4 ms·

I am not an expert so this is an uneducated guess, but probably because it's easier to allow competition than to force lower prices on a market riddled with reg

I am not an expert so this is an uneducated guess, but probably because it's easier to allow competition than to force lower prices on a market riddled with regulatory capture.

adventured 7y ago
Conceptually it's the same reason it's far easier for Trump to use executive orders to go after healthcare prices & transparency, than to go through Congress and spend years battling lobbyists only to get nowhere (bought & paid for Congress members will sabotage the efforts, or otherwise dilute it to nothing). People understandably dislike Trump. His biggest legacy is actually not going to be his obnoxious personality however. It's going to be that he has unleashed the executive order as an acceptable method of action in combating eg the ridiculous US healthcare system. Just wait until the next Democrat is in the White House. If you're big pharma or big healthcare, you better put on your seat belt.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  Regarding health care in practice what has actually been accomplished by said executive order? Seems extremely likely to be a whole lot of nothing.
  - adventured 7y ago
    I think you're entirely missing the point. The next Democrat President will be belligerent with the use of EOs against the healthcare industry, thanks the Trump making their use far more acceptable (Trump is flinging them around on anything and everything as he sees fit to pursue his personal agenda). They will pursue policy - such as fixing healthcare industry problems - on things they can't get through Congress, using EOs. The healthcare industry is so disliked at this point, there will be very few defenders standing up against the use of EOs in that manner. This will also likely be commonly seen in regards to environmental related issues. The next Democrat in the White House will use EOs extremely liberally toward policy in that area. Far more so than any prior Presidents have. If you're the healthcare industry what are you going to do against a large volume of executive orders each year targeting you? Good luck fighting even a small fraction of them all, executive orders are difficult and costly to turn back. And the President can just keep burying you with them. Over the last few decades the President has increasingly been given ever wider discretion to use EOs, and Congress has largely been reluctant or plain unwilling to roll that power expansion back meaningfully. If you're big healthcare, you'll be battling the 'unlimited' resources of the largest, most powerful entity in world history, good luck. It will soon become very obvious - if it's not already - that the best way to fix many of the malign parts of the US healthcare system, is through an abusive spamming of executive orders that chokes the whole thing to death and begins modifying how it all works. There is nothing that can be done to stop this approach, if a President decides to do it (Congress is very unlikely to agree to curtail the EO abuse). The healthcare industry would be on its knees begging for mercy in five minutes. Democrats should properly already recognize there is no means to go through Congress to fix the US healthcare system. They had a supermajority and couldn't come close to fixing the disaster that is the system. There is one route to go and only one. They will use it, just watch. It's the obvious path. Personally, I'm not a Democrat or Republican, more independent politically. I don't like the abusive use of EOs. At this point, given the entirely broken nature of US healthcare (and that Congress will never agree to anything that would fix it; not even remotely close), I'd support giving the next Democrat President carte blanche to obliterate the healthcare industry using executive orders. Bring it down by any means necessary.
    - asark 7y ago
      I think we're about to find out there's a lot of asymmetry in the ability to use executive power, in that laws put some sort of ceiling (fuzzy, perhaps, but it's there) on the power of the executive branch in various areas, but there's no court-enforced floor on it, for the most part. So it's easy to, say, stop the CFPB from doing anything at all or cripple the EPA, but much harder to push those offices beyond their congressional mandate. Restraint in this regard, and (especially) Republican willingness to let agencies, laws, and policies they don't like even sort-of work when they're in power, has essentially been due to courtesy or deference to convention. That may be going away.
    - refurb 7y ago
      Looks like FDR took Executive Orders to a new level! 3,728 in total over 12 years. Trump has 118 over 2.5 years and Obama had 276 over 8 years.[1] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#Consolidated_list_by_President https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_...
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        FDR had both the Great Depression and World War II during his terms, of course. The raw counts are unlikely to tell the full story, and I suspect Congress's ongoing ceding of power to the executive has reduced the quantity of them in normal practice as well.
    - JudgeWapner 7y ago
      > I'd support giving the next Democrat President carte blanche to obliterate the healthcare industry The top 5 recipients of healthcare lobbying money for '17 and '18 have been democrats [1]. Democrats received more healthcare lobbying money on both the '08 and '16 elections [1]. No reason to expect the party "for the people" to actually do anything for the people besides make emotional campaign commercials. Both parties are the same. Bernie is leading the way, however. Calling on all Dems to stop accepting their money. (personally, I wish they'd just accept the money and then betray the donors en masse). [1]. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=H https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=H
- misterprime 7y ago
  George W Bush vastly expanded the use of executive orders. Libs like myself complained about that to no end. Then Obama came in and did it even more! So yes, we've already seen this problem escalate from one president to the next. My history isn't deep enough know for sure, but it might even go back to the Vietnam Police Action. It wasn't a war since congress didn't authorize it you know. Edit: Looks like I was bamboozled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_... thanks ambicapter.
  - asark 7y ago
    > George W Bush vastly expanded the use of executive orders. Libs like myself complained about that to no end. > Then Obama came in and did it even more! What are you basing that on? How are you arriving at either 1) W expanding the use of executive orders, or 2) Obama doing it even more?
    - ambicapter 7y ago
      I did some wikipedia'ing and it doesn't look like its based on reality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_...
      - misterprime 7y ago
        News radio strikes again. Thanks for the correction.
      - asark 7y ago
        Sheer count's not everything. I thought maybe there was some other analysis that'd support the assertions (first thing I did was check that page, which certainly doesn't support them).
- dv_dt 7y ago
  For many government matters, Trump just made obnoxious and visible what was quietly being done already.

I am not an expert so this is an uneducated guess, but probably because it's easier to allow competition than to force lower prices on a market riddled with regulatory capture.

adventured 7y ago

Conceptually it's the same reason it's far easier for Trump to use executive orders to go after healthcare prices & transparency, than to go through Congress and spend years battling lobbyists only to get nowhere (bought & paid for Congress members will sabotage the efforts, or otherwise dilute it to nothing). People understandably dislike Trump. His biggest legacy is actually not going to be his obnoxious personality however. It's going to be that he has unleashed the executive order as an acceptable method of action in combating eg the ridiculous US healthcare system. Just wait until the next Democrat is in the White House. If you're big pharma or big healthcare, you better put on your seat belt.

michaelmrose 7y ago
Regarding health care in practice what has actually been accomplished by said executive order? Seems extremely likely to be a whole lot of nothing.
- adventured 7y ago
  I think you're entirely missing the point. The next Democrat President will be belligerent with the use of EOs against the healthcare industry, thanks the Trump making their use far more acceptable (Trump is flinging them around on anything and everything as he sees fit to pursue his personal agenda). They will pursue policy - such as fixing healthcare industry problems - on things they can't get through Congress, using EOs. The healthcare industry is so disliked at this point, there will be very few defenders standing up against the use of EOs in that manner. This will also likely be commonly seen in regards to environmental related issues. The next Democrat in the White House will use EOs extremely liberally toward policy in that area. Far more so than any prior Presidents have. If you're the healthcare industry what are you going to do against a large volume of executive orders each year targeting you? Good luck fighting even a small fraction of them all, executive orders are difficult and costly to turn back. And the President can just keep burying you with them. Over the last few decades the President has increasingly been given ever wider discretion to use EOs, and Congress has largely been reluctant or plain unwilling to roll that power expansion back meaningfully. If you're big healthcare, you'll be battling the 'unlimited' resources of the largest, most powerful entity in world history, good luck. It will soon become very obvious - if it's not already - that the best way to fix many of the malign parts of the US healthcare system, is through an abusive spamming of executive orders that chokes the whole thing to death and begins modifying how it all works. There is nothing that can be done to stop this approach, if a President decides to do it (Congress is very unlikely to agree to curtail the EO abuse). The healthcare industry would be on its knees begging for mercy in five minutes. Democrats should properly already recognize there is no means to go through Congress to fix the US healthcare system. They had a supermajority and couldn't come close to fixing the disaster that is the system. There is one route to go and only one. They will use it, just watch. It's the obvious path. Personally, I'm not a Democrat or Republican, more independent politically. I don't like the abusive use of EOs. At this point, given the entirely broken nature of US healthcare (and that Congress will never agree to anything that would fix it; not even remotely close), I'd support giving the next Democrat President carte blanche to obliterate the healthcare industry using executive orders. Bring it down by any means necessary.
  - asark 7y ago
    I think we're about to find out there's a lot of asymmetry in the ability to use executive power, in that laws put some sort of ceiling (fuzzy, perhaps, but it's there) on the power of the executive branch in various areas, but there's no court-enforced floor on it, for the most part. So it's easy to, say, stop the CFPB from doing anything at all or cripple the EPA, but much harder to push those offices beyond their congressional mandate. Restraint in this regard, and (especially) Republican willingness to let agencies, laws, and policies they don't like even sort-of work when they're in power, has essentially been due to courtesy or deference to convention. That may be going away.
  - refurb 7y ago
    Looks like FDR took Executive Orders to a new level! 3,728 in total over 12 years. Trump has 118 over 2.5 years and Obama had 276 over 8 years.[1] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#Consolidated_list_by_President https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_...
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      FDR had both the Great Depression and World War II during his terms, of course. The raw counts are unlikely to tell the full story, and I suspect Congress's ongoing ceding of power to the executive has reduced the quantity of them in normal practice as well.
  - JudgeWapner 7y ago
    > I'd support giving the next Democrat President carte blanche to obliterate the healthcare industry The top 5 recipients of healthcare lobbying money for '17 and '18 have been democrats [1]. Democrats received more healthcare lobbying money on both the '08 and '16 elections [1]. No reason to expect the party "for the people" to actually do anything for the people besides make emotional campaign commercials. Both parties are the same. Bernie is leading the way, however. Calling on all Dems to stop accepting their money. (personally, I wish they'd just accept the money and then betray the donors en masse). [1]. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=H https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=H
misterprime 7y ago
George W Bush vastly expanded the use of executive orders. Libs like myself complained about that to no end. Then Obama came in and did it even more! So yes, we've already seen this problem escalate from one president to the next. My history isn't deep enough know for sure, but it might even go back to the Vietnam Police Action. It wasn't a war since congress didn't authorize it you know. Edit: Looks like I was bamboozled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_... thanks ambicapter.
- asark 7y ago
  > George W Bush vastly expanded the use of executive orders. Libs like myself complained about that to no end. > Then Obama came in and did it even more! What are you basing that on? How are you arriving at either 1) W expanding the use of executive orders, or 2) Obama doing it even more?
  - ambicapter 7y ago
    I did some wikipedia'ing and it doesn't look like its based on reality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_...
    - misterprime 7y ago
      News radio strikes again. Thanks for the correction.
    - asark 7y ago
      Sheer count's not everything. I thought maybe there was some other analysis that'd support the assertions (first thing I did was check that page, which certainly doesn't support them).
dv_dt 7y ago
For many government matters, Trump just made obnoxious and visible what was quietly being done already.