I think the “exchanges” are probably going to be used to support the government’s case as well if it comes to a commerce clause question. The exchanges are designed to allow multiple states to band together and create mega-exchanges. While I think this is purely a stalking horse to the day that we’d see one large national exchange, I think in the short term the government can argue the individual mandate is critical to the operation of multi-state exchanges, and thus allowable under the interstate commerce clause. I.e. if someone chooses not to purchase insurance, it is possible that he may be choosing not to purchase it from another state, thus affecting interstate commerce.

BS I know, but that’s one of the arguments that past commerce clause jurisprudence seems to agree with.

Of course, to hear the Republicans bring up the commerce clause when their only stated health care idea was forcing states to allow people to buy over state lines is somewhat interesting…