Warren Buffett On GOP Tax Cuts & Consequences

[OldWiseGuy]

You're backpedaling now and trying to change your initial assertion by leaving out part of your own original statement on the matter and trying to change the context of the discussion.

Let's include your full statements here as a point of context:

Here was a our dialog discussing single-payer -
Me: The countries that implement single payer are actually, on average, much healthier than we are in terms of weight, preventable causes of mortality, and overall nutrition and wellness.

Your reply: You answered your own question. People in these other countries are smarter and more responsible than we are. They are also more culturally homogeneous as well; they're all on the same page regarding national social policies. We have a large Latino population in the U.S. that eat traditional diets that are born out of historical scarcity in their native lands. These diets are unhealthy, and unnecessary here, yet they persist in these communities, with the resulting health problems.


In a nutshell I asked, if single-payer has worked well everywhere else, and the people are healthier as a result, why you thought it wouldn't work here.

You replied back suggesting that it wouldn't work we're not culturally homogeneous like the European countries, but rather, we have a large, unhealthy, Latino population.

The purpose of all of my replies, comparing health metrics by ethnicity, was to debunk the notion that our Latino population would somehow make single-payer non-viable due to "persistent health issues in their communities"...which is what you were trying to claim.

Then when I pointed out that they're actually healthier than the white population, you doubled-down and tried to insist that I simply "needed to do more research" on the topic.

Given that white people are unhealthier than Latinos, why did you single them out in your statement about why single-payer wouldn't work? The 70% of the population with more health issues (Whites) have a much more negative impact on a health system than the 17% of the population with fewer health issues (Latinos).

I didn't say or imply "but rather". I used the Latino community as one example of our heterogeneous cultural in regard to health. You made comparisons with other ethnicities and carefully chose catagory's of health problems that favored Latinos in comparison to whites.

Of course my main point is that without getting everyone on the same page regarding health no kind of insurance will be effective. Making it more difficult are the widely differing cultural norms found here as compared to those aforementioned countries. Latino culture, especially diet, being just one.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I didn't say or imply "but rather". I used the Latino community as one example of our heterogeneous cultural in regard to health. You made comparisons with other ethnicities and carefully chose catagory's of health problems that favored Latinos in comparison to whites.

No, I posted the CDC data which encompassed all aspects of health issues. I didn't carefully choose anything

In terms of heterogeneous culture in regards to health, Hispanics have lower rates when it comes to the most prevalent diseases (Heart disease and cancer) by a significant margin. Carefully cherry picking would be if I specifically picked out some random health related issues like gall stones or ingrown toenails. ...but focusing on heart disease, cancer, weight, and life expectancy is far from cherry picking. Those encompass the lion's share of disease, health cost, and risk factors in our health system.

The very fact that you chose to focus on "lack of homogeneous population" as a discussion point, is by its very nature, introducing the element of comparing the numbers by ethnicity.

Now I'll ask again (assuming I still won't get a straight answer)
Do you have any data or graphs or any reliable source indicating that a lack of homogeneous population (with respect to Hispanics) would in any way compromise our ability to implement single payer due to cost associated with treatment of prevalent health issues? (as your initial assertion stated)

 

[Almost there]

I thought this interview was insightful, curious what the regulars on here think of it.

He says do I look like someone who deserves a cut, the candor is staggering.

Your thoughts...

The problem with the perception many people have regarding the rich is that they don't really think it through.For starters, "the rich" is a fairly transient group. Sure, there are the Rockefellers and some others that are solid, old money, but a lot of the rich don't start out there and don't stay there. I learned this when selling real estate back in the early 80's. The turnover in high end houses is amazing because it's hard to get to that level and even harder to stay there. They are a very transient group.

And being rich doesn't mean you "have" a lot of money. It means a lot of money flows through you. If you earn a million and spend it on a million dollar car, or you earn 30,000 and spend 30,000 on a car, the former is "rich", but the money flowed through, and he supported the folks who earn their living designing, financing, building, transporting and selling million dollar cars.

And does anybody remember what happened to the american Yacht industry when we created a luxury tax? Companies went under and a lot of employees at those boat builders lost their jobs.

Reducing taxes on the rich brings money to everyone, and incentivizes people to do the work and take the risks necessary to get rich.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, I posted the CDC data which encompassed all aspects of health issues. I didn't carefully choose anything

Without regard to your full post which I didn't get to, did the CDC include the proclivity for Latino women to purposely become overweight and even obese as they consider it very attractive, and to do so regardless of the health consequences?

You have tried to steer the conversation to an entirely different context from the one that you yourself initiated.

Do you now see what I meant by "spitting contest"?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Do you have any data or graphs or any reliable source indicating that a lack of homogeneous population (with respect to Hispanics) would in any way compromise our ability to implement single payer due to cost associated with treatment of prevalent health issues? (as your initial assertion stated)

I'm asserting that the cultural habits of the Latino population here would not change regardless of any healthcare insurance plan (Latino men are loathe to seek medical help until they are very sick, and Latino women are purposely overweight, and that won't change). I'm asserting that minority populations in the countries you alluded to are more likely to, given the majority attitude toward health itself. In fact I'll bet that similar minority populations in such countries are healthier compared to our minorities.

If you wish I can address the health shortcomings of each ethnic group here, including whites, which will reveal why national health insurance will have little effect on overall health. It may have the opposite effect, that of sending the signal that one can now safely continue their bad health habits as healthcare is freely available.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm asserting that the cultural habits of the Latino population here would not change regardless of any healthcare insurance plan (Latino men are loathe to seek medical help until they are very sick, and Latino women are purposely overweight, and that won't change). I'm asserting that minority populations in the countries you alluded to are more likely to, given the majority attitude toward health itself. In fact I'll bet that similar minority populations in such countries are healthier compared to our minorities.

If you wish I can address the health shortcomings of each ethnic group here, including whites, which will reveal why national health insurance will have little effect on overall health. It may have the opposite effect, that of sending the signal that one can now safely continue their bad health habits as healthcare is freely available.

You're employing flawed reasoning here...

First off "changing one's health habits" is only a small portion of why single-payer is a beneficial model. All other things the same, single-payer provides vast negotiating power so that even if nobody changed their health habits at all, it's still the more cost effective solution compared to what we have now.

Secondly, the reason why some folks avoid going to doctors is precisely because of cost...and when they don't go to doctors, they're not getting nutrition advice like they should. As far as Latino women being "purposely overweight", I've never heard that before or even heard anyone suggest that.

Regardless of what they're "trying to do" (which, your claim on that is suspect to begin with), the end result is what tells the tale...

In terms of Hispanic women who fall in either the "Overweight" or "Obese" Category...

The difference between them and White women is pretty much negligible... doubly so if you factor in that they make up only 17% of the population.

"Latino Men hate going to doctors"
"Latino Women try to be overweight on purpose"

Basically, you're grasping at straws here to defend your opposition to single payer.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Reducing taxes on the rich brings money to everyone, and incentivizes people to do the work and take the risks necessary to get rich.

On paper that's how it looks like it should play out...

Reality (from the last two times this has been attempted) has shown us that it's not the way it ends up working out.

For those who advocate this idea...in order to sell me on it, they would need to provide a detailed logical analysis of why it failed the previous two attempts.

 

[whatbogsends]

You must be using Obama’s Time Portal given the bill hasn’t been signed yet.

I know, right? People are claiming the benefit they've gotten from the bill which isn't even law yet, just as people were complaining as to how Obamacare hurt them before its policies took effect. For the most part, it seems that it is largely the same people who claimed these future impacts happened before they could possibly have happened.

 

[Almost there]

On paper that's how it looks like it should play out...

I was not talking about "on paper". I was talking about real world examples and how it really works out. I've known too many people that went from nothing to millions, and vice versa in my lifetime.

"The rich" is an imaginary bogeyman, and just using the phrase is a form of class warfare, which I abhor.

 

[LoAmmi]

I was not talking about "on paper". I was talking about real world examples and how it really works out. I've known too many people that went from nothing to millions, and vice versa in my lifetime.

"The rich" is an imaginary bogeyman, and just using the phrase is a form of class warfare, which I abhor.

and yet.... in the real world... that's not how it's typically worked out. it isn't really about rich vs poor. People want more for themselves and their families than others. With low tax rates, people who can make the decisions (top corporate executives) grant themselves more income. That's how it works. You'd do the same. I'd do the same. It's human nature. When a person had to look at their income and say "Gee, if I grant myself more income, 60 cents on the dollar will be taken by the government", then they don't take it.

 

[Almost there]

and yet.... in the real world... that's not how it's typically worked out. it isn't really about rich vs poor. People want more for themselves and their families than others. With low tax rates, people who can make the decisions (top corporate executives) grant themselves more income. That's how it works. You'd do the same. I'd do the same. It's human nature. When a person had to look at their income and say "Gee, if I grant myself more income, 60 cents on the dollar will be taken by the government", then they don't take it.

Two things:
1. I don't think people want more for their families than others. I think they just want more for their families.
2. The last part of your post outlines the problem with high taxes on high producers. They don't really affect the people already there, but they definitely affect the people who aspire to do great things and produce great wealth, but they say, "why bother, the state will just take most of it." That is a real thing.

 

[whatbogsends]

The average adult American male (20 years and older) is 195.5 pounds, according to the CDC. The average adult non-Hispanic white male weighs 199.2 pounds, and the average adult non-Hispanic black male weighs 199.4. The average adult Hispanic male weighs 186.1 pounds.


Did you perhaps want to take another stab at that one?...it appears your assertion is incorrect. Non Hispanic white males actually weigh 13 lbs more on average than their Hispanic counterparts.

Our unhealthy ways and obesity statistics have nothing to do with our Hispanic population.

In fact, in the US, not only are they leaner, but they have a higher life expectancy as well.
View attachment 217077

What are the statistics regarding heights? I'd wager the non-Hispanic white males are also taller than their Hispanic male counterparts as well.

 

[LoAmmi]

Two things:
1. I don't think people want more for their families than others. I think they just want more for their families.

A distinction without a difference.

2. The last part of your post outlines the problem with high taxes on high producers. They don't really affect the people already there, but they definitely affect the people who aspire to do great things and produce great wealth, but they say, "why bother, the state will just take most of it." That is a real thing.

I think this statement could be packaged as "a sausage derived from mortadella, a similar-looking, finely ground pork sausage containing cubes of pork fat, originally from the Italian city of Bologna".

 

[Almost there]

A distinction without a difference.

To me there is a massive difference. It is as big as the difference between first degree murder and killing in self defense. It speaks to the very motive. The "why". And "why" is the most important word in the english language. Christianity is all about WHY you do what you do.

 

[LoAmmi]

To me there is a massive difference. It is as big as the difference between first degree murder and killing in self defense. It speaks to the very motive. The "why". And "why" is the most important word in the english language. Christianity is all about WHY you do what you do.

So is Judaism. But we're also practical. If you grant yourself a huge amount of money and a miserly with those who work under you, you are granting yourself more money than you are granting them. My statement is, therefore, consistent. Now, if they grant both, great, but that's *not* what we see in the real world. We see almost cost of living raises for those below and large bonuses and raises for those above.

 

[Almost there]

So is Judaism. But we're also practical. If you grant yourself a huge amount of money and a miserly with those who work under you, you are granting yourself more money than you are granting them. My statement is, therefore, consistent. Now, if they grant both, great, but that's *not* what we see in the real world. We see almost cost of living raises for those below and large bonuses and raises for those above.

Yes, and many of those "above" go out of business. Most businesses fail, and often after making some people rich, for a while anyway, before they go broke. Some prefer the low, but steady pay of the middle class or flipping burgers. Some even try to live the fantasy that you can support your family on the latter.

My step son went from being a truck driver in his late 20's to starting his own trucking firm in his early 30's. He worked his butt off for years, day after day. And now he's approaching 40 and has 9 trucks and a new 20,000 square foot facility to maintain those trucks and his drivers. He paid cash for the last four trucks at $260k each. His drivers are paid well. They get the going wage plus a little extra to ensure he keeps good people.

And the fact is that he could lose a contract or two and find himself bankrupt.

The tax change will help him and it will most definitely help his employees. He want to see them do well.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What are the statistics regarding heights? I'd wager the non-Hispanic white males are also taller than their Hispanic male counterparts as well.

The charts I posted before was using BMI data to determine "obese" and "overweight" which does take height into account. Their was no significant differences between hispanic and non-hispanic in that regard, and their rates of heart disease and cancer are significantly lower than ours, and their life expectancy is, on average, 4-5 years higher.

It's all pretty much in the links and charts I've posted throughout this thread.

Basically, he implied that single-payer wouldn't work here because of our growing, unhealthy, hispanic population...my point in posted the stats I did was to show that Hispanics aren't, in anyway, bringing down our health scores and since they're healthier than non-hispanics, the fact that their population is growing would mean that our overall health stats pertaining to heart disease and cancer will actually improve as their population grows.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I was not talking about "on paper". I was talking about real world examples and how it really works out. I've known too many people that went from nothing to millions, and vice versa in my lifetime.

"The rich" is an imaginary bogeyman, and just using the phrase is a form of class warfare, which I abhor.

Regardless of who you've known (and for some reason, it always seems like you have a life anecdote for every thread...amazing how that works out), the reality is 88% of Americans stay in the same income bracket (adjusted for inflation) as their parents... and that the vast majority of people don't go from "nothing to millions, and vice versa". The scenario you're describing is actually very rare so if you've known many of them, your life experience is in no way a reflection of society as a whole.

...but that aside, you didn't address the primary part of my post...which is:

(re-posting)
Reality (from the last two times this has been attempted) has shown us that it's not the way it ends up working out.

For those who advocate this idea...in order to sell me on it, they would need to provide a detailed logical analysis of why it failed the previous two attempts.


If you're certain that this time around, cutting taxes for the ultra-wealthy will help everyone, then you need to explain to me, with a logical analysis (not anecdotes), why it failed the last two times it was attempted, and why you think it'll be different this time.

 

[whatbogsends]

The charts I posted before was using BMI data to determine "obese" and "overweight" which does take height into account. Their was no significant differences between hispanic and non-hispanic in that regard, and their rates of heart disease and cancer are significantly lower than ours, and their life expectancy is, on average, 4-5 years higher.

It's all pretty much in the links and charts I've posted throughout this thread.

Basically, he implied that single-payer wouldn't work here because of our growing, unhealthy, hispanic population...my point in posted the stats I did was to show that Hispanics aren't, in anyway, bringing down our health scores and since they're healthier than non-hispanics, the fact that their population is growing would mean that our overall health stats pertaining to heart disease and cancer will actually improve as their population grows.

I didn't see you post BMI, you posted "weight" and "life expectancy". I went back and reviewed your post and still didn't see anything BMI specific.

I agree with your point that Hispanics weren't outliers in terms of negative health risks, although I question the veracity of the CDCs statistics, as, for example, people who don't get involved in medical care won't show up on statistics regardless of their condition.

FYI, the link to the CDC you have in that post (https://www.cdc.gov/media/dpk/2015/dpk-vs-hispanic-health.html ) comes back as "We are sorry, the page you are looking for was not found.", but that's neither here nor there.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

As far as Latino women being "purposely overweight", I've never heard that before or even heard anyone suggest that.

This is just one of many reports that reveal the purposeful proclivity for being or becoming overweight or obese by Latino(a) women. There is so much information on this one aspect of Hispanic health that I am dumbfounded that you have never heard of it. That's why I encourage you to read more widely on the topic.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research