1) Every state also has unique requirements for car insurance.

2) Federal law has in fact controlled many aspects of health insurance plans, particularly employer-sponsored health plans, for decades. The elephant in the room is ERISA, passed 1974, but of course there's also Obamacare.

Federal law has set a minimum for car insurance, I think, might be per state (I think you have to have a minimum of liability). Many states have requirements that exceed the Federal min. They don't contradict it, but require extra, which so far has been held to be fine.

I don't know the full history about why you cant buy health insurance across state lines, but I think it's a blend of different state's regulations and not wanting to be beholden to interstate commerce clause regulations (ironically, the provision that was used to justify the ACA mandatory insured or penalty as a tax ruling.)

I never have nor will understood how the interstate commerce clause was used to justify the ACA "tax". The mandate is effectively compelling intrastate commerce (I know of know interstate medical insurance available) under the guise of regulation interstate commerce. This seems to fly against the letter and intent of the constitution in regards to interstate commerce.

It was not justified via the commerce clause, but rather via congress's taxing powers:

The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Indepen...

If the Congress supersede every state law with national law, what’s the point of having states?

No one said anything about superseding every state law, just those regarding health care.

Friendly reminder that our 10th Amendment rights exist specifically to limit federal power, and to give states superceding power over the federal government. The opposite doesn't actually exist.

Except for Article 1 section 8. If it can be used to prevent a farmer from growing crops to feed his own animals, then it can be used to regulate insurance sales across state lines.

The current is moving in the opposite direction now. Female genital mutilation is now legal in America because federal courts have decided that it's better than abuse of the commerce clause: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/health/fgm-female-genital...

Nice to know that people are still clinging to a document that can literally mean whatever we want it to when convenient while Americans continue to shuffle and get raped by the corporate class.

The US constitution is, like all other written law, mostly meaningless, given enough time.

If you don’t like it, changed it: they’re called amendments.

We don't need one in this case. The Commerce Clause in Article I gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate trade.

Emptying the bins and basic services - stripping things from the states that should be the same nationally would be a very good thing.

Yes I know the historical reasons the US is the way it is but it is the 21st century now not the 18th

Congress is actually very limitted in the areas it can supercede stare or local law. The courts and congress, on the other hand, have often decided to ignore those points of the constitution.

> courts and congress, on the other hand, have often decided to ignore those points of the constitution

Saying the Interstate Commerce cases ignore the Constitution is reductive. Many IC-buttresssd laws involve carrots, e.g. highway funds. In other cases, single-state violators are perfectly legal. They just don’t make economy sense in a connection national economy.