6 ms·

It did not fail at providing money to the military-industrial-congressional complex. But of course we need more fighter jets instead of Medicare for all and UBI

It did not fail at providing money to the military-industrial-congressional complex. But of course we need more fighter jets instead of Medicare for all and UBI. China is not going to send fighters over to Bomb the us mainland, this thing is totally unnecessary.

missedthecue 6y ago
The total costs to keep all F-35s in the air until 2070 (likely after you and I are dead and in the ground), would not even cover 6 months of Medicare for all or UBI. Not sure how you can draw such an equivalence.
- thanatosmin 6y ago
  Just the acquisition costs would cover the entire NIH budget for a decade, though.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    That wasn't the comparison being made
- lakecresva 6y ago
  How are you calculating the cost of medicare for all?
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    I just took Bernie Sander's estimate, which looks like it comes from Yale. His website says $4.7 Trillion per year. But you can really take any estimate out there, and it wouldn't change my point. https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-major-plans/ https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-maj...
cwhiz 6y ago
You could take the entire defense budget, and the defense budget from every other country in the world, and you would be less than 50% of the funding you would need for a single year of Medicare for all. The US spends about $3.6 trillion per year on health care. I have no idea what UBI might cost, but I know we don’t have the tax revenues to get even close. Maybe the money printer can go brrrr a little bit faster.
- tele 6y ago
  https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... "Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 1·73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo."
  - 542458 6y ago
    That really doesn't have any bearing on the point that the costs of the F-35 and M4A are dramatically different. Funding or not funding the F-35 isn't the determining factor in funding M4A.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - syshum 6y ago
    The Lancet study is very flawed on several economic fronts, the biggest being that it assume the government could tax / collect 100% of spending that Americans do voluntarily today in the private system to devote it to a government run plan. That is completely improbable and unrealistic expectation. it also assumes government run systems will be as or better efficient than private system, we have 100's of years of history (including this very story) the proves that to be a fallacy
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mohaine 6y ago
How are you sure someone isn't `going to send fighters over to Bomb the us mainland`? I'm pretty sure no one is going to do that and yes we way overspend on the MIC but really sending militaries over to other countries was the status quo for almost as long as countries have existed. There is no real reason to expect that will not happen again just because we are going on 80 years since anyone made a serious effort to do it. You could also argue that it has been 80 years because it was made so expensive to wage war that money/resources is no longer a reason to do it. There just isn't an ROI.
- andys627 6y ago
  It's unlikely enough that we should spend this money on Medicare for All, climate change, etc. We already have a gillion fighter jets too...
- jboog 6y ago
  The US and NATO is so far ahead of China and Russia in the conventional fight it's comical. No one outside of the US or its allies even has a blue-water Navy. China has ONE carrier and it's a pile of shit compared to what we have. We have 11 super carriers, add in the smaller ones and we have another 40 or so. That's not even counting the rest of NATO. Let's not even get into to the backwater that is the PRC's air force. Yeah they have 1.3 billion people. Big deal. How exactly do they get them over here? Nuclear war, now that's a different story but having another cool bleeding-edge fighter jet isn't going to stop a full scale nuclear conflict. China and Russia have enough nukes they all might not make it to the continental US but it's enough to destroy us. We can certainly do the same. The basic game theory of MAD hasn't changed much in the past few decades.
  - hef19898 6y ago
    There are multiple account of carriers being "sunk" during excersices by non-nuclear subs. Numbers still matter, and while the Russians and Chinese are't he best in force projection, the Chinese not yet, neither one is to be triffeled with in their backyards.

missedthecue 6y ago

The total costs to keep all F-35s in the air until 2070 (likely after you and I are dead and in the ground), would not even cover 6 months of Medicare for all or UBI. Not sure how you can draw such an equivalence.

thanatosmin 6y ago
Just the acquisition costs would cover the entire NIH budget for a decade, though.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  That wasn't the comparison being made
lakecresva 6y ago
How are you calculating the cost of medicare for all?
- missedthecue 6y ago
  I just took Bernie Sander's estimate, which looks like it comes from Yale. His website says $4.7 Trillion per year. But you can really take any estimate out there, and it wouldn't change my point. https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-major-plans/ https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-maj...

cwhiz 6y ago

You could take the entire defense budget, and the defense budget from every other country in the world, and you would be less than 50% of the funding you would need for a single year of Medicare for all. The US spends about $3.6 trillion per year on health care. I have no idea what UBI might cost, but I know we don’t have the tax revenues to get even close. Maybe the money printer can go brrrr a little bit faster.

tele 6y ago
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... "Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 1·73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo."
- 542458 6y ago
  That really doesn't have any bearing on the point that the costs of the F-35 and M4A are dramatically different. Funding or not funding the F-35 isn't the determining factor in funding M4A.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- syshum 6y ago
  The Lancet study is very flawed on several economic fronts, the biggest being that it assume the government could tax / collect 100% of spending that Americans do voluntarily today in the private system to devote it to a government run plan. That is completely improbable and unrealistic expectation. it also assumes government run systems will be as or better efficient than private system, we have 100's of years of history (including this very story) the proves that to be a fallacy

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mohaine 6y ago

How are you sure someone isn't `going to send fighters over to Bomb the us mainland`? I'm pretty sure no one is going to do that and yes we way overspend on the MIC but really sending militaries over to other countries was the status quo for almost as long as countries have existed. There is no real reason to expect that will not happen again just because we are going on 80 years since anyone made a serious effort to do it. You could also argue that it has been 80 years because it was made so expensive to wage war that money/resources is no longer a reason to do it. There just isn't an ROI.

andys627 6y ago
It's unlikely enough that we should spend this money on Medicare for All, climate change, etc. We already have a gillion fighter jets too...
jboog 6y ago
The US and NATO is so far ahead of China and Russia in the conventional fight it's comical. No one outside of the US or its allies even has a blue-water Navy. China has ONE carrier and it's a pile of shit compared to what we have. We have 11 super carriers, add in the smaller ones and we have another 40 or so. That's not even counting the rest of NATO. Let's not even get into to the backwater that is the PRC's air force. Yeah they have 1.3 billion people. Big deal. How exactly do they get them over here? Nuclear war, now that's a different story but having another cool bleeding-edge fighter jet isn't going to stop a full scale nuclear conflict. China and Russia have enough nukes they all might not make it to the continental US but it's enough to destroy us. We can certainly do the same. The basic game theory of MAD hasn't changed much in the past few decades.
- hef19898 6y ago
  There are multiple account of carriers being "sunk" during excersices by non-nuclear subs. Numbers still matter, and while the Russians and Chinese are't he best in force projection, the Chinese not yet, neither one is to be triffeled with in their backyards.