According to the Tenth Amendment of the United States’ Constitution, only the specified powers listed in the document are given to the federal government. Any power that is not listed is left for the state governments, or to the people to exercise. With that being said, many sources, including an article published on The John Birch Society website argues that Obama’s health care plan is somewhat unconstitutional because it is written that the Federal government cannot make the States fund a federally proposed program, since it is not the job of the Federal government to get involved in States’ rights.

Judge Andrew Napolitano recently said of Obama’s health care reform in his article in the Wall Street Journal "What we have here is raw abuse of power by the federal government for political purposes. The president and his colleagues want to reward their supporters with "free" health care that the rest of us will end up paying for...They aren’t upholding the Constitution—they are evading it."

Anthony Gregory also had something to say about Obama’s plan and the Constitution in his article posted to the Christian Science Monitor website. He stated "Nothing in the Constitution authorizes any federal involvement in healthcare -- yet Congress may soon require everyone in America to buy insurance." Keeping all of this in mind, it is safe for one to think that to make this plan work completely, and to be in sync with the Constitution and it’s amendments, exceptions and changes may have to be made. These changes could possibly be at our expense, and arguments are sure to be had – a headache we could all go without.

Of course, there is more to the health care plan to disagree with other than the fact that it can be argued that it may be just a tad unconstitutional. President Obama promised our nations’ citizens in his speech about his health care reform that it would not cost taxpayers a dime, and that it would be funded by "the premiums it collects." It seems rather impossible that this program that is estimated to have a price tag of "around 900 billion [dollars] over 10 years" won’t cost us a dime. On theconservativejournal.wordpress.com, a list they have published about the pros and cons of Obama’s plans states that our president should probably lay off the idea that we won’t have to give our money to this plan and pay for the unemployed peoples’ medical bills until he can show us where exactly he is planning to scrounge up this money from.

Similar to what President Obama has proposed, the UK, Canada, and a few other places in the world also have government-run health care options. According to examiner.com, "England’s government run healthcare option (the NHS) is presently an overwhelmed system because of swine flu. As a result, "unnecessary surgeries" are being canceled." How is one able to decide which surgeries are necessary and which ones are not? Examiner.com brings up an excellent point that if it ever came down to that, the program would also be going against The Declaration of Independence, since one life should never be put before another, and cutting surgeries may do that. The article went on to quote a Conservative member of Parliament, Daniel Hannan, who stated "to copy the system would lead the US towards bankruptcy…"

Overall, the health care reform seems to have many kinks to work out both legally and financially, and many citizens are still confused on how exactly this plan will be carried out. It seems as if this "reform" will only being about more negative changes than positive ones.