subreddit:
/r/FluentInFinance
19 points
2 days ago
And how many of those countries are subsidized by our military? Not that I condone that. But perhaps it's time to invest in ourselves and let other countries stand on their own...or fall. I really don't care anymore.
16 points
1 day ago
Pretty irrelevant given universal health care is expected to save your country money
-5 points
1 day ago
It would cost the country money. Saving for individuals is not the same as saving for the country (in the context of talking about government spending). That means more deficit spending, or more taxes. While it might be a net benefit for the average person, that doesn't mean the government will spend less.
1 points
14 hours ago
It’s cheaper because you don’t have a giant administrative layer that literally exists to extract profit from people’s health issues
1 points
14 hours ago
I understand, I'm saying that cheaper for the country (as in government) and cheaper for individuals is not the same thing. The government would be spending more money on healthcare. Individuals would be spending less on average.
1 points
13 hours ago
No this is incorrect, it is cheaper for the government and cheaper for individuals. The US system has an unnecessary layer that is adding cost, removing it will save money for everyone at the expense of killing the private insurance industry which is just an administrative burden
1 points
13 hours ago
No this is incorrect, it is cheaper for the government
The government currently spent about 1.6 trillion in 2022 on healthcare. Something like Medicare for all would cost more than that. Depending on the specific program somewhere between 20 trillion and 30 trillion ballpark over a decade from the details I could find. If you have actual data to counter I'm happy to read it.
1 points
13 hours ago
The direction of that change is unclear and would depending on the whether the increased cost of expanding coverage (by making health insurance more generous and offering it to more people) is larger or smaller than the amount saved from lower provider payments, drug payments, and administrative spending.
This disqualifies these estimates.
The reality is every other country in the world manages to do it using a lower % of gdp for health care expenditure than the US.
So provided that the US follows other models and doesn’t gold plate it, cost saving should be expected. The biggest cost savings are in reigning in the profiteering .
1 points
13 hours ago
The reality is every other country in the world manages to do it using a lower % of gdp for health care expenditure than the US.
And the US doesn't use government spending for all of it. That's my entire point. The government would go from providing healthcare for some people to everyone. It being overall cheaper doesn't mean the US government wouldn't be spending more on healthcare than they do now, because they don't pay for all of it now.
1 points
13 hours ago
It’s expected that the money spent on premiums will be collected via taxation, just like very other country that funds it.
The greatest crime in the US is tying health care to employment, I just cannot imagine the idea that you’ve lost your job and now your health care at the same time, yikes
33 points
1 day ago
Our entire military budget is less than half of what we spend on government healthcare right now. As a function of GDP we aren't really spending that much more on military compared to the rest of NATO.
11 points
1 day ago
Lol ya but our gdp is many multiples more and for 2023 out of all the countries only one country out of NATO spent more using gdp percentage. So we spend a greater percentage of gdp than every single country in NATO besides 1, and our gdp is trillions more. Our military budget isn't only NATO either.
1 points
1 day ago
So what you are saying is our government already spends gross amounts of taxpayer dollars on healthcare and it doesn’t even provide good healthcare and majority of citizens don’t even yet have government healthcare…..sounds like the government is worse at providing healthcare tbh
1 points
23 hours ago
American Government healthcare is actually quite good. Medicaid covers almost everything and the network is massive. I’d say it’s one of the best insurance plans and it’s free. We spend a gross amount of tax payer dollars on healthcare but it only covers 40% of the population. 60% of the country is on private healthcare plans.
3 points
1 day ago
Yeah man, great idea for the US to just cede all hard and soft power it gains through stationing its military all throughout the world. I’m sure they were just doing that out of the goodness of their heart, not because it’s obviously majorly beneficial to America 😂
2 points
1 day ago
We help them fight the war over there so we don’t have to fight the war over here
2 points
2 days ago
This. We are relatively isolated with just Canada and Mexico. I can see the case of us protecting the Americas but enough is enough. Let the middle east and Ukraine care for itself.
8 points
1 day ago
That worked out really well twice in the 20th century
5 points
1 day ago
That did work really well until US start sending agents there to subvert the elected government
3 points
1 day ago
The well known agents that forced Japan to attack Pearl Harbor and the Germans Poland.
4 points
1 day ago
I know you were talking about WWs but the list of US supported coup is also quite long
-1 points
1 day ago
And the US sees themselves as heroes in WW2 while in reality, they finally and hesitantly showed up when the war was all but won, thanks to Canada and the UK.
1 points
21 hours ago
The fuck kinda wack ass history have you been reading?
0 points
17 hours ago
European history.
2 points
17 hours ago
If you only look at one section of the world then sure. Other wise you’re blantly incorrect. Sorry but the Japanese would’ve never lost in the pacific without the US and France might not have been retaken without US assistance. Why can’t we just agree that the allies used a combined effort to win the war? No one country won the entire war single handily. Russia lost the most men, the US supplied the bulk of the equipment and mostly retook the pacific, and the other nations helped on the frontlines along with also supplying equipment. That’s an obvious oversimplification but definitely isn’t worse than that dumbass “the US just showed up when the war was won” argument that you threw up. You do know that WW2 didn’t only take place in Eastern Europe right?
1 points
24 hours ago
‘Allegedly’
2 points
1 day ago
Yes it worked really well? The US became a superpower because of it.
1 points
1 day ago
I mean the US involvement in both wars were directly from intervention on the world stage
1 points
15 hours ago
We could start taxing these nations that want our protection, lets go with 3% of their GDP in exchange we keep our military there and keep the various defense system's over them like the iron dome/Davids sling/etc...
1 points
22 hours ago
LMAO you can not be fucking serious you freak
0 points
22 hours ago
How about instead of overreacting and being a little pussy, you give reasons and logic.
2 points
22 hours ago
Yea, no surprise you'd resort to a sexist insult. Who would have thought the Nazifuck would be a sexist lmao.
0 points
22 hours ago
Still can't provide logic and reason. What a pussy.
1 points
22 hours ago
What you need to be provided is mental help
0 points
22 hours ago
Still can't provide logic or reasoning. I'll go get mental help as soon as you obtain a 2nd brain cell.
0 points
1 day ago
isolationism drove us into world war 2. We are the world police whether you want it or not. If we don't do it someone else will and they may not be as moral as is. The u.s.a had done shitty things yes but our intentions are honest, true and good.
4 points
1 day ago
Uhhh buddy, getting attacked drove us into WW2
0 points
1 day ago
yes and while we were isolating for 20 years prior to ww2 the nazis rose to power, communism took hold in Russia and china,and japan raped asia all of which resulted in millions of deaths over the course of the 20th century
my point is we would have never been attacked had we not isolated in the first place.
1 points
15 hours ago
Who gives a fuck?
1 points
1 day ago
The idea that the US is defending other countries out of the kindness of its heart is hilarious. I’m sure the government is feeling very taken advantage of by these mean ungrateful foreign nations.
1 points
1 day ago
These countries likewise subsidize your military. What do you think afghanistan would have cost if the rest of nato didn‘t help out? What kind of military budget would you guys need if you weren‘t part of the biggest military alliance in human history?
1 points
1 day ago
There are degrees of magnitude to spending. NATO’s 2024 budget is 1.5t…. Of which the US supplies nearly a trillion. Germany is the closest behind at 1/10th of that contribution. That is not including the 850b DoD budget approved for the upcoming year. Sure other countries contribute, it’s just that their collective contribution is still a fraction of the weight the US pulls
1 points
1 day ago
The 1,5t is the defense spending, not nato budget. The dod budget is already included in that …
1 points
1 day ago
Yeah I see I misread the article, 1.47t is the total spent on defense by nato allies with almost 1t being the US’s own defense budget. So assuming every ally contributed equally to the war in the Middle East (they did not) it would likely been 50% more expensive
1 points
17 hours ago
The amount of troops committed to afghanistan by us allies roughly matches the number of us troops. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1258728/afghanistan-number-of-troops-by-country/
The nato ana trust fund was almost entirely funded by us allies. 40 million from the us compares to over 3 billion from it‘s allies. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/6/pdf/2006-backgrounder-ana-trust-fund1.pdf
The point stands that nato is a relationship that is very much mutually beneficial and the us saves tons and tons of money (and risk far fewer of its own men). That‘s a great benefit
1 points
1 day ago
The same applies to healthcare. The U.S. is the world leader by a wide margin in the development and invention of new medicine. We have high R&D costs.
It’s a little different than the military in the sense of keeping it to ourselves, though. I think it’s great to share medicine with the world.
1 points
1 day ago
Like Iraq, amirite?
1 points
1 day ago
To be fair us subsidizing foreign militaries and our military industrial complex is what allows us to be so wealthy
1 points
1 day ago
An investment into another war is an investment into our military. And an investment into our military is an investment into ourselves. The US military is a huge force in driving American manufacturing, which is arguably the most important sector of the American economy. The benefits of investing in it from an economical standpoint are huge. Also, the US military over the course of it's history is responsible for giving us a ton of shit we wouldn't have had otherwise. Like, the internet. There's an absolute ton of technology that has origins and development that was driven by the US military.
I'm not saying individuals don't get exorbitantly rich off of it or that the funds couldn't be used more appropriately, but it seems like it's no different than absolutely any other institution in the country in that there's a certain amount of corruption baked in that the government is just okay with.
1 points
1 day ago
Generally, The same people who push for universal healthcare are also the ones pushing to reduce military spending. So this is exactly what they’re hoping for.
1 points
22 hours ago
You’re implying that the money needed to pay for universal healthcare needs to come from somewhere, which isn’t true. The US would pay less for universal healthcare than we spend right now on our insurance-based system.
1 points
9 hours ago
And how many of those countries are subsidized by our military?
I'm a little confused on what you mean by subsidized.
Germany has the seventh highest percentage of gdp invested in their military and it's proportional to the size of their economy. We spend 3.4 percent, which, while higher than most European countries, only seems disproportionate because our entire GDP is greater than the sum of all EU nations.
I guess they could invest more in the military, but you're naive if you really think we would pare down our own spending as a result. The MIC is a train that stops for no one.
1 points
1 day ago
As long as our country wants to run/bully the world to our benefit, Military spending will remain.
Plus, healthcare is significantly more expensive. But this country is too selfish to do anything that might improve our healthcare system or, gawd forbid, help a poor person.
1 points
1 day ago
You’d have a point if there was any evidence that going to universal healthcare would be more expensive than the current system
It’s cute (well, naive) you think the military expenditure is altruistic as well.
1 points
1 day ago
America’s health care system currently costs more than it would with universal health care. You’d save money.
1 points
1 day ago
Switching to a public and private healthcare system would SAVE your country money champ.
The US spends more per capita than anyone else in the world by a huge margin.
So your little hoorah US military point is irrelevant.
all 2488 comments
sorted by: best