That’s like saying abortion or gun control is fine at the state level, just not at the federal level. You either have principles or you don’t. Note that we’re not talking about whether it’s constitutional or not, but whether it’s right and has more benefits than costs to the people. Not to mention the argument that “you can just move to another state” can be applied on the federal level. “You can just move to another country” if you don’t like it. That argument wouldn’t pass muster on the school playground.
If you think the mandate is good at the state level, make the argument as to why it has more costs and benefits to the people. The discussion needs to go beyond whether it’s constitutional or not, but whether it’s actually good policy.
I am 1000% opposed to a federal mandate. I think it is wrong and oppressive. But I don’t think it is unconstitutional AT THE STATE LEVEL.
Under the Constitution, the states are generally free to conduct their own affairs along Constitutional lines. Gun control is unconstitutional. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, though it is hard to imagine that the Founders would approve of it.
Some states have better laws than others. The beauty of living in the USA is that we are free to live in whichever state we choose and still enjoy the benefits of living in America.
When things are done at the Federal level, we have no such option. The Federal mandate is unconstitutional. The state mandate, while shitty, is Massachusetts problem. The people of that state can vote it out if they don’t like it, or move.
Hope that clarifies my point.