It would be "constitutional" to preserve the current system of health care as a privilege. It would be "constitutional" to create a new system of health care as a right, provided by the government. It seems "unconstitutional" to force people to buy health care from private companies (as opposed to through government taxes).
Regardless of party (or lack thereof), I think people should be able to agree on what is constitutional and what is not. And yet, both sides claim "the Constitution" as this great thing that really sides with them, as if "constitutional" meant "right," when, in reality, it's often considered morally wrong (allowing slavery, non-suffrage of women and landless men), until changed to reflect the morality of the time. "Constitutional" is fact (mostly, outside of interpretation), being separate and different from what is "right."
On an unrelated note, I also think it's wrong to force people to buy health insurance from private companies. But then, it was a combination of corporate lobbyists doing an outstanding job, a Republican filibuster in the Senate, and President Obama scrambling to save face and compromising the actual good ideas of health care reform.
