WARREN BUFFETT: SINGLE PAYER IS ‘THE BEST SYSTEM’ FOR AMERICA

[DKW 86 7,438]

WARREN BUFFETT: SINGLE PAYER IS ‘THE BEST SYSTEM’ FOR AMERICA

 

Explosion in 3...2...1...Boom! 

I know that the Feds are horrible at almost everything they do, but they do Medicare fairly well. This is one of my new ephiphanal life changing ideas. Yes, we need universal, single payer health care. It is time to take the Insurance Industry out of all this.

 

[TitanTiger 20,509]

I wish people wouldn't dismiss it out of hand so easily.  The great thing about the US attempting something like this is that we have 40-50 years of experience and data to draw from with Great Britain, Canada, France, Germany, the Scandinavian countries, Japan and others.  We can look at what works best in these systems, what the pressure points and pitfalls are, and craft a version that I think would work.

My main thing is, I think everyone should be covered.  Health care isn't a luxury item like an iPhone or a nice car.  It's someone's life at stake.  So I'm open to many approaches to getting there.  If single payer can do it effectively and efficiently, we shouldn't just run around screaming "SOCIALISM OMZG!!!!!!" We should see if there's a way to do it right.  Or come up with a better plan.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

The excerpt in question:

Quote

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you have a firm idea in your mind of what ought to be done about Obamacare? Everybody acknowledges there have been some problems with it.

WARREN BUFFETT: I think that’s way outside of my circle of competence.

But I would say this. You can’t have that 5 go to 17 and move on to 20 and 22 or 24 percent, because there are only 100 cents in a dollar. And health care is gobbling up well over $3 trillion a year. It’s just about the same as federal — the federal budget is getting up there.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Are we now at the point where the country does need to think about some sort of single-payer system in some form or another?

WARREN BUFFETT: With my limited knowledge, I think that probably is the best system, because it is a system — we are such a rich country. In a sense, we can afford to do it.

But in almost every field of American business, it pays to bring down costs. There’s an awful lot of people involved in the medical — the whole — just the way the ecosystem works, that there is no incentive to bring down costs.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And it sounds like you’re saying, with a single-payer system, it would be easier to figure out a way to get those costs down.

WARREN BUFFETT: It would be more effective, I think.

 

What he's saying makes a lot of sense.  Now, I'm open to some sort of mostly market-based system, but I'm just not sure it will deliver what we need.  Because markets naturally result in haves and have-nots.  That might be fine when you're discussing companies, and the competitive drive to produce the best computer or smartphone.  As big a part of our lives as such things are, they are not necessities.  You won't die without the latest smartphone.  So if there are haves and have-nots in such things, if smartphones or laptops are out of reach for certain people, that isn't the end of the world.  But such a result isn't acceptable when you're talking a person's health.  So any market-based system is going to have to still provide universal coverage to be worth pursuing to me.  And it will have to have some regulation and mandates to do so as a purely profit-driven motive will not result in universal coverage.

[DKW 86 7,438]

I wanted the market system to work. It failed in various forms across the nation.

I read in Yahoo that we spend cumulatively $3.4TN annually (includes insurance, copays, meds, premiums, etc)

According to the most recent data available from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), "the average American spent $9,596 on healthcare" in 2012, which was "up significantly from $7,700 in 2007."

It was also more than twice the per capita average of other developed nations, but still, in 2015, experts predicted continued sharp increases: "Health care spending per person is expected to surpass $10,000 in 2016 and then march steadily higher to $14,944 in 2023."

Folks, that is insane that we cant cover All American Citizens with that.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

IMHO we should NEVER let the gov't have control of our health system. I think it was Saul Alinsky that said one of the first steps toward taking control of a country is to take control of their health care

[TitanTiger 20,509]

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

IMHO we should NEVER let the gov't have control of our health system. I think it was Saul Alinsky that said one of the first steps toward taking control of a country is to take control of their health care

As if the government hasn't had "control" of your health care for decades.

Also, Alinsky never said any such thing:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/alinsky.asp

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

As if the government hasn't had "control" of your health care for decades.

Not mine

 

[TitanTiger 20,509]

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

Not mine

 

Yes yours.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

So tell me how. Up uutil Obamacare I didn't even have to have health ins.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

So tell me how. Up uutil Obamacare I didn't even have to have health ins.

Health care is one of the most heavily regulated areas of our entire economy and has been for decades.  The government already dictated all sorts of things about your health care to you whether you liked it or not, even if you paid cash and never partook of any VA or Medicare benefits.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Health care is one of the most heavily regulated areas of our entire economy and has been for decades.  The government already dictated all sorts of things about your health care to you whether you liked it or not, even if you paid cash and never partook of any VA or Medicare benefits.

That's not control IMO. Maybe yours. I think I still have choices for my health care. Under single payer I don't.

[AU64 10,122]

8 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

WARREN BUFFETT: SINGLE PAYER IS ‘THE BEST SYSTEM’ FOR AMERICA

 

Explosion in 3...2...1...Boom! 

I know that the Feds are horrible at almost everything they do, but they do Medicare fairly well. This is one of my new ephiphanal life changing ideas. Yes, we need universal, single payer health care. It is time to take the Insurance Industry out of all this.

 

I take it that you are not on Medicare.....or you would not make a statement like that.  Projected fund short fall of 40 TRILLION Dollars.   

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trustees-say-long-run-medicare-social-security-deficit-is-66-trillion/article/2530908

As for the program itself...coverage goes down, fees go up...and providers get fewer.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

That's not control IMO. Maybe yours. I think I still have choices for my health care. Under single payer I don't.

You have some choices.  You do not have many others.  The government regulates all kinds of aspects of what you can purchase, what a doctor can provide, so on and so forth.  Whether you like the word or not, it's still exerting control.

Oh, and Alinsky never made any such comments about health care:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/q

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You have some choices.  You do not have many others.  The government regulates all kinds of aspects of what you can purchase, what a doctor can provide, so on and so forth.  Whether you like the word or not, it's still exerting control.

Oh, and Alinsky never made any such comments about health care:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/q

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

 By definition, as long as I have choices the gov't doesn't have complete.control. And I said I THOUHGT it was Alinsky. But even if he didn't I believe the principle is true.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

31 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

 By definition, as long as I have choices the gov't doesn't have complete.control. And I said I THOUHGT it was Alinsky. But even if he didn't I believe the principle is true.

No it's not.  It's made up hogwash that no one actually ever said to frighten the easily spooked that Big Gubment's comin' to get them.  

And you didn't say "complete" control originally.  Not to mention, not all single payer systems give the government "complete control."  

[AUcivE09 582]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I wanted the market system to work. It failed in various forms across the nation.

I read in Yahoo that we spend cumulatively $3.4TN annually (includes insurance, copays, meds, premiums, etc)

According to the most recent data available from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), "the average American spent $9,596 on healthcare" in 2012, which was "up significantly from $7,700 in 2007."

It was also more than twice the per capita average of other developed nations, but still, in 2015, experts predicted continued sharp increases: "Health care spending per person is expected to surpass $10,000 in 2016 and then march steadily higher to $14,944 in 2023."

Folks, that is insane that we cant cover All American Citizens with that.

I follow the idea behind this and I would like to see affordable coverage for all. Keep in mind that comparing 2007 to 2012 is like comparing apples and oranges considering what took place in 2009. Currently - the government has driven prices up thanks to their ineptness now from both sides. When the ACA was first put forward we were told that the 10% increase in premiums over the past decade is unsustainable......and here we are. The federal government will have a hand in our healthcare from now on - like it or not. I would prefer to see them have as limited a role as possible and at least try opening up coverage across state lines - something the GOP is failing to do at the moment. What we had before kept people from coverage and what we have now is beyond expensive to the point many who could not afford coverage, or could barely afford coverage now cannot afford to use their coverage.

The vast majority of people with a pre-existing condition will never pay for what they use. That money has to come from somewhere. Wherever that money comes from (premiums or taxes or both) I prefer it not be funneled through another broken system (Repubs and Dems). 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

34 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

No it's not.  It's made up hogwash that no one actually ever said to frighten the easily spooked that Big Gubment's comin' to get them.  

And you didn't say "complete" control originally.  Not to mention, not all single payer systems give the government "complete control."  

Now you have gone down a continuing deal about "control." Forget that....I still maintain I am opposed to single payer health insurance. That OK?

[AuburnNTexas 7,167]

Single payer, Obamacare, the current Republican plan basically they are systems to make sure that medical costs are paid none of them really address why Medicine in the US is so much more expensive than in other countries. Single payer does remove a layer of cost the insurance companies but that comes with a couple of things. The Bureaucracy that the Government will have to put in place to replace what Insurance companies are doing and even thought you may not realize it. The Insurance companies negotiate with Medical providors to keep the costs down.  Now the government will have to do the same negotiating.

Next how is the government going to get the money to pay the medical costs. Are they going to require companies over a certain size to pay about the same amount to the government instead of to the Insurance Provider.  So would each of us also pay a tax/fee to government based on our Salary.  

There will be rationing of medical care. There already is to an extent as insurance companies ration care now. To keep costs down you have to ration it more than now.  We have different issues with medical care in rural areas because of small population and large distances there is often a lack of Doctors and facilities. In Suburban areas we often have way to may beds and way to many facilities Medical Equipment like MRI machines are very expensive to defray cost you need to use them on a regular bases but today since we have more of these expensive machines than needed. We use them less so the company charges more for each use to recoup their costs. You would think the marketplace would cover this but it hasn't. If we did single payer the government would do this. Often cutting down the number of facilities to the point of long waitings lists. Ask the Canadians.  I don't have a solution but I have seen the issues.

 

[augolf1716 21,253]

Makes me happy that I'm old...have no idea what will happen for the millennials and their health care

[TexasTiger 12,992]

4 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

So tell me how. Up uutil Obamacare I didn't even have to have health ins.

What did you have?

[TexasTiger 12,992]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

You have some choices.  You do not have many others.  The government regulates all kinds of aspects of what you can purchase, what a doctor can provide, so on and so forth.  Whether you like the word or not, it's still exerting control.

Oh, and Alinsky never made any such comments about health care:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/q

Alinsky and Soros are very busy.

[DKW 86 7,438]

5 hours ago, AU64 said:

I take it that you are not on Medicare.....or you would not make a statement like that.  Projected fund short fall of 40 TRILLION Dollars.   

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trustees-say-long-run-medicare-social-security-deficit-is-66-trillion/article/2530908

As for the program itself...coverage goes down, fees go up...and providers get fewer.

You just described the ACA and the AHCA. Why dont we at least cover the rest of us in the process?

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

California just backed out of trying to pass through a single payer healthcare system this year because of the cost of the plan. The cost for the proposed plan is more than double of California's state budget. As much as some may clamor for single payer, I haven't seen a plan for single payer that would address the main issue, which is cost. 

Unfortunately, I don't think there's a perfect plan out there that exists or is realistic in being able to do everything people want it to do. There's going to be winners and losers in any plan. The biggest issue for any healthcare plan is not just the number of people covered, it's the healthcare costs. I think it's misleading to tout the number who have coverage. Just because you have coverage, doesn't mean it's good coverage or it's affordable coverage.The previous system before the ACA(ObamaCare) hurt those with pre-existing conditions and those who required extensive medical care for an illness. Those who already had insurance and didn't have a serious illness, the costs for their insurance plans were for the most part ok and were better. The previous system worked better for those who already had insurance. Once the ACA was passed, those who had pre-existing conditions and needed major medical care for their illness were able to get coverage. It worked better for them. The ACA has helped some who needed it most. But there were more people who already had coverage who either lost their coverage or switched to plans that weren't as good as the one they had, and now their plans cost more and they have higher premiums for basically less benefits and less coverage. 

I personally want a healthcare plan which main focus isn't on the number of people who get coverage but is focused on providing as good of coverage as possible while still being affordable and at a reasonable cost to everyone. While the ACA has some good parts, the negatives hurt more than the good helps. That being said I'd like to keep some of the parts of the ACA, like the pre-existing conditions coverage, require insurance companies to offer coverage to everyone and allowing a child to be covered on their parents insurance until age 26. The thing I would do away with is the individual mandate. It's a regressive tax that shouldn't be imposed on those who don't have insurance. 

The things I'd like to see in a new healthcare law are being able to shop for insurance across state lines, keeping the things I mentioned from the ACA, and getting more doctors into the healthcare industry. But one of the things I was really interesting in when it was proposed; but it predictably failed a few months ago, was being able to get cheaper drugs from Canada. I think being able to get cheaper drugs from Canada would be a very beneficial thing for those who are gouged by U.S. pharmaceutical companies that need life saving medications. Even though the bill that was proposed failed, it had some bi-partisan support. I hope that whatever system we have going forward that getting cheaper drugs from Canada is something that will happen.

[AU64 10,122]

3 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

You just described the ACA and the AHCA. Why dont we at least cover the rest of us in the process?

Did you miss the 40 Trillion dollars ?  ....and that's for a program that people like me have been contributing toward for their entire working lives?   ACA started from scratch paying benefits to people who never contributed anything toward their coverage.  The future cost is incalculable.  Whole different ballgame IMO.