I hope this is one of those cases where your so angry you can't form a coherent arguement.

A) You fell back on to "These people not doing something effects comerce in aggregate" which is EXACTLY what the court said would allow for any commerce to be forced if made legal.

B) Negligence laws apply to actions.  And for not doing a regulation that is part of that action.

For example, if you are working as  a pilot and violet a federal negligence law by not checking a gauge... that is because you were a pilot.

If you were a passanger or just some guy on the street you don't get charged.

There is no federal negilgence law tied to no action whatsoever.

You're a citizen who's liable at some point to draw upon a medical expense that you can't afford out-of-pocket. You said before that health care isn't an inevitability, but it is, if only end-of-life care or something.

A refusal to do your civic duty is an action.

What if tommorrow it gets ruled unconstituional, someone is taken off their parents life insurance.  they have a heart attack in their room, and die.  Not to be discovered until hours later.

There would be no medical bills. 

What if you specifically decide to not go to a hosptial your whole life, like a Christian Scientist.

What if before "end of life care" you die in your sleep.

Or you move to a different country.

Or the Police find you murdered.

Or you go to jail.  (State pays for that afterall.)

Or you fly to a different country for your healthcare.  (Though everybody seems to come here for that.)

Or since your qualfier is "can't afford out of pocket" what if your bill gates.  Should he be exempt from this law?  Should only the poor be forced to get health insurance?

Your grasping at straws here.  Just admit that you want it to be ruled consitutional and would rather something be ruled constituional then isn't, that see something happen that you think would be a big negative for the country.  I mean, that's a position I can respect.

Right now your just running on cognitive dissonance.

My qualifier is that health care is an inevitability in the aggregate. You're citing stuff that doesn't apply for the vast majority of people to state why it isn't an inevitability, and if judges are ruling like that, then they're the ones clutching at straws, because that then violates the spirit of things by going after technicalities.

Yes i want it ruled constitutional, but I also believe that there's really no sound argument against it.

Inevitability means... not avoiadable.

The fact that it is avoidable for some people,(or really anyone who chooses to not have healthcare or go elsewhere) means it's not an inevitability, and therefore not inevitable.

Your arguement is that at some point, everbody will use healthcare.  When in fact, some people will never use healthcare.

Though, lets have a thought expierment for a moment and say that probability = inevitability.

Regardless... this is your sole claim that your clinging too, since the rest have been disproven and you've neglected to argue the points past that.

Which means, that if ruled constituional, it means ANY "inevitable" purchase can be regulated by congress to force purchases.

Which again, brings us back to the Supreme Court question.

Food is more of an inevitable purchase then healthcare.   Therefore the government can enforce what we eat.

Or hell, you can enforce what we eat under the healthcare mandate afterall.  Peoples health problems would be less problematic if they ate healthy afterall.  So why not force eveyrone to eat very strict specific diets or pay fines.

It will lower their "inevitable" costs down the line.

This is not a slippery slope arguement, because there is no slope.  It's the exact same situation since we've already ruled out "no other way to regulate it" since there is.

You can argue the government wouldn't do that, but it doesn't change the fact that they would now have the power to... do you see that as consitutional?

This is now simply a situation where we take the exact same kind of thing but replace it with something you aren't emotionally invested in since we've already factually proven the other things aren't relevent.

I'm not sure I understand this love of the NHS.

Who do you think is funding the NHS? It's not taken out of the Queen's investments, or out of the pockets of the Lords, it's funded by the taxpayer. It is really no different to buying insurance yourself. The only difference is that your insurance goes to the government rather than a private company.

It's certainly better than America's system, but it is by no means perfect.

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.

But all are enrolled in NHS regardless of economic means and the NHS can't reject your enrollment because of pre-existing conditions, nor can they declare "oops, you've used too much coverage. Good luck now!"

This is the kind of predatory profit-mongering that has no place in matters of human wellness, thus making any universal system inherently better than the American system.

Really, the only perfect solution is a free market of companies that don't try to screw you over, and who compete for prices and quality of service.

But I suppose that's never happening

Seriously, though, how does the USA spend so much on healthcare? It spends more as a percentage of GDP than the UK does, and we have a single-payer system.

Except it isn't....

individual people who don't buy health insurance drive up the costs of healthcare in individual companies which in turn effects companies..

If a solo man doesn't pay his hosptial bill at Mercy General... that only effects Mercy General.

If you want to argue aggregate. 

EVERY market works that way.

Individual peole not buying certain food products inavariably drive up the prices of different companies food prices in aggregate... raising the prices.

If half the people who buy cars now decide not too...  they would drive up the prices of all the car companies in aggregate... raising the prices

Your trying to cobble together a bunch of arguements with holes in them and create a circle of justification that doesn't actually have a point that doesn't have a huge gaping hole in it.

Well, unless you think it's constituional for congress pass laws saying everything we can do.