this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
129 points (95.7% liked)
World News
32513 readers
513 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
While I'm openly in favor of supporting Ukraine, it's important to note that the vast majority of this type of military aid is provided in kind.
So really, it's a proposal to give US Defense contractors $100b+ to replenish and restock the DOD with new kit and munitions for the old kit and munitions that we're providing to Ukraine. Which then get into the use accounting tricks e.g. depreciation values, etc.
The annual military aid to Israel is a little different, it's more like a loss leader coupon: give Israel money that they have to spend with US Defense contractors, which then also incentivizes them spending their own budget on complementary systems that can be integrated with those systems, munitions, support contracts, etc.
Although in this case, I believe it's primarily munitions and other kit that the DOD already has in warehouses.
This is oversimplified, but I just see these headline figures always being confused for pallets of cash.
I don’t live in Ukraine. I need healthcare now. Let Blackrock and Vanguard fund Ukraine.
Did you have healthcare before Russia invaded Ukraine and started murdering babies? Was it even on the cards?
It's not an economic factor either. US health costs are much higher than other developed nations. It spends 17% of GDP, almost double of Germany (next highest).
Spending is without the positive outcomes. Infant mortality of 5.4 deaths per 1,000 live births (17,000 extra dead babies a year Vs an average.rate), for context you are worse than Russia with 4.9 but better tha Chile 5.9). 23.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 births being 3 times higher than most wealthy nations.
The economic considerations are that you have a lot of heath businesses. If you socialised medicine and reduced spend, you may improve health outcomes but how would they pay for the very nice buildings they have loans for?
Finally, US doesn't want universal healthcare as a society. Whilst they may be financially wrecked by costs and live shorter more painful lives, that is far preferential than seeing the low income family get the same free cancer treatment for their child.
Nice rhetoric. I’ve wanted healthcare since 2009, when the “Yes we can” guy didn’t. Your talking points have been disproven and Americans polled overwhelmingly want nationalized healthcare. Source. You provided no source because you pulled it out of your actuarial ass.
Yes, I did until they sent me a letter informing me that they were booting me off my Medicare for All plan and converting it into artillery shells for the Kherson offensive.
Thanks for your service. /s
I'm all with you, but the infant mortality thing ain't what you think. Americans try to save ever water-headed baby, no matter what, and count it a death if they can't.
Europeans have the more level-headed notion that, "Kid was dying no matter what support we gave. Don't count."
Course we could easily point out infant mortality rates when comparing ethnicity and income. There's some hellish rotten meat on that particular bone.