Revisiting the research on Health Care...

I've drawn understanding from the writings of Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University professor who wrote a article for the Washington post Is health care reform unconstitutional?.
When asked how a bill making people purchase health insurance or suffer fines could be constitutional, he suggested that

the most strongly pressed argument will be that this is a "tax" from which you can be exempted if you buy private health insurance. Courts have been very deferential to tax measures.

I was able to deduce from Randy's Blogg post He is not a proponent of the bill. He suggest that Judicial rulings have expanded the power of Congress beyond those given in the Constitution, and that mandating insurance by means of a fine labeled a "tax" is another example of this.

Some other major points of the bill are listed below:
What does bill accomplish: demands health coverage for all
Who buys insurance: A better question is who doesn't. Exceptions include certain people with religious exceptions, American Indians and people in prison.
Who gets subsidized: That Is determined by the Department of Health and Human Services. Those who make less than3x or 4x the poverty level pay about 10 percent of their income for a decent health insurance package. Those who make $14,000 would pay 3 to 4 percent of income on insurance If your flat broke, you enrolled in the Medicaid program.
Who pays for it: New taxes, fees on industries involved in health care, and cuts in projected spending growth for existing government health efforts, primarily Medicare. The bill cost about $940 billion over its first 10 year, plus 40 billion worth of tax credits for small business.
How can you get it: The bill will set up non profit or government administered Health Option exchanges, which is basically a a number of small business and individuals banded together to allow for the breaks that big corporations can negotiate for with their employees.