In Response

I'm going to try and hit some of the main points of the argument:

I was asked how my Christian Spirit was feeling today. Well, my feelings are that in no way should Christian morals or beliefs be a part of legislation, it should be freedom and personal liberty should be at the forefront. If this country was a Christian nation, then by all means give to charities and the poor and less fortunate, but I'll be damned if the American government mandates me to give to charity cases and the less fortunate. I'll do that on my own, as well as most Americans. Just don't tell me I have to do, that is a violation of my personal liberty.

When it comes to taxing the rich, it is NOT fair to tax the rich more than the poor! To say that they can afford it is a cop out, and apparently, you have something against the rich. As you might know, I am going to be a high school teacher, so I'm not going to be making $80,000 a year, much less than $200,000.

I do believe that this is unconstitutional, and I am not just throwing that term around willy nilly. Saying something is unconstitutional is a big deal. But this is. This is the first time in history that the federal government is REQUIRING you to buy something you don't want to. Yes, you have to buy auto insurance, that is very true. But you do not have to drive. Driving is a privilege, its a luxury, it can be taken away from you either for your own, or more likely, others safety. Living is not a luxury, it is not something that can be taken away like driving.

Without a constitutional amendment, Congress has no authority to force people to buy insurance. Although the Supreme Court has interpreted Congress’s commerce power expansively, this type of mandate would not pass muster even under the most aggressive commerce clause cases. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the court upheld a federal law regulating the national wheat markets. The law was drawn so broadly that wheat grown for consumption on individual farms also was regulated. Even though this rule reached purely local (rather than interstate) activity, the court reasoned that the consumption of homegrown wheat by individual farms would, in the aggregate, have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and so was within Congress’s reach.
The court reaffirmed this rationale in 2005 in Gonzales v. Raich, when it validated Congress’s authority to regulate the home cultivation of marijuana for personal use. In doing so, however, the justices emphasized that — as in the wheat case — “the activities regulated by the [Controlled Substances Act] are quintessentially economic.” That simply would not be true with regard to an individual health insurance mandate.
The otherwise uninsured would be required to buy coverage, not because they were even tangentially engaged in the “production, distribution or consumption of commodities,” but for no other reason than that people without health insurance exist. The federal government does not have the power to regulate Americans simply because they are there. Significantly, in two key cases, United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court specifically rejected the proposition that the commerce clause allowed Congress to regulate non-economic activities merely because, through a chain of causal effects, they might have an economic impact. These decisions reflect judicial recognition that the commerce clause is not infinitely elastic and that, by enumerating its powers, the framers denied Congress the type of general police power that is freely exercised by the states.

With all the talk about Federal Taxation, I suggest you take a look at the Fair Tax Bill that was introduced by Rep. John Linder.