No money for healthcare though.
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
52 points (94.8% liked)
World News
31895 readers
478 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Friendly reminder that the us already spends more per capita on healthcare than any other nation.
There is no amount of money that you can throw into this god forsaken system of insurance companies and for profit hospitals that will make it to the people themselves. A company will charge what people will pay, if you subsidize what they can pay, the company will raise prices until it returns to where it was and pocket the rest.
It is not that the US healthcare system is underfunded, it is that for profit healthcare is incompatible with financial reality at it’s very core.
Besides, the EU is the one loaning Ukrainian money, the US donations are in end of life military equipment, and as much as i think we should pay our doctors in anti tank missiles i don’t think congress is going to ok that solution anytime soon. After all, that might actually fix things in a decade or two.
I don't know where people keep getting this story that the US is just sending over the old shit we had in a shed somewhere.
According to the DoD we've been sending over equipment that is part of our units' standard arsenal, and it has to be replaced to maintain readiness. We're getting defense contractors to increase production because of this: https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3154210/department-moves-quick-to-replenish-weapons-sent-to-ukraine/
And here's an independent think tank that lays out explicitly in which areas we are considered under-equipped (and this article is from 2022): https://www.csis.org/analysis/united-states-running-out-weapons-send-ukraine
It also includes this interesting line:
Even if declines in available inventories restrict transfers and new production cannot keep up with demand, the United States and allies could provide older equipment or equipment from third parties. Although these weapons can be effective, such an approach would be a change from the practice up to now of providing top-of-the-line equipment equivalent to what first-line U.S. and NATO forces use. That would likely engender concerns from those who advocate maximum support for Ukraine.
So idk why everyone keeps repeating that we're sending Ukraine old stuff we had no intention of using.
Generally it’s a combination of a lot of the headline equipment being 90s era, and the systems themselves being sent in order of oldest first. While yes, these were very much a part of our arsenal, and yes we often them stockpiled for a reason, sometimes that reason is just that the US military rarely throws anything away until it absolutely has to. When it’s actually being replaced however, it’s generally because those parts of the stockpile are meant to be used as a stopgap. Production lines tend to take a long time to spin up and so we keep a reserve supply of things on hand to cover the gap between when a major war might start by surprise and when the new assembly lines to supply it are finished.
It is however worth noting that most weapons built in the last fifty years use would fuel propellants with a limited shelf life before they become to dangerous to handle. As such, if you want to keep a constant stockpile you must constantly be building new rounds and decommissioning the old ones at the end of thier life. Moreover tech has actually advanced between now and then, and many of these new versions are more effective, if expensive, than the old and so need to be replaced a way.
In some categories we are indeed sending more than we normally decommission, and so need to increase the rate of production to even things out again, but that’s not how congress has been primarily budgeting things. Instead the headline figure, when not double or triple counted, is cost to replace old system with an brand new equivalent worth of old system irrespective of wether or not it was due to be replaced anyway.
All of this is a bit harder to separate from general defense spending however because we were already beginning to pivot from counter terror operations towards the asia pacific in order to provide a credible deterance around Taiwan since China has been rapidly expanding the PLA and PLN while many politicians have been using increasing imperialist rhetoric to distract from domestic trouble.
So anyway, that’s my guess as to why people thing were sending old stuff we found in a stockpile somewhere.
The US seems to have plenty of money for healthcare, about twice as much as most other developed nations.
You just have a shitty way of spending that money.
https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2023/07/why-are-americans-paying-more-for-healthcare
The US has almost unlimited dollars for anything we want to spend it on. The problem is that people can profit off of sending shit to ukraine, but no one makes any money from a proper healthcare system.
Idk about that. A healthy population seems like it would be great for the economy to me.
People can work at a higher standard for more of their lives. If we take into mental health, those hours worked will probably be a lot more productive too.
The nation as a whole becomes more wealthy yes, but the status quo makes a much smaller portion of the population much richer. So who is to say whether the current system is bad or good?
There never was. So this changes nothing.
Right, same as it ever was.
Endless money for war. No money for people.
The military contractors must be fed!