• Bye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    The USA spends twice as much on public healthcare than it does on defense.

    (Medicare and Medicaid = 1.4 trillion per year, vs. defense = 700 billion per year)

    The problem isn’t that tax money is being used for defense.

    The problem is that healthcare prices are insane in the US, and that the government isn’t allowed to negotiate lower prices (even though they have the weight to do so).

    • nbafantest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      11 months ago

      The real problem is that US insurance/healthcare was specifically designed to tie you to an employer.

      • Bye@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        11 months ago

        Absolutely true. In the late 40s, when other countries were setting up public healthcare, we didn’t do it because we didn’t need to since employers offered healthcare plans. So it didn’t happen for us. Now there is no political will, because employers LOVE the leverage it gives them.

    • MooseBoys@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      DoD spending was $1.8 trillion in 2023, of which $700B was “discretionary” spending. Medicare and medicaid spending was $1.6 trillion, of which $0 was discretionary.

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      and that the government isn’t allowed to negotiate lower prices

      I’m not even sure how it works. This sounds like any company can sell any bullshit to medicare and they have no choice, but to buy it.

      I don’t live in US, that’s why I’m asking.

  • runjun@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Kind of funny that it’s an F-16 used here. The 22 or 35 would have been even more apt as an example.

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah, the F16 is one of the best examples of a fighter that can do nearly every role competently while being reasonably affordable. There is a reason so many countries bought it.

    • AlexWIWA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Hey now, at least the 22 looked cool. All my homies hate the F35.

    • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      edit2: F22 is way more expensive than F35 nope, seems F35 is more expensive when you add A+B+C budget of F35, added links

      True, looking at the F35 (A+B+C) and F22 buget and plans over the years.

      Talk about bloated military budgets.

      James Web Telescope budget is made by the same companies, so we know that projects are bloated by design or just by how they operate.

      NASA vs. military, I am pretty sure some people would prefer to switch the budgets, hahahaha

      https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a25678/the-cost-of-new-fighters-keeps-going-up-up-up/

      https://hips.hearstapps.com/pop.h-cdn.co/assets/17/11/1489517410-isthemilitarygettingsmaller-figure4.jpg?resize=980:*

      • AccmRazr@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        One of the biggest budget issues with the F35 program is that maintenance and repairs must go through private industry. Corporations just continuing to milk profit at every level. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/09/22/gao-blasts-contractor-led-f-35-maintenance-as-costly-slow/

        There was the semi-recent report following the plane disappearance in the Carolinas that pointed to the battle readiness of the F35 program being lower than is acceptable (don’t remember the percentage thrown out there), and a lot of that is due to the corporate side of the deal. Parts are not readily available when needed, repairs are going slower than we are used to, and this is on top of using newer technologies in an effort to PREDICT future conflicts.

        I hope we have learned our lessons from the F22 and F35 programs. New tank designs for the successor to the M1A2 Abrams are popping up. We cannot allow future programs to continue to favor corporate profits to these levels.

          • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            Also, a big contributor to the expense of the F-22, both as a program and on a per unit basis, is that the US didn’t make the aircraft available for purchase by foreign allies. So there’s only, iirc, 200-some-odd F-22s in existence.

            That means far fewer produced, and by extension, more of the one-time costs are baked into each fighter, and upgrades, maintenance, and “future proofing” expenses are spent in support of a smaller overall fleet, which lowers the ceiling on profitability and limits the benefits of scaling.

            All that, and it’s still the best air-to-air platform in existence, and the US is the only country that has em.

      • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        We’d be mining asteroids and have a robot fleet sifting tritium from the moon surface

        Edit: Helium-3, not tritium

    • dangblingus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s not really that funny. The point is made despite it not being the most futuristic American dick extension on the market.

  • AlexWIWA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    An F-35 would have been better for this picture, but still a good meme.

    Edit. Shit someone else said this

  • takeda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Dumb Russian propaganda.especially that the equipment we are sending we would have to pay to dispose.

    Besides one doesn’t exclude the other and GOP wants to cut it no matter what.

    Also stuff like Medicare for all would actually save money. Social security is another pool of money separate from other taxes and working people pay for it. Aren’t student loan cuts actually a good thing? What is job opportunity cuts? What are legal services cuts? At least in my school school lunches expanded and include all children regardless of income.

    Edit: for those downvoting, here’s why it is dumb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget just for Medicare alone we already spending the same amount as for the defense.

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Doesn’t look like Putin’s propaganda. His propaganda machine is too dumb to make something like this because of nepotism, kleptocracy and corruption.

      But here’s picture from Soviet magazine after Stalin’s death about Union budget:

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    No, you can have all those but it would result in a rounding error for the rich

  • danekrae@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    I live in a first world country, so can anyone tell me what a food stamp is? I’ve heard a lot about them from TV, but I don’t understand wth it is. Is it discounts that the government pay for food, who makes them, where do people get them?

    • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      It just means that the goverment will give you money to buy food if you’re poor.

      They used to be stamped paper cards, hence “Food Stamps”, but are now distributed via debit cards. The name stuck, even though current programs have different names

    • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Sorry you’re getting down votes for just asking a question

      The other comment reply got you your answer, but I’ll just add that these days, I believe “food stamps” are under the government acronyms of SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and are dispersed via EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer).

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Depending on which country(USSR or USA) is first for you, in the other it means food for free or ability to buy some amount of food accordingly.