Personal tools

Argument: Social security is not analogous to insurance mandates

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 21:35, 18 October 2010; Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis G. Smith. "Constitutional implications of an 'individual mandate'" Federalist Society: "It is worth noting that the architects of the Social Security Act harbored grave doubts about its constitutionality, which was ultimately settled on the taxing power of the United States.6 However, in contrast to an individual mandate, federal benefits are attached to Social Security and Medicare taxes and there is a specific “contract” involved between the current payment of taxes and future government benefits. No such relationship would exist with the individual health insurance mandate. Additionally, while one can “opt-out” of receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits -- although one must still pay Social Security and Medicare taxes -- none of the individual mandate proposals provide for an “opt out” other than for yet undefined religious objections. Interestingly, a suit being led by former House Majority Leader Richard Armey is challenging a federal regulation that suggests that opting out of Medicare will put a person’s Social Security benefits at risk.7"

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits