I had the opportunity to ask Senator Chuck Grassley some questions when he visited Belmond for a townhall meeting. I ended up going into more of a rant, but- I did mention something that I'm surprised no else has brought up specifically.
Why is it that so many people feel that Obamacare is unconstitutional and a forced product that you have to buy into... But not Social Security? Are they not one in the same? With Social Security, you can't even buy your own version to avoid paying directly into it. No matter what, regardless of how wealthy you are and how able you are to save for your own retirement, you can not opt out of Social Security. It's a product, just like insurance, and yet- people don't seem to realize that. Or at least that's how I'm reading it?
I guess my one issue is, whenever someone brings up Obamacare and wants to talk down about the president and the democrats, why not point out that if they're against Obamacare- then so too should they be against Social Security?
In fact, in my mind, Social Security is just another kind of insurance. While you can say that it's meant primarilly for the less fortunate, it's also meant for those who may lose unexpectantly and end up depending on the system. If that is indeed the case, isn't this also something we ought to be able to choose in a competitive market?
Obviously, Ron Paul makes these points all of the time, and so do other liberty-minded folks, but- I haven't seen a clear line that makes Obamacare's mandate one in the same with Social Security's non-opt out policy. I thought it might be a valuable insight, because if we attack Obamacare, it seems hypocritcal that we don't also attack Social Security. Medicare and Medicaid are also on that same line, though, right? Anwho- just my thoughts.