patrick.net

Yeah, Well Buffet says a lot doesn't he.

I wonder what he would say if he woke tomorrow broke and had to depend on a Social Security pension, and had to pay the Obamatax with that fixed income.

Well, Buffet likes to straddle political issues w/o coming out with more concrete solutions.

I guess if B.O.'s plan fully goes into action, then many of Berkshire Hathaway's companies can actually pay the federal penalty and not offer any plan to any employees, since it would ultimately cost less and everyone can buy one at their local state exchange.

In the end, medicine will be socialized and the govt, a single payer.

Single payer wouldn't be all bad. Insurance would be socialized, but the providers would still be private. There would be only one big insurer -- the gov't -- and medical prices would not be allowed to be both hidden and infinitely high, like they are now.

There is nothing in principle right now stopping a hospital from charging you $10,000,000 for a single aspirin and refusing to tell you the cost in advance. You take the aspirin, blammo, you're bankrupt.

Single payer wouldn't be all bad. Insurance would be socialized, but the providers would still be private. There would be only one big insurer -- the gov't -- and medical prices would not be allowed to be both hidden and infinitely high, like they are now.

In five years, the state of Vermont is going this way. They're going to be the 1st single payer state. Let's see how they turn out but I'm suspecting that initially, they may lose some staff at places like Burlington or Rutland, however, over time it'll probably equilibrate, since ultimately, the big dollars in medical care will start to dwindle nationwide.

Single payer wouldn't be all bad. Insurance would be socialized, but the providers would still be private. There would be only one big insurer -- the gov't -- and medical prices would not be allowed to be both hidden and infinitely high, like they are now.

I can't think of anything left in modern society which isn't purchased for wealth, status, cosmesis (at least on aggregate).

But let's assume for a moment that people would buy cars because it was the only mode of transport and they needed something that would provide reliable transport.

Yes, there would be moral hazard. There would be people who would get away with buying cheap cars because that's all they wanted to spend on a car.

But, the majority just wanted their car to work and to be easy to fix if there was a problem.

Now, this is what health care ought to be. People want their body to work and be fixed if there is a problem. Sure, there are plenty of people who will not take care of themselves or who are interested in cosmetic procedures only. But let's assume that people want health care so their body will work well and can be fixed if it's not working well.

Now, ask yourself how will this best be achieved?

Well, for traumas, it's a no-brainer. If you break a bone, it should be fixed. If you don't have the money then you will have to rely on whatever system society considers appropriate for paying for care (socialized medicine or whatever).

Now, what about all the cases when the treatment is not so clearly beneficial:
For example:
1) Cholesterol lowering - the research is muddled, but probably only beneficial in a very small subset of "high cholesterol" patients.
2) Autoimmune disease - conventional treatment creates serious consequences while the underlying disease is never cured.
3) Allergies - never cured, always on chronic treatment
4) Digestive ailments (IBS, Crohn's, Ulcerative colitis) - again, never cured. Just accept the consequences of treatment.

The list is truly endless.

Now, suppose there were actual treatments available for these conditions (which are the overwhelming cost burden in health care), but it was not in the best interest of the system to cure the condition?

For example, suppose that high cholesterol and heart disease was due to the consumption of highly processed, rancid fats which the government SUBSIDIZES! What fool would challenge that system? Wouldn't it be easier to just stick everyone on a statin? Wouldn't it be even easier to stick the bill to the tax-paying public?

Now, the system's even more complicated than I made it out to be. But, single-payer is a bubble blowing exercise. Nothing more, nothing less. I know it's emotional. I know every family has someone who suffered from a serious medical condition. But medicine today is big money. Money controls everything that comes out of medical research. And money will control your emotions too when the commercials ask who will pays for little Johnny's Cystic Fibrosis meds.

Buffett and John Roberts are submissive peons to "the great and wonderful OZ-bamma". They probably pee in their pants in his presence.

There is nothing in principle right now stopping a hospital from charging you $10,000,000 for a single aspirin and refusing to tell you the cost in advance. You take the aspirin, blammo, you're bankrupt.

Well there is always the chance of a disgruntled customer walking into their corporate offices wearing a dynamite jacket.