Oh, Scott.  You really have to quit getting your law from talk radio.  I do not think this is the right way to approach heath care reform, however I don't think your constitutional analysis is correct.

First, the Supreme Court ruled in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) that Congress can regulate wholly intrastate commerce under the commerce clause if it has an aggregate affect on interstate commerce.  Congress passed a law limiting how much wheat farmers could grow.  Filburn decided to grow more than he was allowed, but claimed that it was solely for his own use and therefore was not interstate commerce.  The Court said that because he was not buying wheat on the open market to feed his chickens, it affected interstate commerce. 

Without spending much time researching the rest of your issues - here are my thoughts:

Second, this is not an appropriations bill and therefore it does not have to originate in the House of Representatives.

Third, you seem to have your First Amendment backward.  It would more likely be unconstitutional if Congress tried to force individuals to purchase health care against their religious beliefs.  Providing this exception was most likely intended to avoid First Amendment challenges.

Fourth, you might have a point here - prohibiting repeal or amendment may violate the constitution.  However, only that provision would be rendered unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Fifth, I don't even know what you mean by your Fourth Amendment argument.

Sixth, the only thing I see that could be a "taking" is the fine that you have to pay if you choose not purchase health care.  A penalty is not subject to Fifth Amendment challenge.  If it were, there couldn't be any fines or penalties for anything.