A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
$100,000,000,000 and I don't get healthcare because it's too expensive for the country.
This place fucking sucks.
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.
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
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.
Yes that's true, bad wording on my part when trying to talk about how much things should actually cost
$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.
We're already paying more for healthcare (that we don't get) than people in any other country in the world.
Universal healthcare is actually cheaper everywhere than what the US pays. https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm
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.
Just remember at the ballot box who was saying student loan relief is impossible: Republicans
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.
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.
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)
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.
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...
Yes you're technically correct but I think you missed the person's point
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?
Best I can offer is a, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps"
After I have pulled myself up, do I at least get a firm handshake?
no. you are also not supposed to shake your own hand.
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.
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.
Israel also has universal health care, and they're still getting a cool five billion in charity from us every year.
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.
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.
That'll cause inflation.
You forgot the /s.
Man, I sure wish Americans could benefit a little from our taxes.
Rich Americans very much benefit from the military. Global US power projection ensures its billionaires have an advantage
I'm happy to have Ukraine benefit against an unambiguously unjust invasion, especially while also benefit from Russia being weakened.
I agree with you, but my statement stands.
Maybe you should start a war first and then ask them for money?
$100B for Lockheed and Raytheon*
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.
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?
That was so quick! Now do it with every other issue.
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!