Warren Buffett On GOP Tax Cuts & Consequences

[Almost there]

Nice that you had $30,000 available. What would you have done otherwise?

Borrowed the money.

And that happened 7 years ago when I had insurance.

I've saved over $50,000 after tax dollars in insurance premiums since I stopped carrying health insurance. My (and my wifes - we are both 64) health care is now covered by the Great Physician. He is faithful.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's funny you mention the number of anecdotes. I actually agree with you. The last few years it's caused me to say that human beings live a long time and, if they are not sitting at home watching TV all the time, they experience a lot of diverse stuff.

It may be that I'm being set up by God to enter the ministry. It's been on my mind a lot lately.

But about this tax bill, you and I actually agree. There is only one, single thing in this tax bill that I think will make a difference, and it is the one most important thing to me during the 2016 election. It is the reason I applaud this tax bill. And it isn't even about taxes.

Other than that, I see this tax bill as another attempt to re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. And this video explains why I believe that:

Oh, and that one thing? Eliminating the individual mandate.

The video is a hoot.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

[

I would agree on that...and had you used them as an example, 50% of the conversation would've never taken place.

A distinction without a significant difference.

The claim you made was not "true on it's face".

When something is widely known and understood it's usually true on it's face.

You may have the last word.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I spoke with a hospital CEO about his facility doing just that. He said they are able to do this now because Obamacare has brought in cash since they are getting paid for services. IOW so many previously uninsured patients are covered the hospital is providing much less uncompensated care.

...but that's a good and bad thing in some ways.

Like I stated about the Northeast Ohio region, when these major system prop up new facilities all over the place, and buy up all of the smaller ones, they eliminate any competition they may have had, and they make special business arrangements with insurance companies to work specifically with them and not the smaller competitors.

So even though the smaller competitor may technically offer the service for a cheaper rate:
For instance, they might only charge $200 for something one of the larger ones charges $500 for...
A person is going to opt to go to the larger one for the $30 co-pay (and just let the insurance deal with it) rather than go pay $200 out of pocket.

It's good that they're not having to eat it for uncompensated care...however, with how much they price gouge, they're making up up for that uncompensated care x10 in terms of their bottom line. If you're basically charging triple for everything, you could easily absorb the uncompensated care they provide for the small percentage of people who walk in the door without insurance. They try to demonize the uninsured by saying "look how much they're raising the prices for everyone else", but basically, that's just a tactic/excuse used by the providers to jack up the prices and distract by blaming someone else for the price increase.

It'd be like McDonald's claiming "we gave out those 5 hamburgers to people who couldn't pay...that's why we had to charge these other 95 people people triple the price! ...see! that's why you should be angry at those 5 people, not us!"

Some companies, like SummaCare, the regional one I mentioned, even have their own insurance company that works with their own hospital system lol. "We could only negotiate the price down to $X"...because I'm sure they're really negotiating hard with themselves to bring their own prices down right?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

A distinction without a significant difference.

Actually, it's a pretty significant difference.

When the conversation centers around you making a point that certain demographic groups have uniquely bad health issues compared to everyone else, picking the one that has fewer health issues instead of actually picking one that has more health issues is a pretty big difference.

When something is widely known and understood it's usually true on it's face.

You may have the last word.

It's not about having the last word here...it's about who has the data to support their position. The reason I keep pressing you for it is because after 9 pages of bickering, you still haven't provided it.

When pressed for links, citations, and hard data to support your position, your responses have simply employed a number of logical fallacies...

Appeal to authority: "I've researched this a lot, therefore I shouldn't need to provide evidence to support my claim"

Borderline Ad-hom: "the reason you don't know this is because you're uneducated on it and need to research it more"

Argumentum ad populum: "I don't need to provide any proof, everyone knows this is true"

Attempting to change the context: "I just used that as an example, whites and blacks won't change their habits if single-payer was implemented"


Like I said, it's not about trying to get the last word here, it's about the basic rules of debate in which if you make a claim, and someone else makes a data driven rebuttal, the onus is on your to provide data of your own to prove your position and disprove my rebuttal.

Basically, it seems like the way you wanted this to go was for you to make the claim, and if anyone made a rebuttal, just simply take the stance of "I know more than you, I shouldn't have to speak to this any further, you just need to do more research until you reach a conclusion that gels with mine" and then walk away from it.

That's now how debates work.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Actually, it's a pretty significant difference.

When the conversation centers around you making a point that certain demographic groups have uniquely bad health issues compared to everyone else, picking the one that has fewer health issues instead of actually picking one that has more health issues is a pretty big difference.



It's not about having the last word here...it's about who has the data to support their position. The reason I keep pressing you for it is because after 9 pages of bickering, you still haven't provided it.

When pressed for links, citations, and hard data to support your position, your responses have simply employed a number of logical fallacies...

Appeal to authority: "I've researched this a lot, therefore I shouldn't need to provide evidence to support my claim"

Borderline Ad-hom: "the reason you don't know this is because you're uneducated on it and need to research it more"

Argumentum ad populum: "I don't need to provide any proof, everyone knows this is true"

Attempting to change the context: "I just used that as an example, whites and blacks won't change their habits if single-payer was implemented"


Like I said, it's not about trying to get the last word here, it's about the basic rules of debate in which if you make a claim, and someone else makes a data driven rebuttal, the onus is on your to provide data of your own to prove your position and disprove my rebuttal.

Basically, it seems like the way you wanted this to go was for you to make the claim, and if anyone made a rebuttal, just simply take the stance of "I know more than you, I shouldn't have to speak to this any further, you just need to do more research until you reach a conclusion that gels with mine" and then walk away from it.

That's now how debates work.

I provided ample credible evidence for my position. You simply reject it. If you are going to reject all the expertise I provide through credible sources where is the 'debate'? And I'm actually learning more about the subject as I do searches, and am finding more support for my position. My last 'find' is that diabetes is the costliest disease in America, and Latinos are the greatest sufferers of it. You have equated longevity with health, which is false. Some diseases, like diabetes, can be treated well into advanced age if other complications are absent. Not so heart disease and cancer.

There's much more to this topic than meets the eye, and the evidence strongly favors my position.

 

[cow451]

...but that's a good and bad thing in some ways.

Like I stated about the Northeast Ohio region, when these major system prop up new facilities all over the place, and buy up all of the smaller ones, they eliminate any competition they may have had, and they make special business arrangements with insurance companies to work specifically with them and not the smaller competitors.

So even though the smaller competitor may technically offer the service for a cheaper rate:
For instance, they might only charge $200 for something one of the larger ones charges $500 for...
A person is going to opt to go to the larger one for the $30 co-pay (and just let the insurance deal with it) rather than go pay $200 out of pocket.

It's good that they're not having to eat it for uncompensated care...however, with how much they price gouge, they're making up up for that uncompensated care x10 in terms of their bottom line. If you're basically charging triple for everything, you could easily absorb the uncompensated care they provide for the small percentage of people who walk in the door without insurance. They try to demonize the uninsured by saying "look how much they're raising the prices for everyone else", but basically, that's just a tactic/excuse used by the providers to jack up the prices and distract by blaming someone else for the price increase.

It'd be like McDonald's claiming "we gave out those 5 hamburgers to people who couldn't pay...that's why we had to charge these other 95 people people triple the price! ...see! that's why you should be angry at those 5 people, not us!"

Some companies, like SummaCare, the regional one I mentioned, even have their own insurance company that works with their own hospital system lol. "We could only negotiate the price down to $X"...because I'm sure they're really negotiating hard with themselves to bring their own prices down right?

There are lots of issues with pricing, including the infamous “charge master”. But many of these issues are result of or aggravated by the enterprise model. We complain about lack of competition but competition doesn’t always mean lower cost. Sometimes it encourages mergers and acquisitions just like we see in retail.

 

[FenderTL5]

I don;t know if this is the right place but.. instead of starting a new topic I will post here since both taxes and healthcare are involved.
I just received the stub for my first paycheck effected by the new tax law and our medical changes.

My federal income tax went up (yes up) $7.72
fwiw, I make *less* than median income and there's been no change in the rate (no raise in other words).
Insurance went up across the board; medical $11.06, dental $6.31, vision $1.26.

So all in all, after the increase in taxes ($7.72)and in medical insurance ($18.63) I'm bringing home $26.35 less per week than last year.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don;t know if this is the right place but.. instead of starting a new topic I will post here since both taxes and healthcare are involved.
I just received the stub for my first paycheck effected by the new tax law and our medical changes.

My federal income tax went up (yes up) $7.72
fwiw, I make *less* than median income and there's been no change in the rate (no raise in other words).
Insurance went up across the board; medical $11.06, dental $6.31, vision $1.26.

So all in all, after the increase in taxes ($7.72)and in medical insurance ($18.63) I'm bringing home $26.35 less per week than last year.

I'm guessing you got a nice raise which raised your withholding amount, and your company hasn't applied the new withholding rates to your pay. Your company medical plan is independent of taxes.

 

[FenderTL5]

I'm guessing you got a nice raise which raised your withholding amount, and your company hasn't applied the new withholding rates to your pay. Your company medical plan is independent of taxes.

No raise, I'm salaried at a fixed rate for 40 hours per week.
No change, nada, none, not one red cent.

the only changes between last week's check (processed last Wednesday) and this week is higher federal taxes and higher insurance withholding.
Absolutely, insurance is indeed independent of taxes and my employer supplied insurance leap frogs premiums/deductibles every year (usually alternating years). However THIS year the premium has gone up ($18.63 per week) and the deductible went up an additional 2k as well. It was 10K in 2017, it's 12K for 2018.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No raise, I'm salaried at a fixed rate for 40 hours per week.
No change, nada, none, not one red cent.

the only changes between last week's check (processed last Wednesday) and this week is higher federal taxes and higher insurance withholding.
Absolutely, insurance is indeed independent of taxes and my employer supplied insurance leap frogs premiums/deductibles every year (usually alternating years). However THIS year the premium has gone up ($18.63 per week) and the deductible went up an additional 2k as well. It was 10K in 2017, it's 12K for 2018.

Interesting that your Fed tax went up given your income.

 

[cow451]

I’m bringing home an extra $3.13 each week. Thanks Trump.

 

[FenderTL5]

Interesting that your Fed tax went up given your income.

During the time the bill(s) were being debated, I thought that the numbers were stacking up that my taxes were going up and I posted to the effect (I can dig out my quotes if needed).