On 22/10/2013, at 6:38 AM, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
> But do we ever consider the notion that the Democrats/”progressives”/liberals also have a future in mind for us, forward-looking but just as horrific in its own way as a future that’s backward-looking? I don’t think we do, and in this post I would like to fight my way towards doing so..."
>
>> What If We Thought of ObamaCare as a New Model for Future Government Programs?
Where we read:
"So, if we accept the radical claim that ObamaCare isn’t about health care[4] then what on earth is it about? Let’s return to the architecture above, and imagine a 2021 “progressive” program called, oh, HillSecurity (or MittSecurity, or CorySecurity). This program would “save Social Security” and it would look like this:
A market set up by the State (HillSecurity’s “marketplace”) In which citizens must purchase a product (the mandate to invest in a personal retirement account via a payroll tax and, possibly, additional contributions) From private rent extracting entities (large financial firms)." We have just such a thing in Australia. Though technically it is employers who must pay a superannuation levy into personal retirement funds for employees, the history of this policy includes wage sacrifices agreed by unions to compensate employers.
And its just as bad/incompetent/inefficient/corrupt a system as the author suspects. In fact probably worse.
I would be surprised is Australia was the only place to have such a system.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas