The government placed access to affordable health care at the top of its priority list from day one of the administration. The notion that a $75 a month plan ten years ago might now be $1000 a month is specifically targeted as a primary issue. Again, you can say the legislation is awful and won't work at all (I've no idea myself and I'm in the "something is better than nothing" camp), but they certainly understand the problem.
Edit: And I APOLOGIZE for quoting a paraphrase, I am no longer able to edit the comment else I would remove the quotes and fully explain what appears to be what you are saying. I sincerely hope that I am correctly understanding your assertion, which again appears to say, "the government doesn't understand that health care is a huge problem for startups", and if I am not, then I withdraw my comment fully.
Yes, I do believe that the government probably understands that health care is a huge problem for startups. What I don't believe (and this is the point of the Steve Blank blog post) is that the government can effectively prioritize what the biggest problems for startups are.
Now, lets talk about Startup America specifically. Going off the information available online ( e.g. http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/startup-america ), this program is more focused on things like access to capital, mentorship and education, partnerships with big business, federally funded grants and research.
I think these are all really great things to work on, but health care, #1 on my list, is not even mentioned on their list at all. Again, I believe they know it's a huge issue, but they may be shying away from it now because "we did that already and it's done" or "we'll lose elections in 2012 if we keep talking about it".
I would prefer it all come in to effect immediately, but I understand there are business and regulatory systems that need to be developed in advance of implementation.
Scroll quickly and you can see context bouncing around in waves.
Haha, I didn't make that statement.. But you put quotes around it anyway? I was just speaking about my own situation and why I agree that Startup America is DOA.
Edit: Ok, forget about the quotes -- they're irrelevant. I do feel that you are misparaphrasing me, but I don't care. If you want to know what I really believe:
* Of course the current government has made health care reform a priority for everyone, not just startups. Nobody would say otherwise.
* I agree with the goals of the recent health care reform law. I think health insurance reform would have been a better way to approach the problem.
* It's a shame that the democrats lost the PR battle and as a result half the country wants the law repealed. Overall I think the law could be a good thing.
* I agree with the goals of Startup America, to use government influence to remove barriers to entrepreneurship
* Affordable health care for small business owners is a huge barrier. You can't hire most people unless you can afford to pay for their health care or a group plan.
* I predict that this won't be addressed at all by Startup America, because health care reform has become such a heated issue. People are losing elections because of it.
* By addressed I mean, where is it mentioned on their website? What experts do they have advising them? What insurers are they partnering with to provide breaks for small business owners?
I do welcome discussion about this stuff, but let's try not to misrepresent each other..
But I don't get it. Your initial comment (which I totally agree with) is right there. It is plainly obvious what you wrote and plainly obvious that the response is a paraphrase. You clearly disagree with that paraphrase, but that to me seems like an essential issue in the discussion, not a pointless tangent: "do I correctly understand you to be saying...", "no!", "oh, then...".
In fact just yesterday I got sucked into another thread that went the same way. I've come to the conclusion that that some people take counter points and play Devil's Advocate just because the enjoy argument and debate. Personally it's not my thing. I'd rather dash off a quick comment and get back to work.
This thread has gone crazy, hasn't it?
Unfortunately, attacking the form rather than the content of a position can also be an effective tactic for undermining an opposing view without having to risk justifying oneself. It consumes energy without contributing anything constructive. If there's a genuine ambiguity and a desire to work together to learn something, there are usually ways to clarify your opponent's position that help both people reach understanding.
So I don't see how you can make the statement "the government doesn't understand that affordable health care is the main priority for startups" - health care was clearly their highest priority to an unprecedented degree, whether or not you agree on the approach they took.