If that is true, you're right. I thought that you had to purchase something from one of the insurance companies in the exchange, but you get to choose which one.
The SS analogy does not work because you have an option of how those taxes are invested. You are not forced to purchase anything from a specific vendor even though you are required to pay the tax.
Assuming we're talking about a partial (or full) SS privatization plan that requires you to invest in a certain class of securities or something, it looks at least something like being required to purchase an insurance policy from a list of vendors that meets certain criteria.
I don't like either one of them. I'm just trying to think through legally the ramifications of a decision either way. And the problem is that this whole distinction between the "tax" power and the power to do things directly that is at the heart of this seems artificial and extra-constitutional to me. "We can tax you, and do whatever we want with your money. We just can't tell you what to do with it before we actually take it." The real issue should be what is being mandated, not on who theoretically controls the money, because in either case, the government actually controls the money anyway.
You are correct of course. The court will not overturn Obamacare because then they will have to revisit all the other unconstitutional power grabs like social security and medicare.
To a lot of the nutless black-robed maggots, Stare decisis—precidence is more important than Originalism.
I hope I’m wrong. It’s the Kennedy court. Does he have the brass ones to reverse 60 years on unconstitutional law?
To put a STOP SIGN in this Socialist fork in the road?