of care that people receive? 45 years ago we thought we had reasonably good health care. the gdp has grown like crazy. i don’t know enough about health care to design a system. but there are very smart people that i really thinkf you gave them the responsibility, actually just looking at the whole system. why do we have this run away situation. we have this huge cost. we are spending 2.6 or 2.7 trillion a year on health care. it’s as big as the government. and those dollars all have a constituency. we’ll attack it and solve it. but there no real incentive to bring down the costs. in terms of the research we’re doing, nobody is doing research that will phone us, at least i don’t know of it, that’s focused on bringing down costs of health care. they’re looking for ways, and maybe very expensive ways, to deliver better care. and i applaud that. but when you have these kind of expenditures going on, you have to have somebody focused on bringing down costs. the way washington has gone about this, we have brought down the rate of increase for spending shy say. bringing down the rate of increase over future years. that’s what the sequester is trying to do, strip out the costs. people say, hey, we have done a much better job. maybe we have already cut enough. what do you think of that? well, we are so rich we can afford a lot of slop. but that’s no reason to have it. we apart so rich that we can afford all kinds of slop. there are choice that are going to have to be made. i admire irskin and allen enormously. nobody likes it 100%. to have dick durbin to vote for. that’s a monument al achievement. everybody said, oh, this is an easy fix. if it is, why haven’t we done anything about it? in the end nobody wants a vote recorded that effects any vote negatively. they worry about losing in primaries. they don’t worry so much about the general election. and the fact that primaries have come the important primary for most people in congress drives them into more and more in tractable and inning fringe type positions. andrew, you have a question too? yeah. warren, where do you stand on repatriotating, or a long term corporate tax plan that works globally. well, if we have a tax holiday, a ton of money will come back. they might have already borrowed money to repay dividends. they will replenish, take care of the money they borrowed. there will be more money invested abroad. if you think you can get back into this country it will push investment abroad. companies now have tons of cash and are bothering money in the united states and will use it to repurchase shares. it’s somewhat disingenuous, the argument that’s made, thathis is a terrible thing. it forces companies to keep their money abroad. we just have to pay a normal tax of 35%. the tax that was paid originally. and the tax to bring it up to the u.s. rat. people can bring it back. they just don’t want to bring it back. they will start accumulating again. if they were to overhaul the corporate tax code, would it be something you think would be okay if they lowered to 28% like some suggested the first time around? a lot of companies don’t pay 35%. something to bring the rate down 28%. every single company, if it’s revenue neutral, some will pay more, some will pay less. everybody that will pay more will go straight to k street and the lobbyists will make the proposal because it drums up business for them. it will be very hard. that doesn’t mean i’m against it. i’m just laying out the revenues. we can continue this in just
Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway, chairman & CEO, explains why anybody who owns a cross section of American businesses at these prices will do well over a ten or twenty year period.
Bill Gates, Microsoft chairman; and Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway chairman & CEO, discuss the