3 ms·
The intentions may be good but that's unlikely to happen in our lifetime. What might be a more feasible solution?
by giwook 7mo ago
The intentions may be good but that's unlikely to happen in our lifetime.
What might be a more feasible solution?
- daveguy 7mo agoGet private equity out of healthcare.
- lokar 7mo agoDon’t require states to uniformly respect limited liability granted in other states. Allow them to add limits, requirements, etc. let the different states explore the trade off.
- Esophagus4 7mo agoOof, talk about making compliance difficult and expensive if a company has 50 different sets of regulations to comply with to do business in the US.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- PaulDavisThe1st 7mo agoDo you believe that states are the laboratories of democracy, and have rights, or do you believe that reducing the cost of regulatory compliance is a more important goal? I take no position on this currently, but it's an important question that deserves a serious answer. Trading off the costs of "state experimentation" and "enforced regulatory conformity" is non-trivial to do.
- jareklupinski 7mo agomulti-generational households
- lotsofpulp 7mo agoI would rather have access to a suicide pod.
- jareklupinski 7mo agocareful dont let private equity hear you say that
- lotsofpulp 7mo agoI'm more worried about Catholics and other people that want to enforce their religion on others preventing access to suicide pods.
- nradov 7mo agoThe reality of most multi-generational households is that the wife is eventually coerced into becoming an unpaid caregiver for elderly parents (who often constantly criticize how the household is managed). This sort of "worked" in traditional societies when women didn't have other options but when they're educated and have their own careers it usually doesn't seem like such an attractive choice anymore. I'm not opposed to multi-generational households and I have friends who have made it work well. Let's just not assume that it can be a scalable solution.
- PearlRiver 7mo agoIt was never an attractive choice- people simply did not have options. In my country it was not until the 1950s that retirement homes were invented and the elderly finally got their social security (remember pensions did not exist).
- mmooss 7mo agoIt could happen this year; legislatures just need to pass laws. The hardest part is people posting comments like yours as a diversion from doing real work (though there are other hard parts too).
- calvinmorrison 7mo agothat's right! if only I wasnt posting snarky crap on HN we'd have a Utopia. Paging Upton Sinclair!
- mmooss 7mo agoWe each have power, influence, and responsibility. You're spending yours on cleverness, and wasting others by shifting the focus and undermining their efforts. Cleverness, in the end, doesn't matter. > Upton Sinclair Upton Sinclair didn't waste it.
- calvinmorrison 7mo agoi certainly don't want to use my cleverness for power or influence, no thank you.
- mmooss 7mo agoI'm not talking about being power hungry, but pulling our weights in the world.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- giwook 7mo agoI find it interesting that you assume ill intent as the default when I was genuinely asking for actionable steps we could take to address a very real problem. Perhaps consider giving people the benefit of the doubt instead of projecting your cynicism onto others.
- giwook 7mo ago
- bsder 7mo agoRevoke corporate charters. Prevent and break up consolidation. All corporate entities require a registration to operate in a state if they have a physical presence. In this instance, you can also pass a law along the lines of "After setup, all care homes are required to spend 90/95/99% of their income on direct care of the residents or your charter gets revoked." This would prevent the incentives to buy them in the first place.