Government-established minimum or maximum prices are often a bad idea with unfortunate unintended consequences, but I’m afraid that such a rule could also have unfortunate unintended consequences. There’s no way I’d support such an amendment without running it by a few economists first.
I’m guessing this is a dig at the ACA for “forcing” the American people to purchase health insurance. But it might be interpreted as forbidding taxation in general, since taxes “force” Americans to “purchase” the services their taxes are spent on. And if it doesn’t forbid taxation, it removes one of the alternatives to it, making it more likely/necessary that the government has to get into the health care (e.g.) business directly.
This one’s heart is in the right place, but I’d predict a nightmare of challenges to anything the government does, on the grounds that somebody benefitted from it and somebody else didn’t.
Making America a “right-to-work” country, eh? This is currently an issue here in Illinois, thanks to our new governor, and I personally am not sure which side to support on this issue.