Thread

1. iamdelirium · 1790353251 · focus · HN ↗

   I wonder if this is going start being abused soon.

   If I was Palantir or any other GOP aligned company, I would be completely against this. What's to stop a Democratic president from doing the same thing and destroying them?

   1. doctorwho42 · 1790353897 · focus · HN ↗

      Because the modern Democrats are primarily a corporate dominated party. They haven't really had any hard hitting legislation nor legal regulation/rulings on corporations in easily the last 30 years.

      I doubt that is going to change anytime soon. They are a private entity, so they can manage and change their primary system any way they want.

      1. ajross · 1790354685 · focus · HN ↗

         > Democrats are primarily a corporate dominated party. They haven't really had any hard hitting legislation nor legal regulation/rulings on corporations in easily the last 30 years.

         Sarbanes-Oxley? Dodd-Frank? ACA? Now I'm sure you (like, every other living human) has a ton of nitpicks and criticism of bills like that. But they're real and they passed and they're largely-to-wholely partisan creations of the Democratic policy apparatus (SOX looked very bipartisan and was passed under Bush, but the actual bill was written mostly by democratic staffers).

         I mean, fine, you'd like different regulation. But they're responsible for basically all the corporate regulation active in the US regime.

         Bothsidesism is a very poor tool for this particular argument. Work with your allies, please.

         1. reliabilityguy · 1790355191 · focus · HN ↗

            > ACA?

            How’s ACA hard-hitting on corporations?

            The 15/20 rules is what resulted in recorder profits in health insurance business, how’s this anti-corporate?

            1. ajross · 1790355412 · focus · HN ↗

               > How’s ACA hard-hitting on corporations?

               "You must sell insurance to sick people!", "I don't wanna!", "I don't care, the law now says you must."

               I mean, the whole insurance industry had spent the better part of a century (basically its whole existence) denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and the ACA fixed it via fiat.

               Not only is it clearly "hard-hitting", I'd argue it's probably the single most "hard-hitting" invasive change to corporate regulation of the post-war era. Certainly it is in terms of the amount of money involved in the affected market.

               > how’s this anti-corporate?

               And this is where the rub is. You're not saying that your desired regulatory structure is something different than existing proposals, you're demanding that your government engage in behavior that is expressly "anti" whatever you perceive "corporate" interests to be.

               That's not democracy, that's just warfare. You have enemies and you want to win. And the problem there is that the structure of our government requires compromise.

               1. travoc · 1790356170 · focus · HN ↗

                  ACA literally forced every person in the US to become a customer of health insurance companies.

                  1. ajross · 1790356633 · focus · HN ↗

                     It "literally" did not. What enforcement exists is financial (a tax penalty) and not compulsory. And obviously most people are covered via employer plans or Medicare, as has always been the case. A quick Google says that 19.2M Americans are enrolled in ACA plans. I don't have statistics, but I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of those are willing purchasers. Most people view health care as desirable.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.