Can the federal government require individuals to purchase health insurance under the commerce clause?

Tyler Cowen has a post that quotes another blogger stating that "over the last century we have gradually accepted the proposition that anything the government tells us it can regulate, it can regulate." The post links to a Wikipedia article on the US Supreme Court decision Wickard v Filburn.

Here are the facts in the case (From Wikipedia):

Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who admitted producing wheat in excess of the amount permitted. Filburn argued however that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.

In July 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1938, Filburn's 1941 allotment was established at 11.1 acres (4.5 ha) and a normal yield of 20.1bushels of wheat per acre. Filburn was given notice of the allotment in July 1940 before the Fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July 1941, before it was harvested. Despite these notices Filburn planted 23 acres (9.3 ha) and harvested 239 bushels from his 11.9 acres (4.8 ha) of excess area.

Here is a summary of the Supreme Court's decision (emphasis mine):

The intended rationale of the Agricultural Adjustment Act was to stabilize the price of wheat on the national market. The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce through the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In Filburn the Court unanimously reasoned that the power to regulate the price at which commerce occurs was inherent in the power to regulate commerce.

Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial.

One can loosely apply the individual mandate to the facts of this case. In Wickard, Congress passed a law with the goal of stabilizing wheat prices by limiting the total supply of wheat produced and consumed.

In the health care bill, Congress passed a law which requires individuals/families to purchase a health insurance policy or pay a penalty/tax to the IRS. Obviously,one of the goals in the health care bill is to stabilize healthcare costs by requiring individuals/families to purchase health insurance. (We know how insurance markets work, the people who don't have claims higher than their premiums subsidize those who do have claims higher than their premiums. Therefore, Congress had the intent of stabilizing health insurance policy prices by requiring individuals/families to purchase health insurance.)

One individual/family that does not purchase a health insurance policy will not have a large effect on interstate commerce, But, interstate commerce would be affected through the cumulative actions of thousands of other individuals/families that do not purchase health insurance policies.

This is a very simple analysis and a loose application of the Wickard case, but it is meant to prove the point that Congress has extremely broad authority when it comes to regulating commerce under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.