer it is postponed, the more likely it will result in an expensive visit to the ER), it is harder for me to believe that regulations can not extend to this economic activity.

Admittedly, it's not completely clear-cut either, but I find the fact that this is a necessary which has to be paid for by somebody to be persuasive.

As for your second paragraph, I hadn't heard that only "recognized religions" were exempted. I always thought the test was merely sincerity, weighed against how targeted the law was written. If there is a recognized religion clause, I also have to wonder why it hasn't been brought up yet.

It's not written as a tax penalty because the drafters didn't want to pay the political price of raising taxes. It's a cowardly way to go about it, I agree, but in substance I see it as being about the same as being fined for not filing your income taxes on time (another fine for not doing something). Or am I misunderstanding something? If this law had a few lines rewritten to openly (rather than surreptitiously) state that failure to comply results in a tax penalty, would there be any doubt about the constitutionality?

I am curious, though, to find out why exactly even private hospitals can be forced to treat anyone who comes through their doors. I have no doubt it's been litigated.

—In the case of an individual who is seeking an exemption certificate under section 1311(d)(4)(H) from any requirement or penalty imposed by section 5000A, the following information:

In the case of an individual seeking exemption based on the individual’s status as a member of an exempt religious sect or division, as a member of a health care sharing ministry, as an Indian, or as an individual eligible for a hardship exemption, such information as the Secretary shall prescribe.”

I suspect it hasn't been brought up because this is typically the ACLU's area of activity, and the ACLU is largely comprised of leftists who are all for this law. To be fair, though, it could also be an issue of prematurity. Lawsuits generally aren't filed over a law until someone is impacted. So, in this case, if someone is denied an exemption, then you'll see the lawsuits start flying.

Anyway, my prediction is 6-3 in favor of the law, with Kennedy and Scalia joining the four lockstep leftards.

That sounds similar to the language already in the Tax Code. I'll have to do some research, but I suspect this language is merely extending the self-employed exemption for Social Security and Medicare taxes for those faiths who are religiously opposed to accepting payments for death/disability etc. It's been in the books for years.

Here's a few cases regarding religious exemptions for taxation and the like. I think the conscientious objection issue is most pertinent, and that ended up with all conscientious objectors being able to opt out of the draft without regards to their religion or lack thereof. Simply put, the government has no business deciding which religions can opt out of anything and which can't - or that you even have to be religious in order to opt out.

Thanks for the resources! As an aside, I love Justia. I do broadly agree with your final sentiment here, though. All or nothing seems to be the most fair way to go about things.

Again, i'd say yes, afterall, they aren't regulating something that's already happening in the economy. 

Afterall, if someone stays health for 10 years then gets health insurance. (Which is  more often then not with younger people) they are not doing anything in regards to the system, but forced into it by the law.

It essentially set the precedent that by existing... people are effecting the economy, therefore there the government can regulate anything they do.

That's far too broad a reading. It's more like "a person is inevitably going to need healthcare. Healthcare costs money. Monetary activities are prone to federal regulation. If the person does not have the money to pay for his own healthcare, that cost is borne by other parties. Therefore, the government may either require you to get health insurance in order to deal with your own inevitable costs, or issue a monetary penalty on you in order to pay for your own inevitable costs."

This isn't like 99.999% of activities a person can do. It's not completely clear-cut, but I can see the distinction.

Well first off....

A) Does a person inevitably need healthcare?  There are lots of people who live in the US who use/ don't need modern healthcare.

B)  Does the person inevitably need healthcare NOW.  Again, MOST people don't need healthcare until there 40's or 50's.  You are forcing people to pay for a service they probably won't need for years to come.  Well, most people don't even need it then truth be told.

C) The whole point healthcare can exist is because... on average the costs are MORE then inevitably paid for.  More people DON'T need health insurance then do... until they hit Medicare.  The fact that insurance companies turn a profit completely defeats the arguement that most people NEED the insurance.  Since if that was the case, no profit would be turned.

Consider healthcare companies turn a profit... and yet 25% of all medical costs come from 1% of the population.  It's a hard arguement to make that individually people need healthcare insurance to invariably pay for the services they need.  In reality it's a very small bunch that requires health insurance.

D) Probably not constitutionally relevent, but I don't think you've thought out the monetary penalty.  It's not for people to pay for their own inevitable costs.  Afterall, if they can't pay for treatment because they didn't buy health insurance.... they aren't going to be able to pay for the penalty.

This is going to be increasingly be the case as you will no longer be able to charge people more for being high risk... and it's in fact, kinda the whole point of the healthcare bill.  Those who are healthy and don't need healthcare insurance will be subsidizing it for those who do.  Essentially paying for something they probably WON'T need.

E) Lets extend this further then... well food is one... but there is another thing.   Money.  We inevitably need money... afterall if you argue we inevitably need healthcare, we inevitably need money to PURCHASE healthcare right?  And if we can't, the government provides us with taxbreaks and vouches and programs essentially paying for our healthcare... with their own money.

Since we earn money through work.  It seems like (not that i think the government would ever actually do it... well any time soon) your legal preceidence gives the government the right regulate where people work, and force everybody to take jobs.

Will, or has, Elana Kagan recused herself from this case? I remember there being a lot of hubbub about her doing so.

This is an amazing case on the limitation of government power.

To an outsider, the federal government looks de facto unlimited, the constitution isn't followed at all. If this case rules in favour that will just cement that; almost any activity the government is making you do or not do affects the economy so will be allowable under that clause. If not there we will see a lot of similar cases challenging government's power to regulate in many aspects of society.