SANDERS: Just do it, Mr. President

By RUFUS G.W. SANDERS, Register columnist Finally the time has come for this country to do what
Sandusky Register Staff
May 13, 2010

By RUFUS G.W. SANDERS, Register columnist

Finally the time has come for this country to do what it has been trying to do for the last 100 years: Pass a national health care bill that will ensure the bulk of the American public is afforded the Constitutional promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- and, might I add, decent health care. It is a shame it has taken this country this long to come to this point. Of all the industrialized countries in the world only America has no national health care plan. That is moral perversity, a travesty and a social insult to the very principles of democracy.

On Thursday President Obama, along with the Democratic leadership, met with would-be obstructionists to discuss what will be the most important social legislation in this nation's history since Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education. He laid out the most clear, civil, and fair arguments one could make as to why all Americans should be entitled to health care. If the issue of health care is not solved, this country -- in a very short period, like when the president was forced to infuse the economy with stimulus money -- is heading for major economical collapse. He ended the meeting by conveying to the obstructionists if they have a better plan -- then lead us!

It's no secret historic conservatives have always been opposed to programs which generally benefit the entire American people. They tend to represent the elite segment of capitalism who, many more times than not, have sacrificed the weak, tired, poor, hungry and disenfranchised amongst us to bolster their own status and philosophy of strong rugged American independence. By doing so, they have committed genocide against Native Americans, enslaved Black Americans, isolated Hispanic Americans and ostracized Asian Americans, all in the name of democracy.

The president's bill, for sure, has problems. But it is innovative and creative enough to at least guarantee the subsidy of health care coverage for 30 million Americans who presently are without it. He knows the major concern in this capitalistic society is that insurance and pharmaceutical companies will suffer from government-mandated health care, but any thinking person also knows it's the insurance and pharmaceutical companies who kill us with exorbitant prices, along with their rules which discriminate by deciding who can live and who must die. The president simply proposes to regulate them before they begin to turn on themselves in the process of killing us all.

Then there is the fear this bill will really be about redistribution of wealth to the tune of $200 billion to help pay for the working poor's insurance. Well, to that I say: It is the working poor whose cheap labor allows 10 percent of this population to control 90 percent of the assets and wealth. Maybe after 234 years, we need a redistribution of wealth and power. When the obstructionists wanted to wage two undeclared wars at the same time, all while saber rattling with Iran and North Korea, we heard not one peep from them as to the astronomical cost of funding not only their folly and foolishness.

The president's plan would not only cover 30 million presently uninsured and under-insured; it would also reduce future deficits and control medical costs through the meager regulation of the industry. Most important is the oversight of excessive premium increases. He would alleviate the gap created by Medicare's drug coverage program which prohibits many elderly patients from paying for their medicines. He would even help states that say they can't afford to expand their Medicaid Plan.

The president's plan is not perfect and it is costly, but we must begin somewhere and we must start now. The obstructionists will not reduce the number of uninsured and they will not provide for affordable insurance for people with pre-existing conditions, something we all will eventually have. And they make no real provisions at reigning in cost. The independent office of the budget declares the president's plan really is the best plan, even with its flaws. But it will eventually reduce the national deficit by $100 billion.

So if these obstructionists are really concerned about real reform, they must put their ideas on the table. Stop being "busters." Give this guy a chance. He is willing to work with you.

Mr. President, this will be our last chance probably for some time to fix this thing, and it's in the best interest of our country. So go for it! All that it takes is a majority vote for passage in the Senate. You have that majority of votes. They know it. You know it! And we know it! So just do It! Pull the reconcilation trigger! Pass this bill! It's their health as well we are talking about. The day will come when they will need health care reform too.

Comments

mikel

bs, why don't you ask your savior prez obamass. he apparently has no problem giving tax breaks to these companies only to watch them walk away. go ahead give'em a call and reply back to us. this gov just wants to continuously reward people who make bad life changing decisions and make people who are responsible pay for it. so, not only i am paying for my health insurance, home, auto, food etc but i am also paying for susie and johnnie slob who could care a less if they work or not because they are getting food, healthcare and other items for free! awww, no need to work as we will be taken care of! what a motto to live by!

it is easy to criticize many people who are well off but just think of some of the hard work and risks that they took to get where they are today. in 1998 i left my 60k a year job and bought a business. the first couple of years i only made a quarter of that but today i make threefold but it meant that i had to work 60+ hrs per week and many holidays. hopefully, i can pass this on to my kids so they have it better than me. you got a problem with that?

brutus smith

mikel, please tell me again why taxpayer dollars should be wasted on Corporations and CEO's who consistently send our jobs overseas???? These fat, lazy, drug abusing corporate executives using our tax dollars to buy another vacation home, launder money through the Cayman Islands, smokers, alcoholics, spending our taxpayer dollars like drunken sailors.

mikel

seriously??
mkb wrote on Mar 3, 2010 10:53 AM:

" MontegoBay

the entire scene in Iraq has challenged from the Bush days. Where have you been. The troops are schedule to depart in 2011. The president is keeping his word. "

he is not bringing them home from afghanistan. the troops in iraq will only be shifted so we won't actually see any benefit.

JDizzle

Wow, there are just so many falsehoods in this piece that I just don't know where to begin. Here we go...

"Pass a national health care bill that will ensure the bulk of the American public is afforded the Constitutional promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- and, might I add, decent health care."

-Firstly, no, Rufus, you may not add "decent health care." The Constitution says nothing about a right to decent health care, but guess what?!--everyone has the *right* to PURSUE decent health care if it makes them happy. See what I did there?--I interpreted the Constitution correctly, something you've proven incapable of doing.

"If the issue of health care is not solved, this country -- in a very short period, like when the president was forced to infuse the economy with stimulus money -- is heading for major economical collapse."

-Cute scare tactic. Thanks for upholding the dedication to integrity-filled journalism that has given the Register its sterling reputation--oh wait, nevermind. Do you have any evidence to support this "major economic collapse" that we're headed towards that can only be prevented by passing health care legislation? Is it really your assertion that the government spending $950 billion dollars (I'm even being generous with that figure) on a half-baked health care bill will SAVE the economy? Really?

"It's no secret historic conservatives have always been opposed to programs which generally benefit the entire American people. They tend to represent the elite segment of capitalism who, many more times than not, have sacrificed the weak, tired, poor, hungry and disenfranchised amongst us to bolster their own status and philosophy of strong rugged American independence. By doing so, they have committed genocide against Native Americans, enslaved Black Americans, isolated Hispanic Americans and ostracized Asian Americans, all in the name of democracy."

-Wow. Just wow. A beautiful example of multiple ad hominem attacks, Rufus. Glad to see you're not above resorting to this tactic in a desperate attempt to bolster your argument. It would take a dissertation to adequately address just this paragraph, but here are a few things I'll put out there: research the presidency of Eisenhower, actually, just research everything you bring up in the last sentence of that paragraph. The inaccuracies are embarrassing, really.

I'm losing steam and growing increasingly frustrated. If I remember, maybe I'll come back later and poke holes in more of your propaganda.

Here are some basic facts for your, Register readers, presented with no bias. Interpret them as you please:

Right now 15.4% of Americans do not have health insurance due to their inability to afford it, being out of work or in-between jobs that provide insurance for them, or because they simply do not want health insurance. Reputable polling agencies (Gallup, etc.) show a sharp divide among the American public with roughly 39% opposed to reform, and 37% in favor, the remaining 24% offering no opinion. The partisan divide is absurdly evident with Republicans at 10% for/72% against, Democrats at 68% for/9% against, and Independents at 29% for/40% against.

The president who came into office claiming to want to heal the partisan divide in this country now wants to force legislation through Congress with 0 Republican support and with 39% of the American public opposed to such action?!

So please, Mr. President, just do it. Force the legislation through Congress with no bipartisan support and show your true colors. Force legislation on the American public that a majority of us don't want (OR NEED). Further increase the partisan divide in this country, thus doing the exact opposite of one of your promises that got you elected. Upset a majority of the voting American public. And hopefully, come 2012, we will all see you for what you are: a lame duck.

mikel

please tell me again why my tax dollars should be wasted on healthcare for people who are fat slobs, smokers, alcoholics and drug users/abusers. maybe the gov should give everyone 1000 per month for healthcare. if you smoke you lose 200 per month. overweight another 200 gone. druggie another 200 oops make that 400 as your spouse is probably an abuser also. drunkerard? another 200 down. get the pic?

mkb

RU Serious
Make your point!

mkb

MontegoBay

the entire scene in Iraq has challenged from the Bush days. Where have you been. The troops are schedule to depart in 2011. The president is keeping his word.

mkb

stormy
obviously you have great insurance. You are one of the lucky ones! But what about the rest of us You must have some poor relatives or friends. Have some compassion; or what goes around will come around. You will need some help for something sooner or later

MontegoBay1

What I find interesting about this "President" is how adamant he was about bringing troops home, but it seems like we are no closer to this happening than we were a year ago?? All he did during his campaign was whine about Bush spending all the money on these wars, but now that he has the power..what has changed????

pntbutterandjelly

To: Mr. Sanders
From: pntbutterandjelly
About: above article

My comments are as follows, "BINGO!"

This "insurance reform" bill and it's coverages are the first attempt in many years by anyone for the correct moral and monetary reasons. Without it we will continue on our path of "Economic Euthanasia". That is, "Killing off those of us they don't need by any methods deemed required."
I would further suggest that we can turn around this raping of the common American citizen. The real problems are actually few and the solutions are quite obvious. All "we" need do is embark upon the quest of correcting them. I further believe there are enough Americans with vested interest, common sense, intelligence and integrity to bring us all back from the brink of insolvency, chaos and insanity. I tip my hat to you.

R U Serious

Is he the register columist or comunist....sometimes I wonder.

Richard Bebb

stormy -

Facts and logic do not work with Rufus/mkb.

Rufus praises Barry's plan when there isnt a complete one, hence the reason why Barry is releasing his "plan B".

mkb, if he isnt Rufus, is mind numb follower of a race baiter and possibly the worst president of all time, so there is no getting through to them.

stormy

Sanders' lousy writing is exceeded only by his arrogance. Just do it, Mr. President. Who cares if nearly 2/3 of the American people are against the current Democratic plans? They're not smart like ol' Rufus!

Just do it! Who cares if the plan is an expensive, cobbled-together piece of junk. Any plan is better than none, and we need it NOW!!!!!

Come on, folks. Would you take a seat in an airplane that was built on the same theory? Any plane is better than none, right? Who cares if it's going to crash, as long as it gets off the ground? I'm thinking I'd rather walk.

Now don't get me wrong. There are folks on here who think the current system is just peachy, but I'm not one of them. If you like the current system, you either have a 'cadillac' plan, or you're too rich to let little things like rising premiums, deductibles and co-pays get to you.

Yes, we need reform. Yes, it's important...far too important to be done wrong. I would rather see the gov't slow down, and if need be, take a couple of steps back.

I also believe that health care should NOT be the gov't's first order of business. Fixing the nation's economy should come first. 30 million of us are without health coverage, but the economy affects all 300 million of us. Pres. Obama hasn't saved us, mkb. All he did was continue the bailouts that Bush-lite started, and those are essentially band-aids. The plant closings have continued. The job hemorrhage goes on.

And please don't give me that nonsense that we can't have prosperity without a national healthcare plan. We've had the former without the latter plenty of times. Get us on the road to recovery, a REAL recovery, then we can fix health care.

Do it the other way around at your peril! Ram a half-baked health plan down our throats, before atending to the economy, and in eight months, the backlash against the Democratic Party will make the one in '94 look trivial.

Just a couple more thoughts, Rufus. There is nothing in the Constitution about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that's from the Declaration of Independence. And no, you may not add to it. The Constitution can be amended; the Declaration can't. Next thought: could you PLEASE try to stay on topic once in a while. The modern day fiscal conservatives who oppose the Dem. plans had nothing to do with slaughtering Indians or enslaving Africans. Final thought: while I agree that going into Iraq was a mistake, it wasn't only the Republicans (or, to use your own silly-a$$ed euphemism, 'obstructionists') who got us into that mess. Most of the Dems in Congress at the time voted to authorize the use of force. Quit pretending that your party has clean hands. Some of us Independents have long memories.

mkb

so......
your wealth was redistributed when the economy went belly up during the last days of the Bush administration....the sad thing is that you still don't realize it.....Obama saved you from going under....and you still don't get it!

mkb

john doe.....calm down. Having my ramblings gotten to you...have I won the day.......stop sulking like a baby and talk!

John Doe

To mkb: I really wish you would learn how to write like an intelligent and educated human being instead of with all the.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

But it doesn't really matter to me anymore since I'm not going to read your ramblings any more............................................................................................................................................................................................................

John Doe

I found the HC Summit interesting for many reasons. One of which was the contempt Obama had for the Republican Congressmen. While each of them addressed him as Mr. President, most of the time (if not all of the time) Obama would talk back to them using their first names instead of Senator so-and-so, or congressman so-and so.

As for Dufus's article, it's the same BS, just a different day. That's all this is.

And the same.....goes for mkb.....and his continual and idiotic support for Dr. Dufus.....with absolutely no facts.....to back up what he says.....I'm getting to the point.....where I will just stop reading Dr. Dufus.....and mkb.....because neither one of them make any sense whatsoever.....but instead.....maybe I'll call for the SR to ban both.....because the (as brutus smith says) "diehardleftwingnuts" would rather infringe on our free speech......instead of simply not reading it.....

BTW, nice blog thread "Sandusky Regurgatator" about this "column!" I couldn't agree with you more.

brutus smith

Another epic fail "libertarian". You should really change your name to diehardrightwingnut.

libertarian

brutus smith wrote: "You claim to be a "Libertarian" but in all your posts you do nothing but slam Obama and Democrats. Never, not once have you condemned Republicans or so called "Conservatives" on their anti American stances. And I don't mean the blanket "they are bad too" thing either. Get into some specifics about them and what they did for 8 years."

If don't recall ever mentioning that democratic or republican party by name, and if I did, it would only be to demonstrate how they are, at their core, advocates the same collectivist religion.

In responses to articles on the drug war, gambling, immigration and other consentual "crimes", I always call the advocates of these laws collectivist thugs. I sure the vast majority of them are conservatives, so your assertion that I never slam right-wing collectivist thugs is unfounded.

I use the terms "illiberals" and "regressives" to describe the left because the terms "liberal" and "progressive" that leftist use to describe themselves are inaccurate because they are not liberal and their ideas don't create progression. I don't do this to conservatives because they tend to want to perserve the status-quo, which is what conservative means.

I don't recall mentioning any president (except FDR)by name in any of my statements so I don't where you're getting that from.

The same thing I said to factitious about him not being able to refute my standment applies to you. Instead of challenging the validity of my statement, you can only manage to make the empty assertion that I'm not "fair".

brutus smith

You claim to be a "Libertarian" but in all your posts you do nothing but slam Obama and Democrats. Never, not once have you condemned Republicans or so called "Conservatives" on their anti American stances. And I don't mean the blanket "they are bad too" thing either. Get into some specifics about them and what they did for 8 years.

libertarian

factitious wrote: "Hypocrite Libertarian complains about name-calling, but calls Sanders a collectivist thug" and repeats the term slur six times in one post."

I don't mind name calling or slurs as long as long as the label is valid, rational and accurate, so I'm not a hypocrite. The only thing is my statement that could be implied as my complaining about is Sanders use of the word "obstructionist". My problem with his use of the term was that it was invalid and absurb, as I demonstrated in my statement.

As to my use of the slur, collectivist thug-it is a valid, rational and accurate label of Sanders and those who agree with him, as I demonstrated in my statement.

I notice that you didn't attempt to refute any of my statement. In another statement I said of collectivist thugs do attempt an argument, it is always an argument that to be accepted as valid, one must accept their immoral and irrational premises. Notice that they are unable bring an intelligent counter argument to my ideas.

That because they have none. When your beliefs are immoral and irrational and you're called out on it, you have no leg to stand on. That's why they can only engage in non-sensual name calling.

Again my complaint is about non-sensual name calling. This statement fits very well with your complaint that I'm a hypocrite.

Factitious

Hypocrite Libertarian complains about name-calling, but calls Sanders a collectivist thug" and repeats the term slur six times in one post.

goofus
so.....

mister sanders,
let them redistribute YOUR wealth, mine is not up for grabs. my husband and i work our tails off to get what we have. noone redistributed their wealth for me. i already give to charities of MY choosing. if they want health care reform, then do it right. give us what congress and all the other deadbeats of washington have. or let them switch to the garbage they are trying to shove down our throats. lets see how quick they ok it then. oh mr sanders, minorities arent the only people the wealthy have made money off of. there are plenty of white folks who arent in that top 10% you talk about. so please stop acting as if the poor white people get a pass on being taken advantage of.really you are getting very tiring.

libertarian

What is a moral perversity is when collectivist thugs like Sanders aim to dicitate to us how to spend our money and how to live our lifes and then have the nerve is assert that what they are advocating is moral. Shame on them for coercing us to comply with their values.

Collectivist thugs like to pretend that the are reasonable, but their idea of compromise consist of hiring (by voting) government thugs to use threats of violence to against other to extort money to finance their values. Some compromise-and if we resist, the collectivist thugs call us obstructionist. If Sanders put his beliefs into individual concrete action and came to my house to rob me, he would call me an obstructionist if I pointed a gun at him and demanded that he leave.

Collectivist thugs, like Sanders, like to talk about democracy and legislative processes, but this is all a cover for their desire to rob us each us of our choices, values and wealth.

Sanders talks about "rights", but to make something someone has to produce or provide a "right" is to create slaves-something collectivist thugs pretend to be against. There is and can not be the "right" to violate another person's rights. There is and can be no "right" to something someone has to produce or provide. This includes honestly earned money, because it represents wealth produced and sold but not spent.

This collectivist version of rights is an immoral perversion of legitimate (natural) rights. Natural rights are not given to you or taken from someone else for your benefit-they are inherent in your nature. Natural rights are derived from the fact that every human must look at the world around them, evaluate it and make choices that they believe will be optimal for their well-being and then act on that choice to create the values their well being and survival require. If a person fails in this, they risk their well being and perhaps their survival. This is an individual function for every person, which is why natural rights are individual. This is why every person must be free to choose, create, produce and act on their own individual values.

All human relationships are exchanges of values, both material and spiritual. There are two fundamental types of value exchanges, consentual or coercive. A consentual exchange of values consist of each person exchanging value for value at terms that both are willing to accept according to their own best judgement. A coercive exchange consist of one person using fraud, force or extortion to obtain a value from another person without their consent and against their judgement.

Obviously, a constentual exchange of values is moral and a coercive exchange is immoral. But it is the coercive exchange of values that collectivist thugs prefer, either because they have no values to offer or they wish to obtain values terms no person will consent to (this is what Sanders means by redistribution of wealth).

They may attempt to hide the nature of their action behind noble sounding words like democracy, the common good or social justice, but simply multipling the number of people cooperating in immoral acts will not make them moral.

Every moral person should reject their pathetic and immoral attempt to coerce values from us and shame and ostracise them. Shame on them all

mkb

nineMM......Dr. Sanders is well aware of the legislative process.....the point he is making ....is that the republicans are not going to work with him no matter what he does....they want him to start over ......we need something now....he has the votes.....in the senate....pass a bill get this ball rolling....of course changes will be made as time goes on....but now is the time.....Buffet is saying virturally the same thing.....we need something now and he says that we need more

brutus smith

So Richard, when the CBO gets the additional info it requires, and refutes what you say, I'm sure you will apologize right? Yeah right.

Richard Bebb

Uggh that didnt take long..

Rufus you are grossly mistaken as usual..

1. "the American public is afforded the Constitutional promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- and, might I add, decent health care."

NO YOU MAY NOT ADD HEALTH CARE !!!! You do not get to alter the constitution to fit what you desire, and the last time I checked you were a race baiting professor not a constitutional scholar. You are afforded the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, YOU ARE NOT GARUNTEED IT.

2. "He ended the meeting by conveying to the obstructionists if they have a better plan -- then lead us!"

Wrong again, Barry found it necessary to offer counter points to every republican idea or statement and was made to look like a fool every time he did. The health summit was all a show so that the dems can force health care down our throats by using reconciliation, even though its never been used for major legislation in the past.

3. "they have committed genocide against Native Americans, enslaved Black Americans, isolated Hispanic Americans and ostracized Asian Americans, all in the name of democracy."

The "white devil" strikes again !!!! So its the conservatives who have done these travesties. Even though the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 64 was made possible by republicans who stood up to southern DEMOCRATS to pass the bill.

4. "The president's bill, for sure, has problems."

What bill ?? There was nothing in it, ask the CBO they could not score the bill because there isnt enough details.

5. "Maybe after 234 years, we need a redistribution of wealth and power"

Take your socialist ramblings somewhere else. Its scary to think that you actually hold an audience of students. Your representation of this country and everything that it stands for is grossly misguided and reckless.

6. "The president's plan would not only cover 30 million presently uninsured and under-insured; it would also reduce future deficits"

Ill use your own point to counter this one

"The president's plan is not perfect and it is costly"

So which is it, is it costly and unsustainable or will it reduce future deficits?????

7. "The independent office of the budget declares the president's plan really is the best plan, even with its flaws"

See point 4 , the CBO couldnt score the bill.

8. "So if these obstructionists are really concerned about real reform, they must put their ideas on the table."

Their ideas have been out there for over a year and were expressed explicitly at the summit, did you not watch it ?? The truth is Barry and his cronies in the senate have an idea of what they want and dont want to listen to the American people or the republicans. As far as calling the right obstructionists it makes no sense when your incompetent dems hold majorities in both houses.

9. "Pull the reconciliation trigger!"

Yes exactly, you know and the dems in congress know that this plan is not favorable and they know that the only way to pass this monstrosity is to create your own rules. Reconciliation is a process use for budget issues, not for major legislation.

brutus smith

This Warren Buffet Winston??????

Published: Monday, 1 Mar 2010 | 11:04 AM ET
Text Size
By: Alex Crippen
Executive Producer

Ask Warren: The Transcript - Part 4
This is part four of the transcript and video of Warren Buffett's 'Ask Warren' appearance on CNBC's Squawk Box on Monday, March 1, 2010.

CLICK HERE FOR PART THREE

ANNOUNCER: Welcome back to SQUAWK BOX. Here now from Piccolo's restaurant in Omaha, Nebraska, Becky Quick and Warren Buffett.

QUICK: All right, welcome back, everybody. We are live in Omaha this morning, speaking to Berkshire-Hathaway chairman and CEO Warren Buffett. We have received thousands of questions from viewers. And now it's time, Warren, to get to a few more of these questions and try and see what people are thinking about. The first question I want to touch on still stays on the government theme because we did receive a lot of shareholder questions on that. This comes from Hank Durany, who's in Pompton Lakes, New Jersey. He says, "I did not vote for Mr. Obama, but the moment he was elected, he became my president [as well]. Your upport for Mr. Obama prior to the election was well known, given what transpired over the last 12 months. At what level would you rate your approval of his results on a scale from one to 10, assuming it was a 10 prior to the election."

BUFFETT: Yeah, well, I'm very glad I voted for him.

QUICK: Mm-hmm.

BUFFETT: That has not changed. I think the problems he's run into are, you know, are monumental and particularly in terms of the economy. I mean, you know, we're running huge deficits now that--which we should be running from a Keynesian standpoint to try and get this economy moving, but they have consequences, too. I mean, I do not envy the job of being president, but I give Obama high marks.

QUICK: You do? OK. Here's another question that came in from Kevin Loken in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and this has to do with the Tea Party that we've heard so much about. "Does the Tea Party have it correct, reduce the size of the government? It seems if you give someone, a man or a woman, an unlimited amount of funds like the government, they're bound to screw things up."

BUFFETT: Well, that's--we've worried about that for a couple of hundred years and, overall, we've done OK with it.

QUICK: Mm-hmm.

BUFFETT: I mean, the government has disappointed people, I'm sure, many of times over the 200 years. But, overall, I mean, just look at our country now compared to what it's been in the past. We've always had these motivations of people worrying about the next election and all that sort of thing. But if I'm going to comment on the Tea Party, I'll have to look at my notes here.

QUICK: On exactly what happened with that. All right, here's another question from Henry Solomon in New York who says, "Should governments phase out Social Security and health entitlements?"

BUFFETT: Oh no. Social Security is one of the most important things that our country has done. I mean, if you look back to the '30s, if I were to pick the two most important economic things that came out of the '30s, I would say the FDIC and Social Security and both of them had the same goal, which was to relieve people of unnecessary fears. And our country was $45,000 plus of GDP per capita is rich enough to make sure that those who get the short straws in life have some minimum level of subsistence once they get past their productive years, so...

QUICK: But Social Security, you could be looking at it, Medicare too, these are programs that could be insolvent in the not-too-distant future, especially when you look at demographics and the number of people who will be retiring and who will be working to pay for that. How do you fix it?

BUFFETT: Social Security is now about 4 and a fraction percent, the payout, as I remember, in terms of GDP. Even projecting out 50 years, it gets up to 6 percent or something like that, and that's a vastly increased GDP. So if we treat our seniors to 4 1/2 percent of GDP now, when they're past their productive years or even 6 percent 50 years from now, we take care of our young. I mean, in this country, the people in their productive years take care of the young. They educate them, they do all of these things, even if you don't have any children or anything of the sort, and we take care of our old, and a rich society should do that.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/35644592

Duhast

Winston,
My “friends” in MA have no qualms about buying heath insurance because they already were. The mandate didn’t affect them in the slightest.

I have no delusions that Medicare isn’t broken. But, you have a system that has worked and been fairly successful for many years. If your house needs a new windows and furnace, you don’t burn your house down. You fix it with more efficient models. If it can be repaired, streamlined, and expanded, we have a good start. Premiums will need to rise in the short term, but in the long term, we may be able to keep them down. My crystal ball is in the shop, so I can’t predict the exact future.

Pages