What's your opinion on this editorial explaining why the healthcare bill is constitutional?

Total agreement, and I've been saying as much for ages now.

The author hits the nail on the head. Congress has vast powers to regulate interstate commerce; and there is nobody who can argue the insurance industry isn't interstate. Moreover, the bill WAS crafted as a tax. By doing so, Congress substantially lowered the threshold of this bill from Constitutional Imperialism to mere "fiscal policy." People have been been talking about the inequities in the US Tax Code forever. Congress taxes some activities and subsidizes others. Nothing new or terribly earth-shaking in that. This is simply another example of altering behavior to fit public policy through utilization of the tax code (Home mortgage deductions, Child deductions, etc).

As for states suing on the basis of Amendment 10 -- well, that's simply inane. As the author points out, the federal government has long been able to attach penalties if states fail to comply with federal policy. In the 1970s Congress slammed states failing to comply with the 55 MPH speed limit, and did so again in the 1990s with those who refused to raise their drinking ages to 21. In both cases states sued, and in both cases they lost. This is a simple case of the "Golden Rule," -- (He who has the gold makes the rules).

No, I'm quite sure legal challenges will fail.

EDIT: Removed article quote to make room

The argument presented by the editorial is that precedent, rather than the Constitution itself, is the basis for determining legality. While the Progressives have relied on this change in legal thinking for the past 80 years, there is nothing binding the Supreme Court to continue to abide by it. In fact, recent Supreme Court decisions have left the impression that the court will side with the states and people when disputes arise.

The author correctly states the proponents' case; however, the case relies on a limitless federal government with power that cannot be restrained by any enumeration. No one can honestly state that the Founders intended to create a federal government with limitless authority. If they had, there would be no need for a Constitution. When subsidized care and supply restricted by over-regulation of providers continues to increase costs associated with providing care, will the federal government be given the authority to coerce changes in individual behavior? After all, this is a necessary step in capping the demand side of the equation.

For instance, the terminology used in the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution specifically addressed a weakness in the Articles of Confederation in which the federal government had no authority to knock down barriers to trade erected by state governments against other states. That interpretation stood through the 1700s and 1800s. In the early 1900s, Progressives on the bench expanded the scope of the clause to cover even private activity between private individuals and corporations that in Congress' opinion "affected" interstate commerce. Those courts had no precedent on which to expand the authority granted, yet they chose to do so. Why shouldn't a future court be permitted to revert to the Constitutional limits?

The founders were even more clear on the meaning of the term "general Welfare." One of the primary differences between the US and Europe was the fact that European governments were seen as the provider of the "general Welfare" of the nation. The US was founded on the premise that limiting government to a few enumerated powers was the was to ensure the "general Welfare" of the nation. Therefore, the Founders (by their own explanation) used the term "general Welfare" to reiterate the enumerated powers without rewriting them. The editorial relies on the European definition and abandons the principles of limited government on which the US was founded.

Edit: Removed Quotes to Respond

The ideas of the founders are timeless assertions of individual liberty and the role maintaining of confined government authority.

In 1996, The Supreme Court ruled in Printz v US that the Federal government cannot order a state to raise its taxes and provide a mandated program. The federal government would have to offer the money for the program to the states and states that accept the money would have a contractual obligation to use it as directed. (That is how federal speed limits and highway funds work) This bill orders the states to raise their own medicare taxes and use the money as mandated by the federal government. There is no question it violates even the 20th century interpretation.

That aside, no Constitutional provision or precedent (to use the key word invoked by Progressives) exists that permits the federal government to force an individual to purchase a product or service. Further, no Constitutional provision or precedent exists that permits the Federal government to carry out the necessary measures required to cap demand by stopping services from being provided or mandating individual behavior changes.

I don't recall the Civil War voiding the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Not a legal professional, but..

The whole "interstate commerce" bit seems kind of laughable when you consider the fact that when this bill was written the authors expressly rejected the call to allow interstate commerce of insurance.

Secondly, the author of this editorial moves beyond the scope of legality and into their support for this plan. Which puts a bias on any of the legal arguments, that has to be taken into consideration.