• abracaDavid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    123
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        ·
        1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

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

      • ClaireDeLuna@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

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

  • HuddaBudda@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • Xatolos@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Funny thing here is the party that voted against everything you listed as hoped for, also voted against Ukraine funding.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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…

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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?

    • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year 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 on healthcare than countries with free healthcare.

  • the_q@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • DrPop@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year 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.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year 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!