House passes health care overhaul

The point is that the federal government can use private contractors to execute its policies.

I'm still waiting for the analysis of how the proposed program is unconstitutional.

Without starting down a rabbit trail, I hope. Let's consider that the constitution allows states to choose representatives based on census but the mandates from the constitution stops dead right there. However, over time the federal government has involved itself it how district lines are drawn..(for various reasons)..so based on a strict reading the federal government is guilty of gerrymandering (I know, it's not the subject). So in essence, another issue that's not in the constitution "taxiation without representation", left out based on how the constitution required representation based on simple numbers; the gerrymandered congress is guilty of not representing the rich taxpayer and businessman.

(emphasis added for clarity of response)

No, it does not. U.S.Const. Art. IV §§ 2 & 4; Am. XIV & XV; see generally Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).

If you want to pick up the constitutional analysis request, please give me your argument.

Baker v. Carr and subsequent cases fundamentally altered the nature of political representation in America, requiring not just Tennessee but nearly every state to redistrict during the 1960s, often several times. This re-apportionment increased the political power of urban centers and limited the influence of more rural, conservative interests that had benefited from the Supreme Court ruling injusticiable such "political" questions as those of apportionment.[2] After he left the Court, Chief Justice Earl Warren called the Baker v. Carr line of cases the most important in his tenure as Chief Justice.[3]