By "mainstream" I mean they are at least known about and being considered, not that they are accepted by the majority. More radical (meaning fundamental) solutions are more likely to gain attention because they are novel, people may not have thought about them before, and also because they are more likely to spark debate and focus attention on the person that introduces them. Example: How many presidential candidates suggested "build a wall" as a fix for our immigration problems? Was this proposal "mainstream" or "radical"? How did it work out for that candidate?

Perhaps it might be about time that Trump shows the same disregard for Congress that Obama had! If the D's continue to obstruct and obfuscate, then let Trump treat them to the same disrespect the Obama showed. Perhaps with the next election, we should start by going after all of the spineless skunks by primarying them all (both R's and D's)! It is time that the Establishments start running scared.....

Yes. And once gov't starts doing something, it's hard to stop it.

"What does that mean?"
Once you create an agency or give the gov't a power, even if it's supposedly for a narrow particular problem, it's very hard to undo. My theory on why is the person who's getting a paycheck from it has a strong incentive to lobby to keep it, while the millions paying one cent don't have an incentive to lobby to get their cent back. If you say you want to cut across the board, people still have the incentive to keep it going for a few areas dear to them and their constituents: keeping a base open, Medicaid for the elderly, anything for the children, fighting evil-doers, and so on. Cutting gov't comes off an a justification for doing what benefits particular politicians. So the effort fails.

AS hit you over the head with in, in what for me was dark comedy with the politicians struggling to say without saying it aloud, "no, no, give us a plan that we and our cronies can benefit from."

I suspect that influences healthcare legislation. Health insurance companies have huge buildings full of employees doing a current system. Any plan that shakes up what those people are doing and who's doing it faces resistance. Politicians have to be mindful of their lobbyists concerns. The politicians often don't have a philosophical or economic mind. Their mind is remembering names and helping make connections. They have to hire wonks for the nuts and bolts.

I see this as part of a broader problem of gov't not having limits that it must obey regardless of what voters, politicians, and lobbyists may want. I see blaming it on "moochers" as simplistic. We have a system that's dependent on people always doing the right thing, even if it's an unpleasant decisions, and when they do the wrong thing it's hard to undo. Such a system can't work. I do not know exactly how to fix it, how to give the Constitution teeth.

Sorry, I meant on a personal economics level. By setting money aside I can only use for medical, I limit the money I can se aside for there types of emergencies. I see that as a disincentive - especially for the young and healthy. Generally, if we accept the notion of tax favoring for saving, a large "universal" account where you move retirement, medical, and education (to name but three) into one is far more incentivizing.

Still, it would be better than what we have now (as someone who personally chooses the HSA every chance he has had).

Yep, Obamacare was designed to fail to aid the push to single-payer, socialized medical care. THe GOPoop is doing their part.