Fair enough, so I'll begin...

Let me address your last question first...

"Social Security was packaged, sold and dubbed as, "Pension Insurance." As I have noted, the Clark Amendment would have provided for a private alternative and that the federal government plan be optional. FDR rejected both. So please explain to me why compulsory health insurance isn't Constitutional, while compulsory pension insurance is. "

In the scope of our previous discussion, I am going to focus on The Social Security Act of 1935 (HR 7260), which is what FDR signed into law, but only a fraction of the legislative leviathan that it is today. We can debate the viability of SSI as it exists today if you wish, but I feel there is a difference between what Social Security was in 1935, and what it is today. FDR can't shoulder all the blame for what it is today. My source, by the way, is found HERE.

As defined by the Act itself, Social Security was originally intended to "provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes." This was seen, by its authors and FDR, as "insurance" against such events that might compromise other, more traditional means of retirement income, such as savings or pension funds (both of which saw massive losses across the board during the first four years of the Depression Era). By 1933, nearly 60% of all men and women over the age of 55 were without income due to depression losses. The primary means of regulating and providing these benefits is clearly seen to be "the several States" and NOT the Federal Government ( a change that didn't take place until 1953, when Ike was firmly in the Oval Office). The cost of providing assistance and aid to these people was more than the Feds could maintain through the initial "relief" aspects of the New Deal, so when the "dole" programs ran out, Social Security was supposed to kick in. No other means of support was available to the millions of Americans that were affected, so the alternative to passing this legislation was standing back and watching these people suffer even more than they already had.

So, as far as instituting Social Security goes, unless you can find or present an alternative option that FDR had to address this particular problem, I fail to see how second guessing the implementation now is any more valid an argument than our saying it was a "success" as a New Deal solution to real and immediate problems.

Furthermore, there is NOTHING within the Act that says it is intended to be the ONLY source of retirement income for Americans. Yes, all Americans pay the tax, but all Americans paying taxes after the initial institution should have been covered by the benefits, even if they did enjoy the fruits of a separate, private retirement plan (my Grandfather's railroad pension, for example). People were expected to use the benefits as a stop-gap, not as a primary source of income. The fact that this intention changed over the decades can't be blamed entirely on FDR, so why should today's problems count against the evaluation of his Presidency then?

To specifically address your question, Obama-care is a compulsory program that forces prices higher and service quality lower due to the natural tendency that such a program is only as strong as its lowest common denominator... which in this case is the very services provided by health care itself. While I, as a tax payer, wouldn't have to USE Obama-care, I'd still have to pay for it... which is the same as SSI, I know... but the SSI deduction shouldn't effect my ability to make alternative or multiple plans to supplement my retirement benefits (at least not as I read the 1935 version).

To sum up (I am sorry that it seems disjointed... I'm painting the living room as I compose this):

FDR needed to do something that accomplished three goals: 1) provide needed relief and assistance to elderly Americans that had lost all previous means of support during the crash of '29, 2) provide some kind of "assurance" to the people that repeats of the events that wiped out their retirement income/savings wouldn't have the same effect or duration, and 3) "centralize" (yes, the dreaded "C" word) the revenue source for SS and make the means by which it is available uniform throughout the various States (regulate its distribution, in other words). The 1935 Social Security Act accomplished all of these things... perhaps not perfectly, but it did what it was intended to do, and failure to improve, eliminate, or reform the system cannot be blamed EXCLUSIVELY on FDR, because it was WORKING while he was alive.

(NOTE:) The Clark Amendment that Ryan mentioned has an intersting history... the source is HERE and HERE. Let me sum up:

The Amendment would have allowed companies with previously established (and solvent) pension funds or retirement plans to forgo SS withholdings with the understanding that there would be no benefits available to the employees. Not an unreasonable plan, in my eyes. Keep the choice in the private sector, right?

The problem was, the Clark Amendment was worded in such a way that, if the companies in question didn't have "universal" availability of the pension/retirement to all employees, the employees not qualifying for this benefit had no SS coverage or benefits, and no means to contribute to the general fund. Furthermore, the Amendment would have required (this is important... the AMENDMENT REQUIRED, not FDR) that all private corporate retirement plans must meet or exceed SS compensation rates. Business owners quickly realized that this meant there would be even greater regulation and interference with their operations than simply paying the SS tax as required by the Act... so the vast majority of major employers (including all the railroad companies, shipbuilding firms, and military contractors) lobbied AGAINST THE AMENDMENT BEING INCLUDED IN THE LEGISLATION.

If the business sector itself thought the Clark Amendment was bad, who am I to second-guess FDR for not supporting it either?