[johniegrad]

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?

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.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

My understanding of some of the privatization proposals is that you would have the option of keeping your money with the feds, or investing it in private securities. In general, I don't think most such proposals contain an "opt-out" provision where you can just keep all the money that would have gone to SS and not invest any of it. If I'm wrong, fine. Then my question would only pertain to plans that fit those criteria.

[April Lexington]

After this ruling, I don't see why I have to be forced to invest in the Federal government's giant Ponzi scheme called Social Security.... I should have the choice of finding a PRIVATE SECTOR alternative to the government scam...