4 ms·
You could buy 0.018 Tomahawk missiles for that or treat 54 people for every Tomahawk missile fired. All of the Tomahawk missiles fired since 2001 would have pr
by Krokku 7y ago
You could buy 0.018 Tomahawk missiles for that or treat 54 people for every Tomahawk missile fired.
All of the Tomahawk missiles fired since 2001 would have provided 119.000 people with free Corona treatment.
I am thinking that countries with free healthcare care more about keeping their own people healthy than dropping missiles and misery on other countries people.
- CPLX 7y agoThat math only makes sense if you take the medical industry’s insane pricing model as gospel. If you had a straightforward nationally run healthcare system the math would be way more favorable still.
- lidHanteyk 7y agoWe know that a good rule of thumb in the USA is that health care costs are roughly twice what they ought to be. So just multiply by two: We could have treated around 238k people.
- pwdisswordfish2 7y agoWhat’s the rule of thumb on the pricing of military equipment?
- vidarh 7y agoMuch more than twice. The per capita cost (across all Americans, not just those eligible) for Medicare and Medicaid is higher than the healthcare costs of most other developed countries before you even factor in private insurance.
- surewhynat 7y agoOther countries have price caps on their procedures. This makes sense to make the price for a procedure the same across hospitals. It's the same work. Marketing and Sales people should not be involved in the pricing structure of healing a broken leg.
- tc313 7y agoWhile your point is valid, it also illustrates how the U.S. subsidizes European entitlement programs by implicitly reducing those countries’ defense spending. If the U.S. were to cut back on defense, European countries would have to cut back on social welfare programs.
- m_ke 7y agoUS destabilizing the middle east and causing a refugee crisis is not helping european social welfare programs.
- tpetry 7y agoAre you trying to say europeans have money to spend on an almost fair medical system because they are spending far less money on military because the USA spends enough to „protect“ the europeans? Because that would sounds like a joke. Europe is spending less money in military because its not entering so many wars or conflicts.
- leftyted 7y agoThe 30,000 US troops stationed in Germany and the existence of NATO are significant factors in European countries spending so little on defense.
- GordonS 7y agoThis is a total fallacy - those troops being stationed in Germany does not mean Germany would station 30k of their own should the US troops leave.
- leftyted 7y agoI didn't say that. I said that, without the US presence in Germany and without NATO, Germany would have to spend more on defense. I don't understand how anyone can disagree with that; it's obvious. The German government certainly knows it, which is they allow the Americans to keep 30,000 troops in their country. A lot of people on HN have an extreme anti-US bias. It's pretty tiring.
- Balgair 7y ago"Each Javelin round costs $80,000, and the idea that it's fired by a guy who doesn't make that in a year at a guy who doesn't make that in a lifetime is somehow so outrageous it almost makes the war seem winnable." - Sebastian Junger