A 10x-30x faster 𝚜𝚟𝚎𝚕𝚝𝚎-𝚌𝚑𝚎𝚌𝚔 in Rust just dropped, built with Claude Code and Codex CLI by @pheuter. The motivation was to make agents themselves more efficient. 2026 is about to be wild 😄 svelte-check-rs.vercel.app/

Here's my contribution to @DOGE. Welcome any feedback. Let me know what you think @elonmusk @VivekGRamaswamy. Probably the one time increasing an entitlement stands to save vastly more than it costs. America’s caregiving crisis is a looming disaster—and we need bold solutions to fix it. Here’s the problem: The poor (caregivers) are caring for the sick (Medicaid recipients), but the system is failing both. Home health aides and CNAs are critically underpaid, and we don’t have enough of them to meet current demand—let alone the exploding need from the aging baby boomer population, aka the “silver tsunami.” Worse, many caregivers actively limit their hours because of the benefits cliff. If they earn just a little more, they lose vital safety nets like Medicaid. This disincentive doesn’t just hurt caregivers—it undermines the entire healthcare system. The Cost of the Current System Medicaid is already the largest payer of long-term care in the U.S., spending $592 billion annually, including $213 billion on dual-eligibles (individuals on both Medicaid and Medicare). Yet, poor caregiver support drives up costs by forcing more seniors into expensive institutional care (nursing homes) and leading to avoidable acute episodes like ER visits and hospitalizations. For perspective: • Nursing homes cost Medicaid ~$102,000 per year per person. • Home care? Just ~$27,000 per year. Every person we keep out of institutional care saves Medicaid ~$75,000 annually. Similarly, dual-eligibles with better preventative care experience fewer hospitalizations, reducing Medicare costs significantly. A 5-10% reduction in acute care episodes across these programs could save tens of billions of dollars annually. The Solution: Raise Medicaid Income Thresholds for Caregivers Here’s a simple but transformative idea: Raise the Medicaid income threshold specifically for caregivers who serve Medicaid recipients. This would: 1. Unlock workforce capacity: Many caregivers would work more hours if they didn’t fear losing benefits. Even a modest increase in hours from 30% of the current 2.3M caregiver workforce could add 345,000 full-time equivalents to the field. 2. Attract new caregivers: Reducing the benefits cliff makes caregiving a more viable career path, helping grow the workforce at a critical time. 3. Improve care outcomes: More available caregivers mean better care quality, fewer acute episodes, and lower reliance on high-cost institutional care. 4. Cut taxpayer costs: These changes would pay for themselves by reducing long-term Medicaid and Medicare expenses tied to poor caregiving availability. Quantifying the Impact • Current caregivers working more hours: Unlocking just 25% more hours from 30% of caregivers would create an equivalent of 345,000 new full-time caregivers. • New caregivers entering the field: If only 5% more workers (115,000) join due to improved income thresholds, the workforce expands further, alleviating shortages. • Reduced institutional reliance: Shifting just 10% of institutional care recipients (~200,000) to home-based care saves Medicaid $15 billion/year. • Lower acute care costs: Reducing hospitalizations and ER visits among Medicaid and dual-eligibles by 5-10% could save $10-20 billion annually. The Long-Term Payoff This policy would stabilize caregivers, improve outcomes for seniors, and deliver billions in taxpayer savings annually. It’s not just the right thing to do—it’s the smart thing to do. Other Considerations and Research Needs Caregivers often also rely on programs like SNAP and Section 8. Simply raising Medicaid income thresholds may not suffice if higher earnings from additional hours don't surpass the added costs that arise from losing these benefits, leaving them worse off. Research should explore: • How multiple benefits interact with income changes. • Regional cost-of-living impacts. • Whether income increases offset housing and food costs. To ensure success, policymakers might need to smooth benefit cliffs across programs or provide targeted subsidies in high-cost areas.