The late 18th century maybe. Now, no. In fact it is unlikely much happens without involvement in international commerce.

Sucks for people who want the states to retain power, but that's who the Constitution is written.

It is illegal to buy health insurance across state lines.

How can it be interstate commerce,

To not buy something,

that is illegal to buy across state lines?

Or the prices in one state will affect the prices in another state, of premiums.

Just unavoidable in modern life.

If the pool of applicants on the insurance pool is limited to the people in one state only, it really doesn't matter what people in other states are doing. It's like saying that people in Mexico are affecting US insurance premiums, so that confers authority to congress to do something about it.

The supply of health care, the provision of drugs and devices, the ownership and staffing of hospitals, the education and training of doctors, etc., all is interstate commerce. The purchase or no of insurance by an individual coming onto the market for health care affects all this. A person without insurance places a cost on all parties who have insurance, or on the facilities and all their suppliers and employees, as the cost of care which cannot be paid for must either be paid by other customers, or increased costs of operations, which effects remuneration of employees and investors.

Can you provide me with an example of something that is not interstate commerce?

Can I be forced to buy groceries from a particular source if the guy stocking the shelves was born in another state? Not trying to be rude, but that is essentially the argument that can be extrapolated from what you just said.

Is it time to take the word "interstate" out of the commerce clause?

The Founders may not have intended this. But they could not picture of world of interstate/international instant communication.

Or people moving across state borders so frequently, quickly and easily.

I don't know about the insurance company issue but imagine both sides covered that in their briefs. Surely the side wanting to kill ACA made your argument if it is true that insurance companies can only sell in one state. But most of them are huge, so they undoubtedly do business in many states, even subject to state regulation in each state. The other side no doubt made some argument to that effect.

Your attempt at reduction by potential horribles is not worth engaging; it simply points up the intellectual bankruptcy you bring to the topic.

"Your argument is so outlandish it cannot be argued with"

Commonly utilized by people who are faced with a significant truth they cannot intellectually maneuver around.

Something which, as the professor once told a student, is not even wrong, but on the line of answering the question 'what is nine times three?' with 'Thursday!'

I am willing to help you understand what I am saying if you want. You obviously don't.

In times like these, we can all use a good laugh....

I did just say that a complex issue of constitutionality was akin to answering a mathematical question with a day of the week. I couldn't understand this any less, so I am more than happy to accelerate the fun and humorous attitude of the discussion with my court-jester like irrationality. I am glad there are people such as your fine self, appointed by the almighty, to correct the simplistic and overly irrational arguments of people that dare to question the GOP establishment and its radical, insurance industry sponsored ideas that you adore.

Let me know if I can provide any additional tutoring so you may understand better the ideas presented in the constitution, I am available seven days a week.

I also have a full course on how to drown out dissenting ideas using reverse psychology, as I see you may need some extra education in that area as well.

If you can successfully mandate that people only get sick where they live, problem solved.

I and other progressives are rightly outraged over the individual mandate, and recognize it for what it really is, a hand-out to the insurance industry.

Democrats couldn't pass single payer with their majority so they decided to do what the Republicans wanted all along, which is more unconstitutional corporate welfare for insurance companies.

The individual mandate is just another republican Idea.