The arguments for/against ObamaCare health care are extensive. This giant law has so many parts that the average American does not even know what is really in this bill. The main supporters argue the bill is constitutional. They believe it is constitutional on three different "powers" of congress under commerce/interstate activity, the necessary and proper clause and the taxing and general welfare clause.
             The health care industry is a two trillion dollar per year industry. People who support the bill for being constitutional believe that this bill is part of commerce. How could two trillion dollars not be commerce? It is an interstate activity that makes a lot of money. There is also another part of government that could also make this bill constitutional and that is under necessary and proper clause. Necessary and proper clause states that Congress can make laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the forgoing powers. So supporters believe this bill for national health care is necessary and proper. It's nothing outlandish they believe. The third argument for the ObamaCare being constitution is under congresses Taxing and General Welfare Clause. Supports find this a no brainer. Congress has the right to protect the general welfare of the people. So ObamaCare is helping the general welfare of the people. After all is that not what government is put in place to do?
             The bigger question is will that make government to strong and powerful? Most people who believe ObamaCare is unconstitutional would say yes. From the disagreeing side most would say if ObamaCare is not struck down it will give the government more power and the main question raised is, "What will congress also force us to do?" If they can force us to make decisions on our own health under commerce what else can they make us do and justify it under "commerce." People believe that congress has no constitutional right to force people to enter a ...