There is no provision to open purchase of insurance policies across state lines.
The entire premise of this being "interstate commerce" is false.
I am of the camp that suggests that Dems did themselves a huge political favor getting this done. The American patience with the issue had been waning. Its now a third rail to let the debate linger. Going after healthcare simply portrays the Repubs as lacking issues of their own and/or sore losers, either are not politically attractive. The Repubs might make an issue out of abuse of power (Louisiana purchase).. that would have some traction, but no one really wants to talk about health care except the Republican base.
You have to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. Its time for the Repubs to try another approach; healthcare is a loser for them.
Defending the mandate - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
FactCheck.org wrote, “The Ryan/Coburn bill and the Wyden/Bennett bill, which has four other Republican cosponsors, both create state-based insurance exchanges that would sell coverage that meets certain standards, just like the Senate-passed Democratic bill. (The House-passed bill sets up a national exchange, instead of state-based exchanges.)
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
The premise that the Fed can mandate a personal responsibility to buy insurance based on the interstate commerce clause is FALSE.