The health bill, and in particular the individual mandate are clearly constitutional. The opponents are rehashing arguments that were rejected in 1945. Many constitutional scholars have reviewed the major provisions of the current bills and reached that conclusion.

In essence, the Supreme Court has two threads that apply here. The court has agreed that Congress has wide latitude to regulate health and insurance under the Commerce Clause, and it has agreed that Congress has latitude to enforce an individual mandate under its tax and spend powers.

Here is what David Orentlicher, a law professor at Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis and co-director of the Hall Center for Law and Health says in part:

" The taxing power is a well-established basis for enacting an individual mandate. Indeed, this country has had a tax-based mandate to purchase health care insurance for nearly 45 years. The Medicare program imposes a payroll tax on Americans as a way to fund coverage of their hospital costs once they reach age 65. People cannot opt out of Medicare; it is an obligatory system of health care insurance for one's senior years. Similarly, Congress can use a payroll tax to implement a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance before they reach age 65. Under the House bill, for example, people will pay a 2.5 percent tax on their income unless they have health care coverage.

...

Under the commerce clause, Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, and the health care insurance industry clearly falls within the Supreme Court's understanding of interstate commerce.
"

Here is another expert, law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, founding dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law:
" First, they say the requirement is beyond the scope of Congress' powers. And second, they say that people have a right to be uninsured and that requiring them to buy health insurance violates individual liberty. Neither argument has the slightest merit from a constitutional perspective.

Congress has broad power to tax and spend for the general welfare. In the last 70 years, no federal taxing or spending program has been declared to exceed the scope of Congress' power. The ability in particular of Congress to tax people to spend money for health coverage has been long established with programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
"

Conservative politicians invariably bring up constitutional issues when health reform is brought up, see the legal analysis defending the 1993 attempt cited. However, for the above reasons, they do not have a leg to stand on. There simply is no right in the Constitution to remain uninsured, and there is settled law that Congress can mandate insurance. Should a future Court reverse its position this would have huge impact, including overturning Medicare and Medicaid, and probably state laws requiring car insurance. It just won't happen, and there is no reason for it to happen.

I think the Point of Order raised by Senator Mike Johanns with regards to the constitutionality of the Health Care Bill is worth an attention, but since the issue was outvoted, the next battle might shift to the Supreme Court, if this bill is signed into law.

-quote-

"Senator Mike Johanns today voted in favor of a Point of Order declaring that the Senate health care reform bill is unconstitutional, and that Congress lacks the authority to pass the bill into law. The Constitutional Point of Order was introduced by Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) in response to concerns that certain provisions exceed the federal government’s constitutional powers. The Point of Order failed, 39-60.

The question of constitutionality arises from whether the individual mandate included in the Senate bill–which penalizes individuals for not having health insurance–falls outside this jurisdiction by regulating economic inactivity and forcing individuals into commercial activity."

-end of quote-

Not really sure, i don't think any one can be.......even the congress men that voted for it don't know whats in the bill!!