As health care legislation continues to evolve and be debated in the government, one key issue is the administration’s desire to force health coverage on Americans.  The administration assumes that compulsory coverage is fair game, and would put our country one step closer to universal healthcare, but it faces one major impediment – the United States Constitution.

As George Will notes in his Washington Post Op-Ed, the idea of mandatory coverage is no different than compulsory exercise, and one could wager that forced exercise would face a severe backlash from weary Americans.  Supporters of the mandate argue that Congress can impose such legislation under its power to regulate interstate commerce, in which Congress can regulate activities deemed to have economic consequences when it believes it is “necessary and proper.”

This is a very slippery slope because, as Will states, “if any activity, or inactivity, can be declared to have economic consequences, then anything can be regulated – or required.”  As a result, the Constitution is largely nullified by Congress’s estimates of what is “necessary and proper” for the regulation of commerce, and while Congress is still subject to the oversight of the Supreme Court, the Court tends to uphold what Congress declares necessary.

Opponents to the mandate argue that Congress, under the Constitution, is not authorized to forbid someone from not making a commercial transaction, in this case, health insurance.  According to Senator Orrin Hatch, “Congress can regulate commercial activities in which people choose to engage, but cannot require that they engage in those commercial activities.”  He also notes that if Congress can force people to make particular purchases to help the economy, then there was no need for the government program Cash for Clunkers.  Instead, Congress could have just ordered people to buy cars.

While no one argues against the importance of Americans having health coverage, forcing people to buy it—and taxing them if they don’t—is a gross misuse of legislative powers and a frightening example of the government pursuing a goal without regard to personal liberties.

As the debate on health care reform continues, millions of Americans are learning more details of the bill believed to be on the verge of passing through the Senate.  But one detail that’s often overlooked is that most of the bill’s provisions would take several years to implement, keeping tens of millions of uninsured Americans without insurance until 2013 or 2014.

According to reports in The San Jose Mercury News, “White House and congressional aides say the long lag between passage and implementation is unavoidable, given the magnitude and complexity of remaking an entire sector of the economy.”

It’s to be expected that far-reaching reforms won’t be completed overnight, but by delaying many tangible benefits the reforms might enact, the government runs the risk of creating disillusionment among its supporters and further validating those already wary of reforms.

Aware that undue delays will mean political pitfalls, the administration is quick to point out that some smaller reforms would be enacted right away.  For example, The Mercury News article reports that “under the proposed plan seniors would get immediate financial relief for their prescription drug costs, and insurance companies would be barred from dropping patients who file medical claims.”

But according to The Wall Street Journal, “some 98% of the total cost comes after 2014,” and “most of the taxes start in 2010.” So even though health care reform will take several years to implement, and regardless of the fact that recent polls show it is opposed by more than half of Americans, the financial burden on taxpayers will be felt right away.

How do you feel about such an unpopular bill being forced upon us?  It does beg the question that, if this proposed reform is so monumental, why is the administration trying to jam it through the Senate to meet an arbitrary deadline?  It seems that a 2,000 plus page bill equaling 1/6 of the U.S. economy would require more than 36 hours to read, comprehend and make a well-educated vote.

As the Senate continues to wrestle with the health care reform bill, a Washington Post-ABC News poll* shows that the American public is growing wary of legislation intended to overhaul the health care system.

While a small majority of Americans still believe that government action is needed to curb health care costs and expand coverage to the millions of uninsured, enthusiasm is waning for the comprehensive changes under consideration.  According to the Washington Post article, the poll finds the public “generally fearful that a revamped system would bring higher costs while worsening the quality of their care.”

Poll findings indicate that:

• 51 percent say they oppose the proposed changes to the system, while 44 percent approve
• 53 percent see higher costs for themselves if the proposed changes go into effect
• 55 percent say the overall cost of the national health-care system would go up more sharply under the new system
• 37 percent say the quality of their care would be better under a new system
• 50 percent see the current system as better than the proposed system
• 67 percent say the proposed health care reforms would add to the federal deficit

Interestingly, even the uninsured are divided on the question of whether their care would improve if the system were overhauled.  And on the issue of whether and how to expand coverage to the uninsured, 36 percent of all respondents favor a government plan to compete with private insurers, 30 percent prefer private plans coordinated by the government and 30 percent want the system to remain intact.

The findings seem to highlight the challenges that President Obama faces as he and his party push to enact health care reform despite the American public’s divided sentiments.

*The poll was conducted by conventional and cellular telephone among a random national sample of 1,003 adults. The margin of sampling error for the full survey is plus or minus three percentage points.