Response to “STD services delivery arrangements in Georgia county health departments”

This is a Letter to the editor

Police Implementation of Supreme Court of Canada Charter Decisions: An Empirical Study

Little empirical research has been done on the Charter\u27s impact on the public policy process. This paper presents the results of an empirical research study designed to fill that gap. The study examined the manner in which a municipal police force and the RCMP implemented changes to procedures following two Supreme Court of Canada Charter decisions. The paper concludes that, while steps have been taken to develop a process by which Supreme Court decisions are implemented, the process would be improved if one body were allocated responsibility for the provision of interim information to the police

An Overview of the U.S. Retirement Income Security System and the Principles and Values It Reflects

This article is designed to provide an overview of the U.S. retirement income security system from a comparative law perspective. Like many countries, the U.S. has a three tier pension or retirement income system, with the three tiers consisting of (1) Social Security, (2) employment-based pensions, and (3) individual savings. Thus, superficially, the U.S. retirement income security system resembles that of many around the world. Yet, in other ways, such as its focus on individual rights and responsibility, the U.S. system is unique. The article begins by discussing the nine guiding principles of the U.S. Social Security system as identified by the late Robert Ball. It then describes the principal elements of employment-based pension plans in the U.S and provides a brief overview of individual savings. The article then turns to the values reflected in the U.S. retirement income security system. It discusses how the U.S. system does, and does not, reflect the European values of (1) responsibility, (2) protection, (3) solidarity, (4) nondiscrimination, and (5) participation

401(k) Plan Fees: A Trifecta of Governmental Oversight

Arguably, 401(k) plan fees are the biggest policy issue in the retirement world today. They potentially raise questions about the fundamental business underpinnings of the principal form of retirement savings for the last twenty years. As an indication of their significance, three branches of the federal government: administrative, judicial, and legislative are currently and simultaneously addressing 401(k) plan fees. This Article will not attempt to provide a comprehensive discussion of 401(k) plan fees and all of the issues that they raise. Instead, the Article will focus on recent governmental activity regarding 401(k) plan fees. It will begin by discussing three recent DOL initiatives governing the disclosure of plan fees: (1) the revision of Form 5500, and particularly Schedule C; (2) the proposed section 408(b)(2) regulations; and (3) the proposed section 404(a)/404(c) regulations. The Article will then turn to the 401(k) plan fee litigation. Specifically, it will discuss two leading decisions, Haddock v. Nationwide Financial Services and Hecker v. Deere, which represent opposite ends of the spectrum of judicial resolution of 401(k) plan fee disputes. Finally, the Article will discuss recent legislative proposals to mandate greater disclosure of 401(k) plan fees

Anatomy of a Design Regime

Since the European Union adopted uniform sui generis design rights, an increasingly complex system of cumulative and overlapping intellectual property rights has emerged. While such harmonization offers several benefits, analyzing the interpretation and application of narrow legal requirements within the EU Community Design Rights may indicate whether such benefits will actually be realized. This paper examines Regulation 6/2002\u27s definitions of informed user and overall impression as they apply to registered designs. After summarizing relevant case law and considering underlying policy goals of the EU Community design legislation, this paper explores whether these definitions could be more efficient and intellectually honest if both the universe of invalidating prior art-relevant to a design\u27s eligibility for protection-and the corresponding scope of protection were restricted by industrial sectors

Redistribution Under the Current Social Security System

Arguably the most successful program of the modern welfare state, Social Security has been enormously successful in lifting the elderly out of poverty. Thirty years ago, almost 30% of the elderly were in poverty, a poverty rate that was more than twice as high as the rate for the population as a whole. Today, in contrast, only about 12% of the elderly are subject to poverty, a rate that is about the same as the rest of the adult population. This Article describes how the current system redistributes income. The Article does not attempt to develop a mathematical model to generate an aggregate number. Such an undertaking would go well beyond the scope of a law review article. Instead, the Article identifies and discusses the principal factors that are most relevant in determining how the current system redistributes income within generations. Since one of the fundamental purposes behind Social Security is to provide for progressive redistribution to lift the elderly out of poverty, and women, minorities, and lower-income workers are at a heightened risk of poverty in old age, the Article focuses on how the current system affects these groups. The Article begins by describing the role Social Security has played in lifting the elderly, and particularly members of the at-risk groups, out of poverty. It then analyzes how four elements of the current system: (1) the method by which benefits are paid out; (2) the progressive benefit formula; (3) disability benefits; and (4) auxiliary benefits affect these groups. The Article assumes that the reader has a basic understanding of how the current system operates. For those who would like more details, the Appendix provides an overview of the funding and benefit structure of the current system

Partial Privatization of Social Security: Assessing Its Effect on Women, Minorities, and Lower-Income Workers

Once viewed as the “third rail” of politics, Social Security appears to be moving inexorably toward reform. In his 1998 State of the Union address, President Clinton proclaimed strengthening Social Security a high priority and called for bipartisan forums on Social Security reform to be held throughout the United States. Similarly, following the 1998 November elections, congressional leaders expressed commitment to “saving Society Security,” and House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer renewed his commitment to bipartisan reform of Social Security as recently as December 8, 1999 in a letter to President Clinton. Congressional hearings on reform proposals are ubiquitous, and discussions regarding Social Security and its possible reform flood the popular press. While reform proposals vary, proposals to privatize the system partially; that is, to provide some, but not all, benefits through pre-funded individual accounts, are among the most popular of the reform proposals. Often differing in detail, the partial privatization proposals typically share a number of common elements. First, like the current system, most partial privatization proposals require that workers contribute some portion of their earnings to finance their Social Security benefits. Most partial privatization proposals then require that some portion of these contributions be used to fund individual accounts, and that workers invest those individual accounts in one or more private funds. Finally, most proposals provide workers with two tiers of benefits. The first tier benefit may consist of a flat benefit that all workers receive regardless of their earnings or, like the current system, the first tier benefit may be based in part on earnings, but provide a greater return on lower wages than on higher wages. The second tier benefit consists of the contributions to the individual account and any earnings or losses thereon. This Article explains why partial privatization would likely have a disproportionately adverse effect on the benefits of three specific subpopulations: women, minorities, and lower-income workers. The Article focuses on these three groups principally because they are at a heightened risk of poverty in old age. Since one of the fundamental purposes of Social Security is to provide for progressive redistribution to lift the elderly out of poverty, policymakers should be (and are) concerned with how Social Security reform would likely affect these subpopulations. Of course, not all women and minorities are at heightened risk of poverty in old age. To the extent that members of these groups are not at a heightened risk of poverty in old age, public policy may not dictate that Social Security reform accord them any special protection. Nevertheless, policymakers should still be aware of any disparate impact Social Security reform may have on these groups. Accordingly, this Article analyzes how partial privatization would likely affect the benefits of all three subpopulations, regardless of whether they face a heightened risk of poverty in old age. For ease of reference, this Article will refer to the three subpopulations as “at-risk” or “more vulnerable” even though individual members of the groups may not face a higher risk of poverty. The Article begins by explaining how partial privatization differs fundamentally from the current system. The Article then explains why partial privatization would likely have an adverse effect on the benefits of women, minorities, an lower-income workers. Specifically, it explains why shifting investment risk to workers, the fundamental indispensable difference between the current system and a partially privatized system, would likely have an adverse impact on the benefits of the three at-risk groups. It then explains how distribution of benefits of the three subpopulations would be impacted by partial privatization’s interaction with the four factors – (1) payout of benefits, (2) progressive benefit formula, (3) disability benefits, and (4) auxiliary benefits – most relevant in determining how the current system redistributes income. The Article does not analyze any single partial privatization proposal, although it does refer to specific proposals when relevant

Reforming Retirement Systems: Why the French Have Succeeded When Americans Have Not

In order to understand why the American Social Security system has been so resistant to change while the retirement systems in other countries have been amended, this Article analyzes why one country, France, was able to reform its retirement system significantly in 2003. The Article begins by briefly describing the French retirement system prior to 2003. It then provides an overview of the most significant changes wrought by the reform enacted in 2003. It then analyses why, after years of inaction and failed attempts to reform the French retirement system, the government succeeded in reforming the retirement system in 2003. Finally, it considers why the United States, after years of debate, has not enacted any major reform of its Social Security system in the last twenty years

Privatization of Social Security: Misguided Reform

This article begins by briefly describing the social security program. It then discusses the reasons for social security\u27s widespread popularity and its impending funding crisis. The article goes on to briefly describe some of the pending privatization proposals. The article concludes by discussing the practical and theoretical problems with privatizing social security. Specifically, it describes the investment risk participants face under a privatized system and the transition problems created by converting to such a system. Finally, this article explains why the privatization proposals promote misguided paternalism and misconceive the role social security should play in our national retirement system