this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
461 points (98.7% liked)

World News

42395 readers
3301 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

European leaders holding emergency talks in Brussels have agreed on a massive increase to defence spending, amid a drive to shore up support for Ukraine after Donald Trump halted US military aid and intelligence sharing.

But the show of unity was marred by Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, failing to endorse an EU statement on Ukraine pushing back against Trump’s Russia-friendly negotiating stance.

The 26 other EU leaders, including Orbán’s ally Robert Fico, the Slovakian prime minister, “firmly supported” the statement. “There can be no negotiations on Ukraine without Ukraine,” said the draft statement, a response to Trump’s attempt to sideline Europe and Kyiv.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 13 points 2 days ago (7 children)

Trump is an asshole, and the US should absolutely be the leader in defending Ukraine given its stockpiles and technologies and the immediacy of the need.

At the same time, Europe was able to fund some pretty nice social programs by minimizing defense spending over the last few decades. They could only do that with aggressors on their borders by relying far too heavily on the US.

[–] commander@lemmings.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They could only do that with aggressors on their borders by relying far too heavily on the US.

Not true. They can always take money from their ruling class and give it to their working class.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 3 points 1 day ago

That statement applies to minimizing defense spending. Of course you can raise revenues and spend more. If you spend less in other areas, you don't need to.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 70 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

The US government spends more per total capita on healthcare than any country with nationalized healthcare, but in the US it covers less than a third of the population.

The US spends more on defense than anyone but it keeps fucking things up all around the world to justify those spendings.

The US can afford social programs, it decides not to, so give us all a fucking break.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I have only one correction and it’s a small one. The US spends more on healthcare but that spending isn’t all by the US government. Your main point still stands. The system sucks.

More on this:

In 2022, the United States spent an estimated $12,742 per person on healthcare — the highest healthcare costs per capita across similar countries.

Healthcare spending is driven by utilization (the number of services used) and price (the amount charged per service). An increase in either of those factors can result in higher healthcare costs. Despite spending nearly twice as much on healthcare per capita, utilization rates in the United States do not differ significantly from other wealthy OECD countries. Prices, therefore, appear to be the main driver of the cost difference between the United States and other wealthy countries.

There are many possible factors for why healthcare prices in the United States are higher than other countries, ranging from the consolidation of hospitals — leading to a lack of competition — to the inefficiencies and administrative waste that derive from the complexity of the U.S. healthcare system. In fact, the United States spends over $1,000 per person on administrative costs — almost five times more than the average of other wealthy countries and more than it spends on long-term healthcare.

Source

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What you quoted doesn't say what you think it does... That's governmental spendings and then there's private spendings over that.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

No. Just scroll up and down that page I linked and you’ll see some charts are labeled “national spending” and some are labeled “federal spending.” Federal is government. National is everything: government and private. The US government is not pouring 20% of GDP into healthcare, and then on top of that there’s all private spending.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

States + federal government account for closed to 50% of the total spendings, which is still more, per capita, than anywhere else that is paid via taxes and then the other ~50% people end up paying from their pockets either directly or via private insurance.

https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-reports/national-health-expenditure-data/nhe-fact-sheet

The end result is still the same, the US spends more than anywhere else per capita and what it spent only covers a minority, the rest is private insurance.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I don't mean to argue but... where does that link show that 50% of spending is government spending?

What I see there is: Medicare 21% and Medicaid 18%, which sum to 39%.

If we apply that 39% to this country comparison chart, the US goes to the bottom of the list.

The real point here is that the US spends more for less. I just wouldn't phrase it as "the US government" next time because, even if what you just said were correct, you'd be undercutting your point by half if you focused on the government.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 20 minutes ago

32% federal, 16% states, that's 48% coming from taxes, two different government levels, still governmental.

[–] NotSteve_@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The US spends more per capita on healthcare than any country with socialised healthcare

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You're the second person to write that, and it's entirely irrelevant to European military spending, Russia, and Ukraine.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's completely relevant to your fallacious argument that other countries have social programs because the benevolent protection from the US.

The US could have the best healthcare systems in the world without reducing military spending. It only doesn't for the sake of the profit of insurance companies.

Your social programs don't suck because of your "benevoloent protection" (which has turned into a mafia protection racket now) but because American hyper-capitalist ideology is a barrier against being able to create effective social programs.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 0 points 1 day ago

I feel like I'm responding to AI at this point. I already responded ad nauseum that I was not arguing anything about the US system. Now people want to use my comment as representing their favorite Boogeyman.

[–] NotSteve_@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What I’m saying is that you can have those social programs that you say Europe has and the USA would actually be able to put even more money towards your military. Your current system is wildly less efficient because it’s setup to enrich middlemen (insurance companies).

The social programs existing have nothing to do with military spending in Europe

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 0 points 1 day ago

Your first point has already been made by others and is off-topic for the post.

European governments have budgets. With a set amount of revenue, they can spend more on social programs if they spend less elsewhere. If they want to keep their social spending and spend more elsewhere, they will have to increase their revenues. Not having the extra expense has made things better for them, and now that is going to end.

It's very simple, and maybe people should stick to the point and not feel triggered to respond against hyper-capitalist America.

[–] straightjorkin@lemmy.world 29 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The eu sent $5b more in arms to Ukraine than the us did.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io -5 points 1 day ago

They need to increase that but also keep more for themselves.

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I keep hearing this but I'm a skeptic at heart. You wouldn't happen to have some sources would you?

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Lots of people are saying Trump is an asshole.

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

That is the only part of your comment that doesn't need additional sources

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 3 points 2 days ago

More than likely possible depending on how they came up with valuations on old stock piles from the cold war. Depends on if you value them based on their original cost, or the modern cost to replace them.

[–] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

They could also afford to make the disgustingly rich even richer. By a lot.