As a side note to this thread, please consider the following.
A constitutional problem with insurance is explained as follows.
If I understand correctly, the feds are still prohibiting insurance companies from selling insurance across state borders. The problem with this federal restriction is that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate insurance, regardless if buyer and seller are domiciled in different states.
As evidence of this, note that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that insurance policies are contracts and that the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3) do not include regulating contracts.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphases added] of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
So the RINOcare insurance mandate respects neither the Constitution or the free market.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
I appreciate your thoughtful legal analysis on the regulation of insurance contracts. Clearly States only. You are absolutely correct that it is prohibited under the Commenre clause cases. It is also prohibited under McCarren Fergesson. It is also left out of the bill with “oh looky here, we will do that later in phase 15” .