Legally Blonde, I don't have time to respond to you in full right now, but I hope to come back later. In the meantime, you don't know how the commerce clause works. Wickard v. Filburn was about the regulation of production, not the regulation of purchase. I want you think about that distinction for a while. The individual mandate isn't about regulating the production of ANY commodity or service. It is about mandating a PURCHASE. So, while the commerce clause might allow congress to impose some duties on me if I were selling health insurance, because of the potential effect of my activities on interstate commerce, it really has absolutely nothing to do with forcing me to purchase health insurance. Educated people on both sides of the political aisle know this. Join the party.
Your argument essentially begs the question. The fact that participation in the health insurance market is participation in interstate commerce can't be cited to justify commerce clause compulsion of that very participation. That's like saying "if you take action A, we can regulate you. So we're gonna say you HAVE to take action A - oh, and now that you're going to be taking it, booyah, we can regulate you." That's not how these things work.
It won't do to reference the market subsidization of uninsured peoples' health care costs. We're still not producing anything. Believe it or not (you're probably a law school 1L or something with a rudimentary and liberally informed understanding of the clause) the commerce clause actually has limits.
Anyways, the foregoing is all assuming your basic premises are true, and showing that even with that assumption in your favor they cannot possibly support your conclusion. But here's the thing - your premises are flawed as well. I haven't provided any real biographical information in this thread, despite some demonstrative references to "my life, my career," etc. You assume that those of us not buying health insurance are already participating in the interstate health care market. I'm not, though. I do not have health insurance, and I do not need it. I have not been to a doctor of ANY kind in several years. I have not participated in ANY health care market. You're going to tell me that the chance I MIGHT, someday, be a participant in an interstate market justifies congress forcing me to participate in it now against my will? Give me a big, fat, constitutional break. At the very BEST what you have done is argued that congress can mandate health insurance purchase once we DO enter into that market - once I decide to go to the doctor, for example. But as long as I don't, there is NOTHING in your argument that justifies extending this law to me.
Of course, there's nothing in your argument at all, because you fail to grasp the fundamental principle of Wickard and because you don't understand the commerce clause. But I gave your premises a chance and your conclusion was flawed. I gave your conclusion a chance, but your premises were flawed. Read up, and come back later, but you'll still be wrong.