An Unconstitutional Health Care Bill?

Is the current health care plans being proposed Constitutional? David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey have produced a very interesting article in the Washington Times that says no. Here are a few of the more interesting quotes:

In short, no. The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.

Therefore, as it currently stands, congress cannot force American citizens to purchase medical insurance, at least not if they want to uphold the constitution.  So, what does that mean about funding the health care bill?

Of course, these constitutional impediments can be avoided if Congress is willing to raise corporate and/or income taxes enough to fund fully a new national health system. Absent this politically dangerous -- and therefore unlikely -- scenario, advocates of universal health coverage must accept that Congress's power, like that of the other branches, has limits.

 Would congress and Obama be willing to take the political heat by raising taxes?  Unlikely, but would the sacrifice of a future election be worth passing their holy grail of policy issues?