The logic is that he who pays decides the rules. Feds don’t pay for private businesses as a general practice so that gets shut down. The Feds *do* pay for healthcare at many hospitals, so they get to dictate rules.
This is the same logic that created and allows gun-free zones around schools, allows colleges to ban adult carry of firearms, etc., etc. - the Feds are paying for them, so the Feds can dictate policies there. If these facilities do not want to have to impose these regs, they just have to refuse Federal money. (Yes, I realize it’s harder in practice than in theory.)
I appreciate what you’re saying but just because the Feds pay for something, in whole or in part, does not bestow on them the right to force people to inject experimental substances into their bodies. How can that be constitutional when there is nothing in the document that says government expenditures entitle the state to control people? Our founders would never have allowed this kind of power, even by insinuation.
Moreover, what is the criteria for the amount or percentage of government spending that triggers such power? That’s not defined either. Its arbitrary.