Time to stir the pot...
Imagine a State (not the Federal, but STATE) creating a voucher system so that all children are required to attend K-12; but the tax voucher allows flexibility to attend a state/local school, private school, or even reimburse much of home-schooling.
From my perspective, this is the same as being taxed and required to buy a certain good or service.
How is this fundamentally different than a STATE (not the FEDERAL, but STATE) requiring the purchase of health insurance?
It is abundantly obvious to me that Federal rights and powers are much different than State rights and powers. So I want to avoid the federalism issue of either federal mandated schooling or federal mandated health insurance. I want to ignore the federalism difference, because there is no question in my mind about that. The Federal ought not to have those powers at all.
So...
How is school mandates (especially in a voucher systems) fundamentally different than a STATE requiring the purchase of health insurance?