3 ms·

I’m right-leaning, I agree it does not help Republicans. Also, propping up ACA ( I say this as an ACA user ) is not the answer, either. The subsidies were tem

I’m right-leaning, I agree it does not help Republicans. Also, propping up ACA ( I say this as an ACA user ) is not the answer, either. The subsidies were temporary, making them permanent only adds to the never ending flood of red ink. Healthcare needs a complete reboot. As someone on the right, I am open to a reasonable big government solution. ( After all, even Nixon wanted public healthcare. ). It’s long past the time for patching. We need a reboot.

jmclnx 10mo ago
Yes, a "reboot" is needed. A bit of history from what I remember: Nixon's plan would have passed except for Ted Kennedy, he stopped it in its tracks. Then when the Clintons came in something flipped, the GOP was all against what Hillary was trying to push. I forgot what it was but I think it was some kind of single payer. So under Obama, the democrats took the Massachusetts plan created by Romney (GOP), which I believe the Heritage Foundation even endorsed, thus created the ACA. So here we are. Now I think we are in a sad place where for-profit healthcare is entrenched, bribing both side of the aisle to keep their profits high.
- dragonwriter 10mo ago
  > I forgot what it was but I think it was some kind of single payer. It was not, despite universal single payer having, at the time, outright majority support in polling. That’s one reason it lacked popular support on either side of the political spectrum. > So under Obama, the democrats took the Massachusetts plan created by Romney (GOP), which I believe the Heritage Foundation even endorsed, thus created the ACA. IIRC, it wasn't created by Romney, it was created by the insurance lobby and became a (rhetorical) Republican alternative during the debate over the Clinton plan; once that was killed, the Republicans didn't push it nationally (though I think Bush briefly, maybe only during the campaign, pushed a similar mandate-and-subsidy plan that was restricted to only including High-Deductible plans tied to HSAs.)
_DeadFred_ 10mo ago
AKA the typical doomer non-solution. 'If we blow it up, somehow a new, better systems will magically emerge'. If I went to management with the dev plan of 'throw all the source away, start over with a new stack, new devs, from scratch, but also I don't know what the new stack will be, and haven't found new devs' I would be called a moron. But if you are a conservative, it's somehow called rational policy and a plan and it's worth the lifetime lasting damage/potential deaths is will cause a shit ton of people and financial ruin it will cause many. Edit: Throttled so replying by edit. In the example below, Steve Jobs LITERALLY had a stack in mind, a plan, and people/talent lined up.
- qcnguy 10mo ago
  Unless you were Steve Jobs in late 90s Apple, when in fact they did have to throw all the source away, start over with a new stack and new devs, with imported ideas, not exactly knowing what the outcome would be like. Then you wouldn't be a moron, you'd be hailed as a business genius (I mean NeXTStep->macOS). US healthcare is broken. Most attempts to fix it make it worse because they don't address the root causes. That doesn't mean everyone who points it out needs to present a 300 page plan for how to address it.
  - _DeadFred_ 10mo ago
    So other than Jobs having a plan, having a proven dev culture that he himself built up, having a production OS, he had nothing? Not everyone needs to have a 300 page plan, but the Steve Jobs/Politicians pushing to blow things up need to. Or in Job's case he started with way, way, more than just a 300 page plan.
- RickJWagner 10mo ago
  ACA was supposed to be the solution. I think nobody believes that now. Healthcare is broken. It’s time to make things better, not patch the termite infected boat one more time. Remember the bold spirit of ‘we have to pass the bill to see what’s in it’? If you think ACA is better than what preceded it, then you favor bold steps.
tzs 10mo ago
> Also, propping up ACA ( I say this as an ACA user ) is not the answer, either. The subsidies were temporary, making them permanent only adds to the never ending flood of red ink. It does not add to the red ink, at least according to the accounting rules Republicans used to justify the so-called Big Beautiful Bill's (BBB) costs. The BBB made many of the 2017 Trump tax cuts, which were temporary and set to expire at the end of 2025 (just like enhanced ACA subsidies), permanent. Republicans argued that the loss of revenue from making the tax cuts permanent should not count when accessing the effects of the BBB on the deficit because extending something that is expiring doesn't really change anything.
- RickJWagner 10mo ago
  Related: Mitt Romney is in today’s NYT urging higher tax rates on people like him.

jmclnx 10mo ago

Yes, a "reboot" is needed. A bit of history from what I remember: Nixon's plan would have passed except for Ted Kennedy, he stopped it in its tracks. Then when the Clintons came in something flipped, the GOP was all against what Hillary was trying to push. I forgot what it was but I think it was some kind of single payer. So under Obama, the democrats took the Massachusetts plan created by Romney (GOP), which I believe the Heritage Foundation even endorsed, thus created the ACA. So here we are. Now I think we are in a sad place where for-profit healthcare is entrenched, bribing both side of the aisle to keep their profits high.

dragonwriter 10mo ago
> I forgot what it was but I think it was some kind of single payer. It was not, despite universal single payer having, at the time, outright majority support in polling. That’s one reason it lacked popular support on either side of the political spectrum. > So under Obama, the democrats took the Massachusetts plan created by Romney (GOP), which I believe the Heritage Foundation even endorsed, thus created the ACA. IIRC, it wasn't created by Romney, it was created by the insurance lobby and became a (rhetorical) Republican alternative during the debate over the Clinton plan; once that was killed, the Republicans didn't push it nationally (though I think Bush briefly, maybe only during the campaign, pushed a similar mandate-and-subsidy plan that was restricted to only including High-Deductible plans tied to HSAs.)

_DeadFred_ 10mo ago

AKA the typical doomer non-solution. 'If we blow it up, somehow a new, better systems will magically emerge'. If I went to management with the dev plan of 'throw all the source away, start over with a new stack, new devs, from scratch, but also I don't know what the new stack will be, and haven't found new devs' I would be called a moron. But if you are a conservative, it's somehow called rational policy and a plan and it's worth the lifetime lasting damage/potential deaths is will cause a shit ton of people and financial ruin it will cause many. Edit: Throttled so replying by edit. In the example below, Steve Jobs LITERALLY had a stack in mind, a plan, and people/talent lined up.

qcnguy 10mo ago
Unless you were Steve Jobs in late 90s Apple, when in fact they did have to throw all the source away, start over with a new stack and new devs, with imported ideas, not exactly knowing what the outcome would be like. Then you wouldn't be a moron, you'd be hailed as a business genius (I mean NeXTStep->macOS). US healthcare is broken. Most attempts to fix it make it worse because they don't address the root causes. That doesn't mean everyone who points it out needs to present a 300 page plan for how to address it.
- _DeadFred_ 10mo ago
  So other than Jobs having a plan, having a proven dev culture that he himself built up, having a production OS, he had nothing? Not everyone needs to have a 300 page plan, but the Steve Jobs/Politicians pushing to blow things up need to. Or in Job's case he started with way, way, more than just a 300 page plan.
RickJWagner 10mo ago
ACA was supposed to be the solution. I think nobody believes that now. Healthcare is broken. It’s time to make things better, not patch the termite infected boat one more time. Remember the bold spirit of ‘we have to pass the bill to see what’s in it’? If you think ACA is better than what preceded it, then you favor bold steps.

tzs 10mo ago

> Also, propping up ACA ( I say this as an ACA user ) is not the answer, either. The subsidies were temporary, making them permanent only adds to the never ending flood of red ink. It does not add to the red ink, at least according to the accounting rules Republicans used to justify the so-called Big Beautiful Bill's (BBB) costs. The BBB made many of the 2017 Trump tax cuts, which were temporary and set to expire at the end of 2025 (just like enhanced ACA subsidies), permanent. Republicans argued that the loss of revenue from making the tax cuts permanent should not count when accessing the effects of the BBB on the deficit because extending something that is expiring doesn't really change anything.

RickJWagner 10mo ago
Related: Mitt Romney is in today’s NYT urging higher tax rates on people like him.