Warren Buffett Says America Is "So Rich" It Can Afford Single Payer

[Gambit]

....?? We are a NET EXPORTER.

If you have to import oil from the Saudis, you have to secure the region in any case and that costs money. A lot of money. If you need to secure oil fields in Iraq, that costs money. We're involved in that region despite being a NET EXPORTER. That's the point.

We're hardly independent of the middle east despite being a NET EXPORTER. I import 1000 barrels of oil, export 1001. Voila, I'm a NET EXPORTER. EXPORT MORE, IMPORT LESS, extricate the US from the quagmire of the middle east.

 

[sss12]

If you have to import oil from the Saudis, you have to secure the region in any case and that costs money. A lot of money. If you need to secure oil fields in Iraq, that costs money. We're involved in that region despite being a NET EXPORTER. That's the point.

We're hardly independent of the middle east despite being a NET EXPORTER. I import 1000 barrels of oil, export 1001. Voila, I'm a NET EXPORTER. EXPORT MORE, IMPORT LESS, extricate the US from the quagmire of the middle east.

We are very involved in the mid east. It has very little to do with oil.

 

[piezoe]

Of course Mr. Buffett is right, but he did not make his point as emphatic as he might have. He should have said, "America can not afford to delay implementing Single Payer Health Care much longer than it already has."

Single -payer is not synonymous with UK style health care. The UK has single payer and so does the U.S. in the VA and in medicaid (from the patients viewpoint). The VA is similar to the UK system, whereas medicaid is quite different. Medicaid is single payer but it is not synonymous with the UK healthcare system. These distinctions are important! Medicare, on the other hand, is only 80% single payer. Overall, medicare is multi-payer for most and two-payer for some. True single-payer and what politicians envision as single payer may not be at all the same thing. And certainly "single-payer" does not mean necessarily that providers will be government employees, though effective single-payer systems must have a large element of government price control if providers work in the private sector, otherwise little other than uniformity and convenience in billing is accomplished. So when someone says "single-payer", I say, what exactly do you mean?

 

[piezoe]

On the surface, the notion of "single payer" makes me think of "corruption", "crony capitalism", and "special interest benefit". The notion of "government, single payer" makes me want to barf. However, the notion of a GOOD single payer system has some merit. Years ago, Taiwan decided it would be a good idea to implement a national healthcare system.

It took a few years of research and analysis.... considering the "pros and cons" of US, Canada, and European systems. Then "pieced together the best of each" while eliminating the "worst of each". It's now claimed that Taiwan has one of the best and lowest cost healthcare systems on the planet. If America were to get behind such a task, I might could get behind it.

Why can't we do something like that?? Doesn't if follow... that at some point, somebody's (corporations) greed needs to be sacrificed for the good of the majority? Though that doesn't infer that "one greed should be substituted for another".

This may be the only really sensible thing you have ever posted. Congratulations!

 

[NeoTrader]

On the surface, the notion of "single payer" makes me think of "corruption", "crony capitalism", and "special interest benefit". The notion of "government, single payer" makes me want to barf. However, the notion of a GOOD single payer system has some merit. Years ago, Taiwan decided it would be a good idea to implement a national healthcare system.

It took a few years of research and analysis.... considering the "pros and cons" of US, Canada, and European systems. Then "pieced together the best of each" while eliminating the "worst of each". It's now claimed that Taiwan has one of the best and lowest cost healthcare systems on the planet. If America were to get behind such a task, I might could get behind it.

Why can't we do something like that?? Doesn't if follow... that at some point, somebody's (corporations) greed needs to be sacrificed for the good of the majority? Though that doesn't infer that "one greed should be substituted for another".

You started well and then you went on to fall into the trap that so many fall(to think that "just this once" we should trust government to do something for the "greater good"(whatever the hell that means...)).
But again, the greed that you mention is good... The problem is "Regulatory Capture"(which is the situation where you have governments joining forces with private companies and persons, this is the source of problems).
The systems you quoted are shit.. I've lived in Europe and I can tell you that even though it might be good compared to some countries(third world shitholes), it doesn't work and it is a time bomb because the system cannot sustain itself because of it's costs and inefficiencies.
You want to lower costs and make better services? Do away with every regulatory agency(such as the FDA, among others) and cut the political power of unions(such as the American Medical Association), let doctors from all over the world come and compete between themselves in the US, end bureaucracy to open up clinics, hospitals, health insurance companies + 0% corporate taxes and see the companies and health care professionals(driven by their greed) compete with each other for the clients/patients... You'll see what this does to the costs and quality of health services(I'll give you a hint: think Uber vs Cabs, it's exactly the same thing)...
I'm telling you this because you really started well and did not strike me as someone who is just like so many morons out there that believe in fairy tails told by communist idiots...
You don't have to believe me, just use logic and see that, just as you suspected, everytime you give power to governments, what you get is higher prices and bad services... And the problems you have now are a direct consequence of this: too much government(FDA, AMA... as mentioned).
When what you suggested is done, the people that always suffer the most are exactly the ones you are trying to help.

 

[Scataphagos]

You started well and then you went on to fall into the trap that so many fall(to think that "just this once" we should trust government to do something for the "greater good"(whatever the hell that means...)).
But again, the greed that you mention is good... The problem is "Regulatory Capture"(which is the situation where you have governments joining forces with private companies and persons, this is the source of problems).
The systems you quoted are shit.. I've lived in Europe and I can tell you that even though it might be good compared to some countries(third world shitholes), it doesn't work and it is a time bomb because the system cannot sustain itself because of it's costs and inefficiencies.
You want to lower costs and make better services? Do away with every regulatory agency(such as the FDA, among others) and cut the political power of unions(such as the American Medical Association), let doctors from all over the world come and compete between themselves in the US, end bureaucracy to open up clinics, hospitals, health insurance companies + 0% corporate taxes and see the companies and health care professionals(driven by their greed) compete with each other for the clients/patients... You'll see what this does to the costs and quality of health services(I'll give you a hint: think Uber vs Cabs, it's exactly the same thing)...
I'm telling you this because you really started well and did not strike me as someone who is just like so many morons out there that believe in fairy tails told by communist idiots...
You don't have to believe me, just use logic and see that, just as you suspected, everytime you give power to governments, what you get is higher prices and bad services... And the problems you have now are a direct consequence of this: too much government(FDA, AMA... as mentioned).
When what you suggested is done, the people that always suffer the most are exactly the ones you are trying to help.

No, I didn't "start then fall into a trap". I just posed a question. You presumed much apparently without reading.

 

[NeoTrader]

No, I didn't "start then fall into a trap". I just posed a question. You presumed much apparently without reading.

Yep, you did. I read the whole thing.

Why can't we do something like that?? Doesn't if follow... that at some point, somebody's (corporations) greed needs to be sacrificed for the good of the majority?

This is the trap... There is no such thing as "the greater good". Mankind's biggest atrocities have been done in the name of "the greater or the common good". That's because someone has to decide what that means... And in a world with so many different people/ways of life/views that is a recipe for catastrophe, because one view will be imposed on others...(Think Hitler...In his mind, he was doing it for the greater good... And a whole country believed him... The result: WW2)
What I described is a system where no view is imposed over another and the people decide what views to accept individually, by buying the services they want... But institutions such as the FDA and AMA(which serve the purpose of only strengthening "big pharma" and "american doctors union" kill competition...) This makes services expensive and inefficient... The result: the rich can afford to spend more money then they would if there were more competition and the poor are fucked...

 

[Scataphagos]

Yep, you did. I read the whole thing.

This is the trap... There is no such thing as "the greater good". Mankind's biggest atrocities have been done in the name of "the greater or the common good". That's because someone has to decide what that means... And in a world with so many different people/ways of life/views that is a recipe for catastrophe, because one view will be imposed on others...(Think Hitler...In his mind, he was doing it for the greater good... And a whole country believed him... The result: WW2)
What I described is a system where no view is imposed over another and the people decide what views to accept individually, buy buying the services they want... But institutions such as the FDA and AMA(which serve the purpose of only strengthening "big pharma" and "american doctors union" kill competition...) This makes services expensive and inefficient... The result: the rich can afford to spend more money then they would if there were more competition and the poor are fucked...

Like I said. You pontificate, but don't listen.

Your Debate Report Card... "D-"

ON IGNORE!!

 

[Cuddles]

Come on ..do you think that current cost per death is a prudent way to illustrate/project the future cost of the end goals of terrorist groups and their agendas if they are not thwarted?

Absolutely... It should cut both ways as this is the way we decide to throw people off healthcare anyway.

 

[Cuddles]

Did you know he disowned at least one grandchild? Totally cut off. She lives on 30- 40 k a year now. Not indentured servitude but still...seems cold.

I may have seen a documentary about it. If I recall, none of his offspring get a stipend/inheritance other than get all education and healthcare taken care of. The showcased woman was an artist of sorts.

Commendable really...