Chile and Great Britain have both been used as recent examples of privatizing retirement funds. The problem is that when I do research on those two examples, the majority of what I find are criticisms of how the program has fallen far short of the original govt-run version. Healthcare seems to be going the same way. Tennesse switched over to privatizing its state-run medicaid/medicare progs, and so far it appears to be a dismal failure, including severe benefits cuts and knocking almost 300,000 people off the eligibility list, just in one fell swoop, rendering the vast majority without any health care, at all.
I see that as highly suspect behavior, and not at all deserving the accolades the prog's gotten in some quarters; the fact that you've cut expenses by X amt may look good, but not when you add in that you've cut benefits by a corresponding amt of Y. It's like saying, "woo! I pay less for my monthly grocery bills! I eat only every other day, but hey! I pay less!" *snark*
I think that's where the current admin wants us to end up: we pay slightly less, and we get less, but somehow because it's govt-controlled but with the label of 'private' on it, it's okay. Grrrrrr.
Hm, I may do an SS redux later this week, as more info trickles in about the actual elements in the White House's plans.
no subject
Date: 6 Feb 2005 09:41 pm (UTC)I see that as highly suspect behavior, and not at all deserving the accolades the prog's gotten in some quarters; the fact that you've cut expenses by X amt may look good, but not when you add in that you've cut benefits by a corresponding amt of Y. It's like saying, "woo! I pay less for my monthly grocery bills! I eat only every other day, but hey! I pay less!" *snark*
I think that's where the current admin wants us to end up: we pay slightly less, and we get less, but somehow because it's govt-controlled but with the label of 'private' on it, it's okay. Grrrrrr.
Hm, I may do an SS redux later this week, as more info trickles in about the actual elements in the White House's plans.