And Buffett can criticize our tax structure. Which in turn will cause some us to call him out as the hypocrite he is.
State-ran health care is one of the few things that I could see tangible benefit from. At the moment I see very little of that from my federal taxes. Somehow, there is a bunch of assholes in Washington that make decisions on what to do with my money (and yours too, but somehow I am sure I pay more taxes, unfortunately). And, oddly enough, their decision benefit nobody but their re-election campaigns. I don’t give a shit about fighting terrorism (its a show for people who can’t understand statistics), yet half a trillion dollars a year goes to it. I don’t give a fuck about saving agriculture in the US (cause it’s doomed anyway, we’re just postponing the inevitable) yet another 100bn goes to that. I don’t get any say where my money goes, no matter which party is prevalent at the moment.
Just curious. Is this because younger generations lack desire to continue farming operations? I’m wondering how this impacts the value of farmable land. We have a sizable amount in the corn belt, and the growth/rental income seem to consistently outperform the risk-free rate, not to mention provide many nights of good sleep.
Well, considering that farmers get paid not to grow things, it's a good investment. The more they not grow per acre, the more they get paid PS. I think US agriculture should be dead by now since (a) cost of labour is so much lower elsewhere in the world and (b) subsidies have created a monoculture monstrosity that is taking over our lives. PPS. Actually, it's only 20 yards a year (still a lot, but not 100). It's only 23k per farm on average
Single payer has some flaws, but it might be superior and is worth the discussion. As long as premiums are deductible and hospitals get tax breaks based on public service or religious affiliation government is deeply embedded in healthcare already. Right now healthcare is provided by medicare, the VA, private insurers and public insurers. Medicare is single payer and although not perfect operates as pretty much the lowest cost in terms of prices they've negotiated. The VA has really mixed and some awful reviews, but apparently not for lack of spending and many vets are now being allowed to opt into the medicare system. So the argument there is the money is not well spent. This is probably the biggest argument for the problems with a single payer. Some VA facilities are great, but many are shit. So fix the shit facilities - not an overnight process and it will take time, but they need to be fixed irrelevant of who pays. Private insurers - generally paid by corporate premiums which are tax deductible to the employer. They are also capped at 20% retention and their profits are taxable. So they are living with a government subsidy and the taxes they pay go to the government and end subsidizing medicare in the end. So what happens if you close them? People at the firms lose jobs and that is a problem, but you also lose some of the cost. Stockholders become disenfranchised and you can't just convert the property. Many private insurers are also providers - they own hospitals and other facilities. So value their assets and buy out their insurance assets and leave their provider assets. Mutual insurance companies like many of the Blue Cross providers and religious affiliated facilities, again a government subsidy through their structure. Medicaid and the uninsured. Basically the poor and the uninsured and I think this is point Buffet was driving at. In a country with this much wealth we should find a way to cover everyone. Some states expanded Medicaid under the ACA and 18 didn't - this was simply politics and is clearly part of the problem. Are their countries that have single payer and do it well. Sure and their are countries that have single payer and do it badly also true. Steal shamelessly from the countries that do it well. Doctors are well paid in the US - Hospitals have very low ROI and they are consolidating in an effort to get economies of scale, but it is a nonsense model under the current system. In the Chicago market - where I live - two of the best hospitals in the area aren't in the system of many private insurers - they are in Medicare and provide millions in benefits to Medicaid and the uninsured. This is nonsense. The EU provides healthcare to all of it's residents no matter where, inside the EU, they travel. Healthcare is almost 20% of our GDP which almost twice what most countries with single payer spend. Single payer doesn't mean free, but it's a crime that at almost 20% of GDP we have millions uninsured.
Bonuses for doctors: How GPs are earning up to £380,000 a year... and £200 an hour for work they used to do for free Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ar--hours-doctors-200-hour.html#ixzz52tXibB9T
That is a stupid statement, especially considering where a major amount of people are celebrating the New Year tonight. Oi. Enjoy your hamburger. (Some of the ag money goes to saving the world from prions. A prion is the scariest damned thing ever to evolve from the primordial goo. Don't believe me? Look it up.)
Hmm, really? Do the math yourself: number of Americans that have died from terror attacks from 1975 to 2017: 3,024 (https://goo.gl/Sozrxt) amount of money the US has spent on the War On Terror since 2001: 4,79 trillion (*)(https://goo.gl/z1d2ZU) That amounts to some 7 people per year. At the same time road fatalities kill 300+ thousand people every year in the US (https://goo.gl/yRdns4). Cardiovascular problems kill 630 thousand Americans per year (https://goo.gl/VJI9G2). How much do you think is spent on each issue? Would you say that spending money on terrorism is a prudent decision?
@sle, what about the economic damage? IIRC Bin Laden was intentionally targeting the financial centers in NYC to precipitate an economic collapse. We're venturing into the land of what ifs but suppose one of these terrorist organizations procured a nuclear weapon? Just a contra point.