3 ms·

There could certainly be a base level of care, with private insurance for additional levels. That's how it works in Taiwan. Calling all universal healthcare n

There could certainly be a base level of care, with private insurance for additional levels. That's how it works in Taiwan. Calling all universal healthcare non-competitive is like calling building roads non-competitive. We have government roads and private toll roads. The same goes for many services we take for granted. A more advanced basic level of healthcare is something we are able to achieve because of our wealth and success. We already have sanitary toilets, housing, heating, clean water. Every generation has built upon what we can join together as a society to provide in order to promote our health. In my opinion, Buffet, Gates etc. are the heroes of our time for standing up as rich folks to advocate giving back more to society. They don't view government as the enemy; rather, it is the result of our working together.

cookiecaper 10y ago
>Calling all universal healthcare non-competitive is like calling building roads non-competitive. We have government roads and private toll roads. The same goes for many services we take for granted. Roads are a major one-time investment with occasional upkeep. Everyone can use the road without the permission or assistance of anyone else. If we develop fully robotic medical treatment, this analogy may work, but as long as medicine requires direct, many:one human interaction to be worth anything to anyone, it's not a piece of infrastructure. >A more advanced basic level of healthcare is something we are able to achieve because of our wealth and success. We already have sanitary toilets, housing, heating, clean water. Every generation has built upon what we can join together as a society to provide in order to promote our health. We have sanitary toilets, housing, heating, and water without nationalizing home builders, plumbers, or utility companies. All of these things are subject to sensible regulations like municipal building and zoning codes, licensing, and local utility oversight boards that have arguably done a lot to keep the little guy from getting fleeced. Maybe we could take that approach, which is a bit short of writing a blank check or setting fixed prices for all medical providers nationwide? >In my opinion, Buffet, Gates etc. are the heroes of our time for standing up as rich folks to advocate giving back more to society. They don't view government as the enemy; rather, it is the result of our working together. Look under the veneer on Buffet, Gates, etc. They like government because it furthers their business interests (this is especially true in the case of Buffet) and because it's easier to exercise control over money sitting in a bureaucrat's coffers, especially when you're a big name like Gates or Buffet, than money that is dispersed among the private citizenry, who really don't have any special reason to care about your opinions. It's also very useful PR to go on TV as the richest man in the world and say "I need to give the government more of my money". What would the backlash be if he said the opposite? While Gates and Buffet surely have legitimately laudable humanitarian interests, it's misleading to pretend that they're saints. They are free to donate to the government as they wish. Suggesting that everyone else be forced to match them percentage-wise is a different story.

cookiecaper 10y ago

>Calling all universal healthcare non-competitive is like calling building roads non-competitive. We have government roads and private toll roads. The same goes for many services we take for granted. Roads are a major one-time investment with occasional upkeep. Everyone can use the road without the permission or assistance of anyone else. If we develop fully robotic medical treatment, this analogy may work, but as long as medicine requires direct, many:one human interaction to be worth anything to anyone, it's not a piece of infrastructure. >A more advanced basic level of healthcare is something we are able to achieve because of our wealth and success. We already have sanitary toilets, housing, heating, clean water. Every generation has built upon what we can join together as a society to provide in order to promote our health. We have sanitary toilets, housing, heating, and water without nationalizing home builders, plumbers, or utility companies. All of these things are subject to sensible regulations like municipal building and zoning codes, licensing, and local utility oversight boards that have arguably done a lot to keep the little guy from getting fleeced. Maybe we could take that approach, which is a bit short of writing a blank check or setting fixed prices for all medical providers nationwide? >In my opinion, Buffet, Gates etc. are the heroes of our time for standing up as rich folks to advocate giving back more to society. They don't view government as the enemy; rather, it is the result of our working together. Look under the veneer on Buffet, Gates, etc. They like government because it furthers their business interests (this is especially true in the case of Buffet) and because it's easier to exercise control over money sitting in a bureaucrat's coffers, especially when you're a big name like Gates or Buffet, than money that is dispersed among the private citizenry, who really don't have any special reason to care about your opinions. It's also very useful PR to go on TV as the richest man in the world and say "I need to give the government more of my money". What would the backlash be if he said the opposite? While Gates and Buffet surely have legitimately laudable humanitarian interests, it's misleading to pretend that they're saints. They are free to donate to the government as they wish. Suggesting that everyone else be forced to match them percentage-wise is a different story.