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

[Xela]

That is the problem with a single payer system: The government FORCES EVERYONE to pay, there is NO CHOICE.

There are some possible ways round that.

For example (i) a voucher system; (ii) a tax rebate for those choosing not to use the service they've paid for through their taxes and using another one instead.

Both have been suggested but not tested in the UK. They're not administratively easy, they have some complications and anomalies, and they cost something. (And at least in the UK, where there's a cultural assumption of the "right" to a fairly high standard of healthcare that's free at the point of consumption of the service, they're unpopular ideas.)

 

[Martinghoul]

Boy... you're slow...
No, not at all... The system you described states that people can OPT OUT.
In a democracy, the will of the majority is IMPOSED and you CAN'T OPT OUT.
That is the problem with a single payer system: The government FORCES EVERYONE to pay, there is NO CHOICE.

Firstly, there's no need to get personal...

Secondly, what are you talking about when you say "NO CHOICE"? Haven't we just talked about it? You're free to opt out of living in my democracy and go somewhere else, if you don't like the rules imposed by the majority. There, you can opt out, there's no problem.

There are some possible ways round that.

For example (i) a voucher system; (ii) a tax rebate for those choosing not to use the service they've paid for through their taxes and using another one instead.

Both have been suggested but not tested in the UK. They're not administratively easy, they have some complications and anomalies, and they cost something. (And at least in the UK, where there's a cultural assumption of the "right" to a fairly high standard of healthcare that's free at the point of consumption of the service, they're unpopular ideas.)

There are all sorts of arrangements that aren't necessarily "single payer". For instance, Switzerland has universal coverage healthcare w/o a single payer system. The main feature of all of those arrangements, however, is that they're mandatory, i.e. they invariably involve the majority imposing its will on the people.

 

[NeoTrader]

There are some possible ways round that.

For example (i) a voucher system; (ii) a tax rebate for those choosing not to use the service they've paid for through their taxes and using another one instead.

Both have been suggested but not tested in the UK. They're not administratively easy, they have some complications and anomalies, and they cost something. (And at least in the UK, where there's a cultural assumption of the "right" to a fairly high standard of health care that's free at the point of consumption of the service, they're unpopular ideas.)

There is no need to complicate things... These will involve bureaucracy, unnecessary costs and inefficiency... The rebate doesn't work, because what you end up paying for the shitty services, bureaucracy and mismanagement is always way more then the rebate you get and the government will ever increase the "basis" you have to pay...
The voucher would be a lesser evil, since it would promote competition at least, but it is still a very poor choice because it doesn't allow the type of personalization that health services require.
These suggestions always address the point that "health care is expensive" trying to dilute costs, but nobody talks about the reasons it is expensive. THAT IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION, one that I addressed in my first post.
That said, first one has to bring down costs and increase efficiency by freeing the health care market from the the unions, bureaucracy, protectionism... And then begin to really consider additional options, IF NECESSARY(WHICH I HARDLY THINK WILL BE NECESSARY).
Here is a great lecture on the subject:

 

[NeoTrader]

Firstly, there's no need to get personal...

Secondly, what are you talking about when you say "NO CHOICE"? Haven't we just talked about it? You're free to opt out of living in my democracy and go somewhere else, if you don't like the rules imposed by the majority. There, you can opt out, there's no problem.

Nothing personal, it's a mere reality when you have to keep repeating the same thing to someone: it's a slow person, there are plenty around, nothing new... Don't feel "privileged" by this feature.
Like we discussed: when people OPT IN, they voluntarily accept the rules and if they don't they OPT OUT. If you are born somewhere with these rules, you didn't opt in. In the U.S. there is at least close to half the population of the country that is in this situation. Surely you wouldn't suggest that all these people leave their property, work and everything else just because the other half of the country voted to impose something on them.
The example you posed was a community of people that each and every individual VOLUNTARILY joined in the first place. This has nothing to do with a whole country, where such unanimity would never happen in the first place.

 

[Martinghoul]

Nothing personal, it's a mere reality when you have to keep repeating the same thing to someone: it's a slow person, there are plenty around, nothing new... Don't feel "privileged" by this feature.
Like we discussed: when people OPT IN, they voluntarily accept the rules and if they don't they OPT OUT. If you are born somewhere with these rules, you didn't opt in. In the U.S. there is at least close to half the population of the country that is in this situation. Surely you wouldn't suggest that all these people leave their property, work and everything else just because the other half of the country voted to impose something on them.
The example you posed was a community of people that each and every individual VOLUNTARILY joined in the first place. This has nothing to do with a whole country, where such unanimity would never happen in the first place.

Firstly, life is full of phenomena where you are born, you didn't opt in, and yet you have to abide by the rules imposed on you by either your family or larger society. I sure hope you won't argue that this is everywhere and always a bad thing (far be it from me to suggest that it's always a good thing).

Secondly, are you suggesting that what matters is what percentage of the population votes for or against something? So if a decision is a 90:10 split, it's OK for the 90% to impose their will on the 10%, whereas when it's 55:45, it's not?

Finally, no, the example I have given is a case where people who don't want to voluntarily join are free to opt out of living in the community. I really don't quite see how it's conceptually any different.

 

[NeoTrader]

Firstly, life is full of phenomena where you are born, you didn't opt in, and yet you have to abide by the rules imposed on you by either your family or larger society. I sure hope you won't argue that this is everywhere and always a bad thing (far be it from me to suggest that it's always a good thing).

Sure I would argue with that. If I don't agree with my parents, I must be free to not abide by the rules they impose me(think radical muslims, it is easy to get the idea). Not only I say that this is a right of the son/daughter, but it is essential to freedom. Being born in a place and having to follow the rules of the place is one of the saddest phenomena in this world. Look at the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe and increasingly the west. It easy to see how much pain and suffering not being able to opt out of the rules of the place you are born bring.

Secondly, are you suggesting that what matters is what percentage of the population votes for or against something? So if a decision is a 90:10 split, it's OK for the 90% to impose their will on the 10%, whereas when it's 55:45, it's not?

This is the part where again, your speed isn't helping you again... I've stated several times exactly the opposite: it doesn't matter the size of the group... The individual is the smallest minority and this is the only minority that has to be protected against tyranny.
You, on the other hand, by suggesting that if people don't want to live in "your" democracy, they can "opt out" by leaving it. This is very reminiscent of Hitler, who through "his" regime, decided that the jews and everybody that didn't want to opt in by the rules of his regime, should leave the country or die.
It's curious that you think that the only way people can opt out of "your" democracy is by leaving their private property behind and leaving the country/community.
I, on the other hand, stated clearly that everyone can do what he/she wants, including live in communities, as long as they don't force others to do something.
So there is more than one way to "opt out" and the one I'm defending is presuming that firstly: you ACTIVELY OPTED IN. If you didn't, you have to decide if you want to or not. And if you don't want in, the second essential part is that if you're not living on a tyranny, you can simply not be part of the community and still live in the same place and not be threatened for your choice.
This is what I've stated again and again, but you seem to choose to ignore.
You insist in "your" democracy/tyranny, where one doesn't opt in and if you don't accept the rules, you have to move out in order to live the life the way you want.(That is the definition of communism and your ideas are very similar to those of Stalin's or Mao's).

Finally, no, the example I have given is a case where people who don't want to voluntarily join are free to opt out of living in the community. I really don't quite see how it's conceptually any different.

Your example began stating that people get together VOLUNTARILY in a community and now you're stating that people born and not choosing to be a part of it must follow the same rules equally. These are completely opposite situations.

 

[sss12]

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

wow... if you can't differentiate between those two types of mortality I don't know where to begin. So I won't.

 

[Martinghoul]

Sure I would argue with that. If I don't agree with my parents, I must be free to not abide by the rules they impose me(think radical muslims, it is easy to get the idea). Not only I say that this is a right of the son/daughter, but it is essential to freedom. Being born in a place and having to follow the rules of the place is one of the saddest phenomena in this world. Look at the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe and increasingly the west. It easy to see how much pain and suffering not being able to opt out of the rules of the place you are born bring.

Interesting view... I'm curious, do you happen to have any children of your own?

If you do or you intend to, I think you should definitely attempt parenting by honestly and wholeheartedly applying the rules you have given above and see how far it gets you.

This is the part where again, your speed isn't helping you again... I've stated several times exactly the opposite: it doesn't matter the size of the group... The individual is the smallest minority and this is the only minority that has to be protected against tyranny.
You, on the other hand, by suggesting that if people don't want to live in "your" democracy, they can "opt out" by leaving it. This is very reminiscent of Hitler, who through "his" regime, decided that the jews and everybody that didn't want to opt in by the rules of his regime, should leave the country or die.
It's curious that you think that the only way people can opt out of "your" democracy is by leaving their private property behind and leaving the country/community.
I, on the other hand, stated clearly that everyone can do what he/she wants, including live in communities, as long as they don't force others to do something.
So there is more than one way to "opt out" and the one I'm defending is presuming that firstly: you ACTIVELY OPTED IN. If you didn't, you have to decide if you want to or not. And if you don't want in, the second essential part is that if you're not living on a tyranny, you can simply not be part of the community and still live in the same place and not be threatened for your choice.
This is what I've stated again and again, but you seem to choose to ignore.
You insist in "your" democracy/tyranny, where one doesn't opt in and if you don't accept the rules, you have to move out in order to live the life the way you want.(That is the definition of communism and your ideas are very similar to those of Stalin's or Mao's).

Firstly, where did I ever suggest that someone who doesn't want to abide by the rules should die or have their private property confiscated? My point was very simple: just like an individual has freedom and rights, so does the larger community. If an individual acts in a way that impinges on the rights and freedoms of the community (e.g. by free riding or by committing an injustice), the community has the right to defend itself. Especially because such an individual has the freedom to reside somewhere else, if they don't like the rules. I don't see how this notion is fundamentally different to the example I've given.

Finally, why do you insist on all the emotional labels? You've now told me that I am "slow" and compared me to Hitler, Stalin and Mao and you really love the term tyranny. Why not be a little less dramatic? I don't think there's anything all that totalitarian or crazy about the simple statement that one should try to find a place to live where they're comfortable with the rules. If you dislike all rules, you can exercise your right to live off-grid in a forest somewhere.

Your example began stating that people get together VOLUNTARILY in a community and now you're stating that people born and not choosing to be a part of it must follow the same rules equally. These are completely opposite situations.

Well, no, these are not opposite situations at all, simply because you don't get to choose the circumstances of your birth. When you're a minor, your parents/guardians get to make decisions for you. You can assume that your parents/guardians are in a given community voluntarily (if they weren't, they'd be somewhere else) and therefore so are you. When you're no longer a minor, you're free to make a voluntary choice about staying or going. If you choose to stay, the rules apply.

Regardless, it doesn't look like we'll agree on this subject, so I am happy to move on...

 

[NeoTrader]

Interesting view... I'm curious, do you happen to have any children of your own?

If you do or you intend to, I think you should definitely attempt parenting by honestly and wholeheartedly applying the rules you have given above and see how far it gets you.

Firstly, where did I ever suggest that someone who doesn't want to abide by the rules should die or have their private property confiscated? My point was very simple: just like an individual has freedom and rights, so does the larger community. If an individual acts in a way that impinges on the rights and freedoms of the community (e.g. by free riding or by committing an injustice), the community has the right to defend itself. Especially because such an individual has the freedom to reside somewhere else, if they don't like the rules. I don't see how this notion is fundamentally different to the example I've given.

Finally, why do you insist on all the emotional labels? You've now told me that I am "slow" and compared me to Hitler, Stalin and Mao and you really love the term tyranny. Why not be a little less dramatic? I don't think there's anything all that totalitarian or crazy about the simple statement that one should try to find a place to live where they're comfortable with the rules. If you dislike all rules, you can exercise your right to live off-grid in a forest somewhere.

Well, no, these are not opposite situations at all, simply because you don't get to choose the circumstances of your birth. When you're a minor, your parents/guardians get to make decisions for you. You can assume that your parents/guardians are in a given community voluntarily (if they weren't, they'd be somewhere else) and therefore so are you. When you're no longer a minor, you're free to make a voluntary choice about staying or going. If you choose to stay, the rules apply.

A "community" is an abstract concept, it doesn't exist and therefore it can't have rights and freedoms, only people, individuals can have that.
There is no drama. I'm being literal. What you are stating is that "a society, greater good, or anything collective" may have the right to impose something for a given individual, that is simply wrong and that is the basis of every totalitarian regime there was in history.
I never talked about confiscating anything, you simply said that if people want to opt out, they had to move. That implies that if an american, who was born in the U.S. and never opted in for all the socialist programs that have been implemented in the U.S. along decades should move out, since the majority voted for them.
I've stated again and again that there is no free riding in a system where everything is private... On the other hand, the system which you defend is full of it... Never in the history of the U.S. there were so many people living at the expense of others, producing nothing and just living like parasites, exactly because of the collectivist ideas that you defend. Yet, the people who sustain all of this cannot opt out e stop paying and sustaining all those parasites. It's easy to see the if a part of the country can vote to make the other part sustain them and get nothing in return, that is exactly what they will do(and did). The problem is that again, this goes directly against the individual freedom of each person that delivers the money under threat of arrest and they never actively agreed to this. So your solution is that people that never agreed to this situation move to another country because of an obligation that they didn't individually sign up for and that was imposed on them by others.

 

[zdreg]

There are some possible ways round that.

For example (i) a voucher system; (ii) a tax rebate for those choosing not to use the service they've paid for through their taxes and using another one instead.

Both have been suggested but not tested in the UK. They're not administratively easy, they have some complications and anomalies, and they cost something. (And at least in the UK, where there's a cultural assumption of the "right" to a fairly high standard of healthcare that's free at the point of consumption of the service, they're unpopular ideas.)[/QUOT



the NHS in the UK is free is and lousy except in emergencies.
https://www.theguardian.com/society...is-nhs-under-most-intense-pressure-in-decades
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2018/...lay-non-urgent-surgeries-amid-flu-crisis.html

a single payer system without competition inevitably ends badly. government run organizations by their nature are inefficient and lacking in innovation. a mandatory system with competitive providers for everyone including the young is the only sustainable system.otherwise you have nothing but freeloaders. of course something has to be done about people on welfare/dole who contribute nothing to society. they must be forced to work in return for their benefits otherwise the health system will go broke.