4th Amendment protects us from unlawful search and seizure. Only applies to governments or agents acting on behalf of government (contractors). If I do not want health insurance, but am mandated to have it, then I am then required by government to go through a medical screening against my own will, by a doctor acting on behalf of the government, or directly for the government. That is a "search" of my person, without warrant or probable cause of a crime, thus, illegal. Plain and simple. You can't search my body without a warrant or probable cause that I committed a crime. And no insurance will cover me without first doing a screening.
If you really are a former cop, then you should be ashamed of your very poor understanding of the 4th amendment, and your community is probably safer without you on patrol. The 4th amendment protects people from "unreasonable" searches and seizures. The reasonableness of a search and/or seizure is dependent on several factors, including the scope and degree. For example, if you are driving down the road, a traffic stop, being a seizure for the 4th amendment's purposes, cannot be reasonable unless the officer has a solid, objective reason to believe you have committed a crime. Usually, this means he has to actually see you fail to stop for a light, or whatever he will claim you did wrong. A traffic stop does not pass the reasonableness test if the officer only thinks that you failed to stop, because he could see you on the far end of the intersection going faster than one might expect for a car starting at a standstill 15 feet earlier. A traffic stop is not reasonable if the cop pulls you over with a mistaken, even if well intended, belief as to how the law applies to the given situation. Reasonableness can also be determined based on "reasonable suspicion" under specific circumstances, and those circumstances include the amount of public interest there is in a police officer confronting the suspected behavior. Also, the scope of the reasonable suspicion stop must be narrow and usually requires that the person could then turn around and leave at any time on their own will.
The point of this all is that the health care bill cannot be deemed unconstitutional on 4th amendment grounds because the reasonableness of the "search" that you are arguing would first depend on establishing whether or not there is a legitimate government interest being served by the law. If there is none, then that already renders the law unconstitutional. However, if there is, then that legitimate interest then translates into reasonableness for the "search" inasmuch it maintains the narrow scope of being related to your medical history and is applicable to your treatment.
Furthermore, the scenario you paint of the doctor being an agent of the government is a very difficult one to maintain. Even if we agree that obtaining health insurance in accordance with a government mandate suffices as a limitation on liberty (a position that would be necessary in order to maintain a 4th amendment complaint, thought would really be a stretch), any secondary efforts that need to be exerted toward that end do not translate as government actions. The money you pay would not constitute a tax by government, at least for legal purposes. The insurance company itself will not constitute a government agent, because they are only providing you with a service, just like car insurance companies are not agents of the government who are searching you when you have to provide a driving history. If you have to see a doctor in order to satisfy your health insurance, he is acting only in his capacity as a health care provider, and his actions, including taking medical history, separated from any government action by many degrees.
Thus, in conclusion, any claim that there is any 4th amendment violation in the health care bill requires a great strain and goes against established constitutional understanding.
