I referenced Obamacare, the Act, not one of its parts, the mandate. PPACA seriously regulates health care and health "insurance," formerly the regulatory purview of the states.
With the mandate, the law is clearly anti-federalist (as well as anti-liberty, and unconstitutional). The federalist argument against it primarily concerns the mandate, without the part you have a different situation.
Without the mandate the act is mostly constitutional. Insurance is commerce. Some of it is interstate. Regulating insurance that's entirely within a state is constitutionally dubious (according to the words of the constitution, not according to USSC precedent which would strongly support it as acceptable) and arguably not compatible with federalism, but allowing interstate sale of insurance, and regulating it, is compatible with a textualist or originalist view of the constitution, and with federalism. Even without the mandate the PPACA has dubious points, but federal regulation of insurance as a category isn't so dubious in terms of federalism.
Regulating torts and court actions is different. Its not regulating commerce directly, but its regulating government intrusion against commerce. The federalist argument against it is that these are state laws and state courts, properly a subject of the states. The counter argument that's compatible with federalism, is that state intrusions against interstate commerce are properly the subject of federal legislation or court action. The reason why this is a grey are is that state tort actions can reasonably be seen as serious obstructions to interstate commerce, but at the same time they can also be seen as a state legitimately trying to cope with the problems caused by tortuous action. |
