3 ms·
18% is more accurate as it includes veteran care.
by csomar 2y ago
18% is more accurate as it includes veteran care.
- blitzar 2y agoIt is a moral imperative to include the cost of looking after the people you feed through a meat grinder once you have ground them up and spat them out in the calculation of how much the machine costs.
- creato 2y agoA big chunk of that healthcare would just be under Medicare/Medicaid anyways though, so it doesn't seem reasonable to ascribe all veteran health spending as military.
- Tostino 2y agoIt does when a huge portion of the injuries military personnel sustain are quite different from the genteel public, and wouldn't have happened if that person decided to be a teacher instead.
- red-iron-pine 2y agoTo put a finer point on it, VA care for Irag+Afghanistan is expected to drive the cost of these two wars to something in the ballpark of $2 Trillion USD. Like I went to Iraq twice and I'm only 40. They're gonna be covering me for probably another ~40 years, and the US is owned lock and stock by healthcare companies that sure as hell aren't going to lower the costs of medicines.