I think you’re probably right, but could see an out: I’m *guessing* they can’t disallow sales of insurance. The stickler would then be that they do demand what benefits should be in the policies. That winds up being the same thing as not allowing sales in other states.
One common example of benefits is the requirement in some states that medical insurance must include wigs for hairloss after cancer treatment. The cost of stuff like that adds up, which is one big reason insurance is more expensive in some states than others.
“The stickler would then be that they do demand what benefits should be in the policies.”
If this were a water dispute, one state might not be happy with its water level or arsenic level, but as I understand it the federal government ajudicates the dispute.
So if the federal government forbids state mandates and [btw] threatens to pull federal funding if state mandates get in the way [or simply calls them illegal] I don’t see how the Constitution could empower states regarding an interstate transaction?
Pediatric dentistry, birth control, abortion, maternity care, sex change procedures, drug rehab, gay fertility treatments,...there’s a long list of things required in some states that I don’t want or need and shouldn’t have to pay for others.