It cost Israel more than $1bn to activate its defence systems that intercepted Iran's massive drone and missile attack overnight, according to a former financial adviser to Israel's military.

"The defence tonight was on the order of 4-5bn shekels [$1-1.3bn] per night," estimated Brigadier General Reem Aminoach in an interview with Ynet news.

"If we're talking about ballistic missiles that need to be brought down with an Arrow system, cruise missiles that need to be brought down with other missiles, and UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles], which we actually bring down mainly with fighter jets," he said.

"Then add up the costs - $3.5m for an Arrow missile, $1m for a David's Sling, such and such costs for jets. An order of magnitude of 4-5bn shekels."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 46 points 2 years ago (6 children)

This is just one reason why the US doesn't have public health care.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 77 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    The main reason isn’t cost, it’s republicans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I keep telling people we already spend more than other places but they don’t get it. Waiting til you’re in the ER with a preventable issue is always going to be the least cost effective

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    And that’s the reason so many low-income counties are losing their hospitals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    That's BS the US is already spending as many federal tax payer dollars per capita on healthcare as the UK is spending on the NHS. That's not to say that the funding of the NHS is stellar but the service level is also in no way abysmal. Long story short: US taxpayers are not even close to getting their money's worth because most of it is funnelled to private profits, not actual healthcare. Military has nothing to do with it the US could double the medical budget and it wouldn't make a dent in the military budget.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I don't seriously doubt this, but would like to verify. Links?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    The WHO has all the data you could wish for. Long story short: About 55% of US health spending is public (as opposed to out of pocket or insurance), about 80% in the UK is public (covering the whole of the NHS) and here's a nice overview from the world bank the UK has a total per-capita expenditure of $5,634 while the US clocks in at $11,702.

    Oh and I kinda blanked on that: Not all of that is due to profit, much of it is plain inefficiency. E.g. people not going to the doctor because they can't afford it, then making acquaintance with the ER even though it was avoidable, and the state picking up the bill to bail out hospitals because the patient can't pay. Would've been much cheaper for the tax payer to cover that initial doctor's visit and cheap preventive medicine.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    This and the almost $1trillion military budget. "You want money to bomb other nations? Absolutely, here, unlimited supply of money. Healthcare and education for the people who pay for the military? Nah fuck them, how are we gonna pay for it?"

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're touching on the most common misconception. Most people would pay less in taxes than they currently do in insurance premiums. The cost of healthcare would go down in the US with single payer. Even the ultra conservative Koch family funded Cato Institute found this to be true.

    There is way too much profit motive in the US healthcare system. So much so we pay double what other nations do for some procedures with generally worse outcomes. Last report I saw is the US spends 16% of GDP on healthcare. The next closest nation was Japan at 10%. Yet the US was among the lowest life expectancy of all G20 nations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Because they wouldn't admit that. What they did say is costs over next 10 years with single payer would be $36T. Without then admitting the cost of keeping our current setup is estimated at $42T.

    https://www.cato.org/commentary/covid-19-crisis-doesnt-argue-single-payer-health-care

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [+] -11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    The math has been done a number of times on this. 2016 and 2020 the Sanders campaign did it then a number of independent think tanks and institutes “fact checked” it.

    At current levels of care most would expect to pay less.

    At the level of care where we’re no longer subsidizing emergency services for preventable diseases almost all would expect to pay less still.

    They won’t radically increase unless we get grifted.

    It’s hard to explain how saving money would equate to us paying more so I’m interested in the how.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Christ dude I literally “cited” the campaign of Sanders that put out an idea as a platform and backed it with research and examples from the rest of the world.

    The studies were not done by Bernie Sanders himself but even had they been I’d dare you to refute them intelligently.

    You talk as if we ought to respect you but that also informs your opinion has no credibility.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I cited nothing.

    I quoted the word because you used it incorrectly in a myriad of ways.

    Here’s one, it’s not by their campaign so maybe you might be able to throw that bias of yours out.

    Sorry it came from Lancet and not Cato. These studies are literally EVERYWHERE it’s honestly hard work to truly believe what you do.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8572548/

    ^ the article was published in Lancet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    The Abstract ALONE claims the opposite.

    You’re using words hoping people will believe you because you’re saying them like an asshole talking down to children.

    To your “lower pay” point that’s not necessarily true and the article explains the how.

    The savings to providers alone would be double the “decrease” in pay, again pay would only go down through a grift.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    My claim is most people will pay less, my claim has been that from the beginning.

    The study I linked makes that argument.

    There are countless others.

    AFTER the article makes mention of government revenue increase it then informs how that increase in taxes revenue would result in a net decrease for the actual average person.

    Your taxes might go up more than you pay into your health plan and it’s telling that you can’t see past your own nose to the point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If you would ignore your arrogance and lack of self awareness for a second, you could venture slightly outside the US for a comparison.

    Case in point: Germany. We do have a mixture of semi-public and private insurances, and I would argue on average better health care access than the US right now. Insurance rates for the default public insurance is something like 8% of your income before taxes, plus the same amount paid by your employer. It's capped at about 420€ per month (so and 850€ including employer part). This insurance includes dependent children "for free", and if you're unemployed you'll get insurance paid for you.

    So in short, 8% of your income, but never above 420€. Hardly any out of pocket payments. Comparable standard of care.

    That means, it's absolutely possible, it's just that some people are dense enough to almost collapse into themselves and prefer to be screwed over.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Are you seriously arguing, that earning 250k a year is even somewhere close to "average"? The average is somewhere around 40k.

    Also, wait just a few years until medical bills kick in. There's an over 50% chance you'll get cancer at some point. You think you can cover that with 2400 a year?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I pay about 2400 a year for all my medical needs. That’s less than 1% of my income. Not even close to 8% and well below 420 euros.

    Did you just argue that your $2400/year is well below €420/year? At current exchange rates it's about $447, or about 18% of what you currently pay.

    As others have pointed out, single payer is an overall cost save. It's not hard to imagine creating a tax that companies pay to cover this with the money they will save from not offering insurance to full time employees.

  • source
  • parent