The only hole is that the individual mandate is necessary to enable companies to not deny coverage without having to hike prices through the roof, which is where the circular logic comes from, and inevitably morals are injected into the equation. In order to preserve the market as it stands, and to amend it in this manner (and none would argue that forcing companies to not deny business to certain individuals based on circumstances these individuals cannot control isn't the purview of the government), then the individual mandate is necessary under the commerce clause.

It  is as you said, the only problem here is that this is not necessarily the way that the government has to enforce universal healthcare access, but it is the way to do so to insure the endurance of insurance companies, which amounts more to market intervention.

Ok, lets say the "can't refuse" part of law is consitutional.   (Though please, provide precedent... keep in mind of actual negative aspects, not like race in which there is literally no difference.)

Why wouldn't insurance companies just charge those people more as they are in fact, bigger risks?

If ANYTHING I'd say that doesn't give congress the power to inact everything else that's clearly unconstituional.

Instead it allows only the "Can't refuse part" and if you grant congress price fixing underneath "regulating commerce".

All that does is completely destroy health inusrance.

A grim result... but one the government created...

and could create with any insurance.

It's the best argument you've had yet, except your trying to compare actual negatives that effect the cost of something, with cosmetic differences that don't effect cost.

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?

Though if I finallly get the full arguement it's that.

It should be legal because....

1) The government can pass a law that allows insurance companies to not refuse service to people with preexisting conditions and people who are at high risk for diseases.

2) Because this would make business unworkable, congress can then force anybody into the system... because they might use health insurance at some point... and even if they don't it will drive prices down.

I'm not seeing how number 2 applies... at all legally. You can say it makes sense from a "Keeping healthcare costs low" point of view... but so does all kinds of other unconstitutional stuff like forcing people to exercise.  All congress needs to do to grab more power is to legislate extremly stupid laws that might destroy a form of commerce?

Your arguement seems to be...

3) is it's legal, because it's the only option presented in the law... and they didn't write in the actual legal ways in the law.  Therefore they are invisible.

Which is stupid... and i'd point out... any hole makes something unconstitutional... and the fact that you acknowledge a hole means that you should see it as unconstiutional if being intellectually honest.

My point on the matter of "invisibility" (if i'm reading you right) is that the court should not consider laws which don't exist in ruling whether one law is valid. It should stand compared only to things that exist or have existed in American jurisprudence, or if it is struck down, certainly not on the grounds that "it can be done better that way, but since it wasn't, this way is unconstitutional."

What of the controversy regarding paying property taxes when you don't have school-aged children and are no longer of childbearing age? It's more or less the same thing, wherein government forces you to pay for something you don't use, and i'm guessing a lot more people get hit on that than on "never used health insurance in my life." People pay in for the greater good.

Also, for full disclosure on the matter since you've mentioned your position.

I do have healthcare. From Humana. It costs me $77 bucks a month and it's a private plan I pay for myself. I don't get it through a company or get any special discounts.

Not the best plan in the world... probably the kind of plan most people would get if this plan goes through...

and if a big disease hits me I'd STILL be screwed.

Given that my income is somewhere on the order of $200 a month (maybe. Not sure if the gig i just picked up is only for the three days or not), and $170 of that is for student loans, it's really untenable.

I'm not saying you should get it or anything.  Just stating for full disclosure that i have healthcare... but as you can tell by the price it ain't exactly the best healthcare in the world.

If I had anything serious I'd be fucked anyway... and it's ACA complient.

Which is why the healthcare law is kind of stupid.

It's basically going to force poor people to pay for cheap health insurance that is just going to make them poorer to benefit a relativly small group of people.

Give me a single payer plan over it any day of the week.

I'm not sure i can think of a worse case of "cutting the baby" down the middle.

The only advantage of ACA would be it would be so screwed up healthcre would have to be dealt with relativly soon.

Which honestly is why if I could pick an outcome i'd pick "Individual mandate gets struck down.  Can't discriminate due to pre existing conditions stays in."

Even though I don't think legally said decision makes sense... it'd pretty much force everybodys feat to the fire.

You are right if the mandate is not upheld, the rest falls apart. Also obama's lawyers wanted the whole thing to be taken down if the mandate was taken off.

This is something that has pissed off obama's base. They wanted single payer.

The way heath care is set up now, it is done on the state level.  You do not go across state lines to get it.  It is on a state level.  It is part of the reason why state level mandates can be accepted, but the argument is federal level mandates are argued to not be acceptable, because it is argued that health care is not under federal justidiction.  What Mass. has, for example, with individual mandates, hasn't been challenged as being constitutional, because it is on the state level.  Now, this doesn't mean that mandates on a federal level can't be challenged for other reasons, but interstate commerce is one of them.  Because it is on the state level, like auto insurance is, there is no constitutional issues.

A number of articles said that what is at debate in part is interstate commerce:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/business/the-health-care-mandate-and-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/health-care-and-interstate-commerce/1132428

http://www.masslive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/03/editorial_health_care_system_i.html

http://www.news-journal.com/news/nation/legal-risks-of-health-care-overhaul-surprised-its-supporters/article_2a671727-3a82-5122-9401-4a1656dbcd36.html

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1830858/pg1