This is an email I just sent to Jonathan Gruber, economics professor at MIT and a major contributor to the ACA. Yes, we all agree it needs help. But the ACA cannot be improved in a vacuum.

Subject: The MIT Plan for Healthcare and Tax Reform
Hi Jonathan,
Heard you on Potus Radio tonight. My name is Joseph Aronesty. I have the weird memories of knowing Donald Trump from a class we shared at Wharton School in 1968, (where he paid for his homework in his senior year), and then observing his predatory modus operandi in Atlantic City, where I had my first businesses.
The thing that people often leave out, when discussing Trump Care, is that Trump has never been able to care for others. It’s not how he has ever operated. Trump chose to be a casino owner, a business that thrives on the failures of others. One must become insensitive to the ruining people’s lives to stay in that game. People’s pain is your only gain in the casino business.
Further, the Trump Care bill and many other of his presidential orders clearly show that while he says “make America great” Trump has no desire to make Americans great. His “secret” agenda seems to be to make his own family and inner circle of supporters greater. Unless they are in his billionaire boys club, nothing he has ever done really advances the causes of most Americans.
That said. Unless we impeach Trump, and all his appointees – we are left with the GOP, which also shows little care for actual Americans. The GOP is more sold out to corporate America and lobbies than the DEMS, on average. But DEMS are not excempt from this human flaw.
So what to do? This is my plan.
Let’s come up with a healthcare/tax act that will works for all Americans -but let’s do it ourselves ... as independent thinkers – not party members. And since the Devil is in the details, it will come down to smart citizens and trusted economists, like you Jonathan. We don’t need politicians to do this!
One thing the GOP has right. These “things” – healthcare and tax reform are indeed linked. We need to fix them together in an organic manner. Just as life cannot survive on food without oxygen, nor on oxygen without food – these two government acts need each other.
Tax reform should pay for healthcare. But healthier and wealthier Americans should be the result. And that should increase spending and production – hence generate more revenue and taxes. Less personal bankruptcy from paying for healthcare is also a goal here. The GOP is insensitive to that as well, because they are aligned with bankers who profit from personal bankruptcies. (Did not Trump say he likes to buy at the bottom on the campaign trail?) These two bills can and should be symbiotic. This does not have to be a race to the bottom!
So we start with tax reform to pay for healthcare and that means we need generate more tax revenue. I can’t think of a more direct way than to revert to a more progressive tax system, the way it was post WW11.
Of course, we must remember that the GOP and Trump have greed disease – but we should keep that to ourselves for now. We need to find something in this plan for greedy people. I think it can be done. The midterm elections can work to our advantage, but ONLY if we are low key about it. That “nah nah goodbye thing” – we need to zip that up. It’s tantamount to giving the enemy your strategy so they can feign an adjustment.
So one of the problems with a national system of taxation is that dollars alone do not constitute a financial status. Making 100K in NYC does not support a family anywhere as well , as that same 100K can in rural Alabama. So why should the income tax rate be the same? This has long been one of the underlying issues with any national tax plan. So let’s fix this first!
It seems to me that a cost of living index exists for the various states, and for the strata within the states. I just found this: https://www.missourieconomy.org/indicators/cost_of_living/
I’m sure we can find breakouts for urban centers within those states and then we have that much.
The next step is to DIVIDE the total income by the cost of living index – which levels that playing field.
Then we need to set a poverty line – below which a person should ideally be taxed at either a zero or some low rate like 5% (which I prefer to “sell” the idea and provide some soft realism to the plan. Listen, people in those straits should pay some tax if only to get used to the idea of paying taxes, and we all draw some resources in this bountiful USA. Most wont mind.) It turns out that there are stats for that as well – and though this page is NOT definitive – I am sure you know the latest stats.
Number of people on household and poverty level tax rate of 5%
1) $11,770 2) $15,930 3) $20,090 4) $24,250 5) $28,410 6) $32,570 7) $36,730 8) $40,890
And remember, this rate gets multiplied by the cost of living index to be a better national standard barometer.
This is just a start. I need to leave to respected committed economists like you. The big idea is to create MORE levels of taxes – not less. As incomes spiral upwards, past the place where an after tax income pays for a good standard of living, the tax rate moves upwards.
It moves past the current 30% – and 35% – to rates like 40% and even as high as say 50% for very high earners. Yes, the is tax the rich more, but we don’t sell it that way! We sell it (And we must sell it – that’s Trump won – selling!) as creating a better lives and opportunities for all Americans. We create a place where one can earn a fortune, but sleep at night knowing that the least amongst us are also taken care of. And of course, that boomerangs back to business.
One of the biggest problems we have is that the corporate bottom line for investors, is often the barometer used to make policy. For example, what else motivated the poison water in Flint, MI? It’s a known fact. Corporate and personal bottom line greed created the Flint water crisis. But greed backfires. Flint provided a good example of how greed backfires.
We must make greed out to be not sexy. We must undo the battle cry of Gordon Gecko – “greed is good” – something that we have sort of embraced as a society. (I’ve written a few songs about greed.)
Once the levels are calculated – we’ll need to see what tax rate aggregate sums to. It needs to be enough to afford us the best healthcare plan for all Americans. We’ll have to tweak it until it pays for what our healthcare costs actually are. Part of this healthcare plan must include capping and reducing the prices that industry can charge consumers for medicines. That’s absolutely essential. This may involve relaxing some FDA regulations, ( as R&D is very expensive) – but that’s better than scrapping the EPA.
Anyway Jonathan, I wanted to start this idea in your head, if you have not already self-started along this path. You are a respected expert in this field. If you got behind this effort, perhaps as a class project, we can name it the MIT plan. (People are looking for brains right now. Believe it or not – Trump’s un-brainy demeanor has suddenly created more appetite in the public eye for people who appear to have brains – like Fareed Zakaria, etc. We need to detail this so its like a math theorem that totaly proves out.
OK then. I hope to hear back from you on the merits of creating a fully detailed healthcare/infrastructure/tax plan – without using one politician. They are not experts in this anyway. They are largely sold out. We can do this ourselves. When done, politicians can be used to sell it. That’s all they need to be: salespeople.
We can call this the MIT H/I/T PLAN! (HealthCare, Infrastructure, Tax Reform)
A name that has a ring to it, is always a good idea.
The MIT PLAN! Lets get this started. We can then get a champion to advance this in 2018 – and put this to rest.
Any ideas can be sent to my email: josepharonesty@gmail.com
Relying on politicians for making plans is getting to be dumb.