125
all 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] abracaDavid@lemmy.world 124 points 8 months ago

$100,000,000,000 and I don't get healthcare because it's too expensive for the country.

This place fucking sucks.

[-] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 21 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I mean, I agree 100%, we should prioritize that. But $100 Billion is $300/person. We need to change a lot about the effectiveness of the American medical system to make it work for less because $300/person right now will get you like an annual checkup at our inflated cost of care.

[-] shadysus@lemmy.ca 51 points 8 months ago

The US spends more than any other country on healthcare, on TOP of what individuals pay for things like insurance.

The reason it all looks so expensive is because of how much money goes to shareholders and corporations. So yep, it could be a whole lot cheaper

[-] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 10 points 8 months ago

Yeah, agreed with you entirely. That's the part that needs to change though. Because it doesn't just look expensive, it is expensive. Because it does still go to corporations, and without changing the system, they're not going to give that up.

[-] shadysus@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago

Yes that's true, bad wording on my part when trying to talk about how much things should actually cost

[-] ClaireDeLuna@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

$300/p could more or less cover a good chunk of the US population though. It'd be a good start and in theory take some of the stress off of the insurer. Far from ideal but it could've been a good step.

You'd think $300 would cover the Dentist, Eye Doctor, and Annual checkups and some cheaper prescriptions. But I will admit idk if the pricing we see is much different from other pricing.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

We're already paying more for healthcare (that we don't get) than people in any other country in the world.

[-] RubberStuntBaby@kbin.social 3 points 8 months ago

Universal healthcare is actually cheaper everywhere than what the US pays. https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm

[-] HuddaBudda@kbin.social 71 points 8 months ago

I sure do care about Ukrainians right now, and we do need to get that funding back on track.

However....

That's a pretty big slap in the face for anyone hoping for student debt relief, universal healthcare, or parental leave. And told constantly it would bankrupt us. Suddenly we find 100 billion in between the couch cushions when there is even a wiff of war.

[-] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 13 points 8 months ago

Just remember at the ballot box who was saying student loan relief is impossible: Republicans

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social -4 points 8 months ago

Just from a fiscal perspective, universal healthcare really can't be grouped in with those others. Even in countries that do public healthcare well, it represents a large chunk of domestic spending.

Even by Sanders' own estimates for the Medicare For All bill (which, for the sake of argument, I'll just accept on faith), the annual cost is three trillion dollars a year, about thirty times the cost of this aid bill. They're not really comparable, especially given that there's more than a "whiff" of war.

[-] LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch 11 points 8 months ago

Still cheaper than the way we do it, so even going by a cost analysis, we'd be saving money.

But it's not about the cost, it's about siphoning money over to the big shots, and keeping healthcare tied to employment.

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social -1 points 8 months ago

Those savings come from a reduction in individual spending on premiums, not reduced government spending.

Without a doubt there are ways to construct a public system that would be dramatically more efficient than the clusterfuck we have right now, but speaking strictly from the financial perspective of the government, it absolutely is a massive increase in spending (that would presumably be funded by a tax that largely replaces the premiums of today, but regardless, foreign aid is an absolute drop in the bucket compared to something like fundamentally reforming the entire health care industry)

[-] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

You understand that if people were taxed for their health insurance instead of paying directly that the government would be able to supply lower rates because of collective bargaining... right?

The idea is that the increase in government spending doesn't matter because Americans won't be paying for health insurance anymore, instead paying (less) for it through taxation.

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 1 points 8 months ago

universal healthcare really can't be grouped in with those others.

It's even worse to compare it to a one-time aid bill to a country currently fighting off an invasion (and Israel). That money supporting Ukraine literally helps everyone in the world (relatively cheaply), except aggressor Russia.

But back to universal healthcare. The US spends 4.3 Trillion dollars on healthcare. Every year. People will get sick no matter what. We're already paying that, it's just so much goes to middlemen like insurance companies that we literally pay more for worse quality healthcare.

Oh, and less families would be bankrupted and fewer people dead in the streets from preventable causes if we had universal healthcare...

[-] Moeaverage@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

Yes you're technically correct but I think you missed the person's point

[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 59 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Mexico spends $8 billion a year on defense. Canada spends $26 billion a year on defense.

We've spent well over $100 billion on Ukraine already, and Israel gets $5 billion a year from the US in charity annually.

When do the American people get an emergency spending package, you know, considering it's our money in the first place?

[-] robocall@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago

Best I can offer is a, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps"

[-] coaxil@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

After I have pulled myself up, do I at least get a firm handshake?

[-] robocall@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

no. you are also not supposed to shake your own hand.

[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Unless you want to barter with your medical provider using cold war era weaponry, it's not a direct comparison. Most of the "dollars" in aid Ukraine receives is equipment. There have been cash payments mostly for (allegedly) humanitarian purposes, and I won't begrudge them that.

Also the Israel aid is vouchers for them to buy US military equipment. Now whether we should support a genocidal nation at all is a question worth considering, but it's never stopped us before.

[-] Krono@lemmy.today 8 points 8 months ago

Mate, the US is directly funding all of Ukraine's civil service. We pay for their police, firefighters, ambulances, etc.

If an uninsured person in America needs an ambulance ride, they will get a $1300 bill (on average).

If any person in Ukraine needs an ambulance ride, dont worry it's free of charge, Uncle Sam got you covered.

[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

Israel also has universal health care, and they're still getting a cool five billion in charity from us every year.

[-] orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

How many bureaucrats does that $1300 have to pay before it reaches the ambulance driver?

The US healthcare system is notorious for bloat. Taxpayers pay more for healthcare than countries with free healthcare.

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago
[-] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

You forgot the /s.

[-] Wooki@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

At this point it stopped being your money a long time ago and became your debt and your children’s debt and your children’s children’s debt. Got to love unhinged unbalanced generational national debt.

[-] the_q@lemmy.world 43 points 8 months ago

Man, I sure wish Americans could benefit a little from our taxes.

[-] Rockyrikoko@lemm.ee 11 points 8 months ago

Rich Americans very much benefit from the military. Global US power projection ensures its billionaires have an advantage

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago

I'm happy to have Ukraine benefit against an unambiguously unjust invasion, especially while also benefit from Russia being weakened.

[-] the_q@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

I agree with you, but my statement stands.

[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 months ago

Maybe you should start a war first and then ask them for money?

[-] DrPop@lemmy.one 24 points 8 months ago

I firmly believe the only support Israel should get from us is to keep others out of the conflict. The only way they could get weapons is if they purchase them. They don't need combat support.

[-] Chickenstalker@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

But but isn't Israel a stronk nation, heads and shoulders better at everything compared to their Arab cousins? Why would they need 100 billion more?

[-] ivanafterall@kbin.social 6 points 8 months ago

That was so quick! Now do it with every other issue.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 5 points 8 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


White House officials are considering asking Congress for an aid package primarily aimed at supporting Ukraine and Israel that could cost as much as $100 billion, although that preliminary estimate may change as planning remains in flux, according to four people briefed on the matter.

In conversations with congressional staffers, Biden aides have discussed proposing as soon as this week a major foreign policy package amid numerous international crises, including the war between Hamas and Israel.

Money to respond to recent U.S. natural disasters, including wildfires in Maui and various hurricanes, could also be folded into the legislation.

One person, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations, said the request would cover a full fiscal year for the crises it is intended to address.

“We intend to get the package at the end of this week and it will include the military help Israel needs, the diplomatic and intelligence help Israel needs, as well as humanitarian aid to minimize the loss of innocent human life, of Palestinians and of Israelis,” Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters.

House Republicans have grown increasingly wary of providing taxpayer funds to Kyiv, but may be more likely to do so if a request also includes money for the border and Israel.


The original article contains 404 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 47%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
125 points (91.4% liked)

World News

37327 readers
2574 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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 1 year ago
MODERATORS