Look at each item separtely:

!. The power to tax in the national Interests for the purpose of providing health care for all.

2. The drafting of a law to initiate such program that embraces "all" who would care to participate and carries a premium significantly lower than Private plans and has transportability.

The Tax (On Business) would be used to fund the difference between expenses and premiums collected (if necessary).

We already have a federal unemployment tax on all businesses reimbursed by each state on a formula basis. Constitutional ? Well it 'has been and is currently in effect.

No one will be forced to take the Federal Insurance !

Think this would fly ???

If you're asking if it would attract bi-partisan support, yeah, some Republicans would vote for a voluntary plan. OTOH, if you want an overwhelming support from them, add interstate commerce of health care and tort reform.

It doesn't address the constitutionality, but since when was that important?

Well you may be right but I think if this thing gets passed with a mandated provision I can guarantee you it will wind up in the SCOTUS and they will have to decide how much more power they want to give Congress. However I read through the tax code and to the best of my knowlege (I'm not a tax expert) there is no provision that would allow them to impose a tax penalty for simply not having health insurance. It all deals with income and reciveing things of value. Nothing in there that give Congress the power to tax or impose a tax penalty on anything other than recieving things of value. Now I guess they could add a provision but I think ultimately it will have to be decided by the Supreme Court.

Bills of attainder? That's an anachronism. What flux capacitor brought you to the 21st century? What about documents under seal, dower and curtsey? Holy crap.

Auto insurance is different. For starters driving is a privilege not a right and one has the option of not driving. However as the article indicated existing is a right protected by the constitution and forcing people to buy something simply for existing is a violation of that right. That's what the author of the article suggested but he is an expert and I'm not.

So if everyone is taxed equally and extra $3000, and a $3000 tax credit given to those who have Health Insurance, then the problem is avoided. Since the government gives tax credits for all kinds of things, from energy efficient insulation to windmills, and hybrid cars, what would be wrong with a tax credit for having health insurance?
And adding a head tax for each citizen is surely legal constitutional, so the mechanism is available, it all depends on how the law is written.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

The power is not there. The bill of rights reserves power to the peoeple if its not specified in the constitution. Healthcare regulation and health insurance are not in the constitution. The founders explained that the general welfare clause was not a blank check.

The question is, why cant we pass an amendment to specifially give the govt power to provide healthcare, instead of just assuming govt has it? The answer is of course, it would fail. People dont want it.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Nothing would be wrong with a tax credit for health insurance and in fact that's actually a great idea but the problem is HR3200 is proposing a tax penalty not a tax credit. The tax credits you mention don't impose a tax penalty for not doing those things as far as I know. And if the government imposes a tax and then an equal tax credit why not just have the tax credit without the imposing the tax in the first place. But I think I see what you are saying. With the tax it would force people to get health insurance but then we are right back to being forced and the question of weather it is unconstitutional.

They would not need a tax penalty because there would be no provision for the need to have them be covered.

From the forties up to sixty five the desire for a Medicare type program is strong. If this type of insurance was available competing private insurance would shrink to "0" except as an outsource company providiing processing services and "all" would IMO get on the bandwagon. Premiums for others who are indigent will be handled as they are presently.

Tax credits are just tax penalties for all those who don't qualify. It's pure semantics. So I agree that with goober, a tax penalty is just as right, or in my opinion, wrong, as a tax credit. The government shouldn't use the tax code to implement otherwise unconstitutional penalties.

There will be no mandate except fot the business tax at federal level for funding back up.

As I suggested "NO MANDATE" Just "an offer you can't refuse".

"1523945]The power is not there. The bill of rights reserves power to the peoeple if its not specified in the constitution. Healthcare regulation and health insurance are not in the constitution. "The founders explained that the general welfare clause was not a blank check"

NO BLANK CHECK INVOLVED.

"The question is, why cant we pass an amendment to specifially give the govt power to provide healthcare, instead of just assuming govt has it? The answer is of course, it would fail. People dont want it"

NOT TRUE ! Or at best Unsubstantiated right wing horseshit !

no mandate just a deal you can't refuse if your head is screwed on properly !

Is anyone aware that for many the greatest and only tax they pay is the payroll tax AND even that can be reduced by the "Earned income Credit" that refunds portions of the payroll taxes ?

In what I propose just like medicare use is not necessary but premiums are increased for every year part (B) I believe is not selected. IMO The means existonly the vore is required.