Yesterday Justice Ginsberg suggested there was a correlation between the Constitutionality of Social Security to Obamacare. What is the difference between the government's ability to dictate individuals participate in a government ponzi scheme verses a bloated, ineffective government mandate to buy a product in the private market whose prohibitive current cost, otherwise known as the government caused "crisises", is from State government mandates that expanded into covering costs that should be born by the individual.
The private market provides more choices in risk management, costs us less, provides better rate of return, and competition improves performance, choice and patient control and satisfaction.
Social Security was meant to address the need for a safety net yet nothing mentions such a right of the federal government to enact it and force us to participate in it but instead leaves it to the States and the individual to provide charity. Here is Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshal on how FDR strong armed the Court into "making Constitutional" his New Deal programs. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/supreme_court_to_decide_if_t...