Agreed, but the argument that needs to stop being made by all the politicians/pundits out there (including some lawyers) is the analogy between Car Insurance and Health Insurance.
Although you could force some sort of absurd logic saying that the uninsured cost people in the end, so it's a charge up front instead of getting hit on the back end, you still cant argue that car insurance (intended to cover the OTHER person's costs in an accident) and health insurance (intended to cover YOUR costs) are the same kind of thing. If this logic has been worked out, I'd love to hear it, but otherwise the analogy is done. Furthermore, even if the analogy was valid or you dont care to consider the intent, auto insurance is a state requirement, not a federal requirement.
On the primary topic though, consider the precedent if this is allowed to go on. 50 years from now, the government might mandate that everyone buy an american made car, require every family to own a laptop for every child or otherwise force you to purchase a good or service you dont personally desire to spend money on. Then you sue the federal government for overreaching, but precedent says that they can force you to purchase anything they can justify as necessary for the greater welfare.
Simply put, the Constitution does not grant under the CC the right to force people to buy things.
Naw, this isn't a 10th Amendment issue. The bill doesn't attempt to force the states to do anything. As somebody mentioned above, the individual mandate contained within the bill is a Commerce Clause issue. In addition to being a Commerce Clause issue, it is also a Taxing & Spending Clause issue, which is likely where the mandate will pass Constitutional scrutiny.
With respect to the Commerce Clause issue, it is difficult to say whether the Supreme Court will add this bill to the very short list of congressional acts that have been ruled as overstepping the power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause (see U.S. v. Lopez) or whether the Court will find that this is yet another permissible regulation of interstate commerce in a long history of permissible regulations of interstate commerce going all the way back to the nation's founding. The Court rarely slaps Congress on the wrist on Commerce Clause grounds but you never know, this could be one of those rare moments.
If it's a 5-4 vote and the swing vote comes down to Justice Kennedy (which seems to be the Court's m.o. lately) then it's notable to observe that J. Kennedy tends to come down on the side of Justices who believe that Congress has broad powers under the Commerce Clause (see Gonzales v. Raich). So it's likely that the health care bill will be upheld as Constitutional.
However, there are certainly good arguments on both sides of this debate.
The 10th Amendment came up in the New York v. United States case where the court said that you could not tell the State how to spend resources regarding nuclear waste disposal. The same thing happened in Printz v. United States where the Fed could not force local police to enforce the Brady Bill. There were some other cases that I can't find that said the 10th amendment does not really mean anything though and it seems up in the air. I am not real sure how the health bill works, but I was under the impression it required states to direct resources towards the bill without a choice.
I could definitely see a commerce clause argument come up. I agree with Hamilton on that it should be given a bit more clarity although it is a great way for Con Law Professors to give Exams .