....given that that is precisely how they put that law into effect ..... i'm going to have to go with suggesting "no."
if I may cite Gibbons v Ogden:
...the sovereignty of Congress, though limited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects, the power over commerce with foreign nations and among the several states is vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government..it's certainly how the Founding Fathers viewed them - and how they wrote them into the Constitution. The only things they said Government had to provide was (as far as i am aware) pertaining to the rights of the accused - swift trial by jury and so forth. Everything else generally starts off with the "Congress shall not...." format.If you are trying to start a conversation about negative and positive rights you will not get to far with me. I pretty much think it is a false dichotomy especially in the area of health care and prevent health care delivery from moving into the 21st century.
Even President Obama ("Constitutional Scholar" that he is) agrees with this basic idea - though he thinks it is a problem, and I disagree and find it a feature.