Charlie Munger - Healthcare costs hurting US corporations, we need Single payer

[Shadows]

Charlie Munger, the Vice-Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, a Republican & skeptic of big government says the current system is too complicated, crazy & is horrible to American businesses. In other Western countries, corporations don't have to pay for healthcare which is a huge cost & makes American business uncompetitive as per him.

Munger argues for a Medicare for all Single payer system to make business competitive & to control costs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MUAz1mqNCQ

[Koharu]

Finally. Someone getting that medicare for all isn't counter to the right's goals in the fiscal realm.

Yes, yes, taxes will go up, but you won't be paying your healthcare costs anymore. It's like auto-pay for your medical issues, and you don't have to worry about finding a doctor in-network, because they'll all be in-network!

And yes, corporate taxes will also have to go up, because corporations will have to chip in, but I think most of them will find that sort of base rate of taxation way less of a headache to plan for than the fluctuations and variations of trying to budget for healthcare for employees.

[Stranger in a strange land]

There's actually a strong conservative case to be made for single payer, and it should be telling that conservatives in the UK and Canada don't want to get rid of their systems.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There's actually a strong conservative case to be made for single payer, and it should be telling that conservatives in the UK and Canada don't want to get rid of their systems.

They don't get rid of them because it is political suicide to do so.

[Nyvin]

Single payer in the US is inevitable,  it's just a matter of time anymore.

[mileslunn]

Living in Canada which has a single payer system has many long term advantages but the transition could be very rough thus unlike most Canadians fully understand why the US has not gone there.

1.  Unlike in Canada, the health insurance industry is a very big industry and employs many people so the job losses could be heavy.  A better comparison is in Ontario, Bob Rae back in the 90s wanted to bring in a government run auto insurance, but when faced with the stats on job losses backed off.

2.  Raising taxes on the middle class is political suicide even if health insurance fees no longer have to be paid, most don't see the connection.  Witness how initiatives for single payer in both Colorado and Oregon were defeated by over 75% even though both states voted Democrat in the last election

3.  Start up costs are huge and with a $19 trillion debt very little room whereas Canada only had a $20 billion debt when we established single payer health care.

4.  Raising taxes on the rich and corporations would either not be sufficient to fund it or if it was high enough to fund it they would just re-locate as rates would be uncompetitive.

Now one way the US could provide single payer health care would be to dramatically slash the military and use that funding as the US spends 6% of GDP on military while UK is only 2% and Canada is only 1% so right there would cover the difference.  But politically that would never sell in the US.

So I don't think single payer health care will come to the US for a long time if ever.  Also Canada and the UK would not be implementing it now if they didn't have it; both have it as it was implemented at a time when the economy was growing faster, had a younger population, capital was less mobile so you could have higher taxes on the rich and corporations so the window of opportunity for the US to implement it was really from the 40s until the 70s, otherwise FDR and LBJ were the ones who probably should have done it, after that it has become increasingly hard for any country anywhere to implement new social programs.  Maintaining existing ones is much different than starting new ones.  The Conservatives in Canada and UK favouring it is no different than the GOP favouring Social Security, once implemented its political suicide to scrap it.

[Sumner 1868]

Unlike in Canada, the health insurance industry is a very big industry and employs many people so the job losses could be heavy. 

Can't they just rehire these people to work for a public health program? I'm sure most could adapt easily.

[mileslunn]

Unlike in Canada, the health insurance industry is a very big industry and employs many people so the job losses could be heavy. 

Can't they just rehire these people to work for a public health program? I'm sure most could adapt easily.

Not really is when you have a single payer you get economies of scale so there would be a lot fewer.  For example each insurance industry would have its own HR while you would only need one HR.  Now the private health insurance industry wouldn't totally disappear as unlike Canada I doubt the US would ban people from purchasing private health insurance to go privately (UK allows this, but Canada in most provinces bans this or makes it unprofitable) as well as unlike the UK, but like Canada I suspect supplemental health insurance will still remain private.  That being said I think if you look at my list, each one on its own could be overcome, but when you add them together it becomes problematic.