If the individual mandate is the problem, wouldn't that argument also ban any plan to privatize Social Security to the extent such a plan required people to make retirement contribution into certain classes of privately-owned investments?
Just thought of that because frankly, I think the battle on this kind of stuff was fought and lost with government-provided social benefits at the outset. If the government can do Medicare, then it also could do a full national health insurance program for all citizens. And if it could do that, why not the lesser action of reqiuring private insurance? At the least, that permits more individual choice/discretion than a Kennedy/Hillary-esque NHI system that likely woudl pass constitutional muster.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating that. I'm just worried that is the reasoning appellate courts may follow.
There was no internet when they passed SS. It was promoted on lies and there was no communication channels for the people to dispell those lies.
No. Because none of the laws considered in privitizing Social Security REQUIRED anything. They simply ALLOWED those wanting to privately invest to be able to do so.