What you’re saying makes reasonable common sense.

The trouble is that, as the Supreme Court has defined it, practically anything that qualifies as “commerce” is thereby “interstate commerce.”

So if health care is commerce, then it’s interstate commerce.

Let’s assume, though, for the sake of discussion, that you wanted to argue that health care is a unique form of commerce that isn’t interstate.

Do you think the Supreme Court would find that federal civil rights laws don’t apply to a white doctor that refused to treat African American patients? I don’t think you’d stand a chance.

Anyway, I think I might have been sick on a bunch of the days they taught law in law school, so I’m sure there is more nuance to this than what I’m saying.

As far as I can tell, the article clearly demonstrates that healthcare is, in fact, “commerce”. Understood, no one really buys Napolitano’s argument that healthcare does not = commerce. The question remains, how is it interstate commerce?

I understand the regulation of medical supplies and pharmaceuticals fully face interstate commerce clause power; however, the practice of medicine is a wholly state issue that does not approach the interstate commerce clause reign.