as to Buffett, I don't listen to his social commentary until he voluntarily pays at a higher tax rate than his secretary.
There are actually a number of other areas at which it's pretty good, in addition to emergencies (much cancer treatment, most ophthalmology, etc. etc. ... it's actually relatively common for highly insured people with some kinds of cancer to be advised by their oncologists - given the choice - to have all their treatment in NHS hospitals rather than in the private sector, but this is never reported in the media; not by The Guardian and not by Fox News either ... I could go on, but it's mostly opinion, ultimately). In my opinion, neither The Guardian nor Fox News is anywhere near being a fair, balanced or reliable source for "news" about the NHS: each has its own very different incentive for making out that the NHS is a disaster area, at the moment. Hence (in part) my comment many pages back about it not even being possible to discuss it very productively unless and until the thing's completely de-politicized. My own view is that in general, over the last few years, the NHS has been doing pretty valiantly, all things considered, in extremely difficult circumstances largely not of its own making (in fact almost entirely not of its own making) and deserves rather more credit than it gets. Again, it's all ultimately opinion only, though.
I totally agree with this... Since I've lived in the UK for many years, I have quite a bit of direct experience with the NHS. I also know about other people's experiences. I actually think it's amazingly good at some things (e.g. treatments for serious conditions). At the same time, it's shockingly, inexplicably inefficient and poor at some things which are a lot more basic. Like @Xela says, given the aging of the population and all the other issues, the system has coped pretty well, all things considered.
what about the future? can it continue to obtain nurses and personnel from 3rd world countries, which in itself may raise moral issues in some people's mind. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-42565723
In the short term, perhaps. In the medium and longer term, they plan to train more (and should probably offer to pay their college fees, to do so, in my opinion).
20 trillion is also about what our annual GDP is. Now just as a small example, suppose that I make $100K per year and that I owe $100K on my house (a 30-year loan, like Treasuries). Is that such a big deal? No, even when you consider that I personally don't have the power to tax or to manipulate the dollar, and that my credit rating, however stellar, still is less impressive than that of the US.
I was referring to her making a living as an artist. Not sure if 99 percent of the population could do that. But she could be waiting tables...
He is not required to NOT pay a dividends to shareholders. His accumulated wealth (and those shareholders who do likewise) and pass most of this on to charity avoid income and capital gains taxes. He cries about the rates but then does everything he personally can do to avoid paying them.