CubitOomI ain't no Senator's son
arnitbierUniversal healthcare would cost the government an additinal $0.00 because Medicare and Medicaid are stupid expensive already.
pelespiritThe true welfare queens, army and ice.
The US already spends more per-person than most states with socialized medical care. The difference is that in America that money goes to insurance companies and billionaires sitting at home while in socialized medical schemes it goes to doctors and nurses and for medications and facilities.
The US already spends more per-person than most states with socialized medical care.
The US spends more than twice as much per capita on healthcare than every other nation on Earth. You donāt have to water this down with āmostā.
I think merelly āspends more per-personā is nowhere strong enough to really illustrate how bad things are.
For example, the United States spends more than TWICE per-person in Healthcare than the United Kingdom.
In fact judging by this it spends almost twice as much as the European country which has a 69% higher GDP per-capita - Luxembourg.
How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries? - Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker
This chart collection examines how U.S. health spending compares to health spending in other similarly large, wealthy OECD countries using the OECD Health Statistics database.
US spends more on government healthcare than Canada ($9195/capita vs $5000), which has universal healthcare for all. As % of GDP, for total healthcare, US is 17%, Canada is 12%
Universal healthcare would actually be an investment in the people of this nation and has the potential to increase the GDP
It would make them cheaper likely because economies of scale. Add in itād be actual healthcare and not insurance that works to deny coverage.
America only ever has one healthcare bill. It is the total amount spent on healthcare, including harm done to people who donāt seek healthcare because it is too expensive, plus all the costs of people going to the emergency room when they have no other option, plus all the people who go into bankruptcy from medical debt. Itās all one total bill, no matter how you spread the math around, and the only question is how much of that money is being wasted on inefficiency and lost to corporate profits. We might as well all keep paying that bill, but figure out ways to reclaim those corporate profits for the people.
Do they not launch torpedos underwater anymore?
RememberTheApollo_From submarines, sure. Not from ships. Ships launching torpedoes from tubes above water has been a thing for a really long time.
Back when battleships were armed with torpedoes in the WWI era, they were launched from underwater tubes. You really donāt want torpedoes on deck when people are shooting at you.
While thatās true, that doesnāt change the fact that deck-mounted torpedos have been around a long while. They arenāt restricted to a particular ship type, nor are we concerned with US ships only. Deck-mounted torpedos have been around since at least the early 1900s and WW1, we mostly remember them from WW2 being launched from PT boats. A
AnyOldName3Except for on submarines, where there isnāt a deck, deck-launched torpedoes have been normal for about as long as torpedoes have been used. Itās much more of a nuisance to do things underwater than above the surface, so unless youāve got a good reason, like being a submarine, generally we donāt.
Does any benefit at all remain? What about stealth if they somehow have some kind of radar thing?
Back when battleships carried torpedoes (WWI era) they were generally launched from underwater tubes. TBF arming battleships with torpedoes was easily one of the worst ideas in military history. It accomplished absolutely nothing (as best I can remember, the only time battleships ever hit another ship with torpedoes was when the already-crippled Bismarck was being demolished by Rodney) and just added large, indivisible spaces prone to asymmetrical flooding as well as more stuff to explode when youāre hit yourself.
mojofrododojosubs do. helos and boats use things like ASROC en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RUR-5_ASROC and surface torpedo tubes like the mk32 - en.wikipedia.org/ā¦/Mark_32_surface_vessel_torpedoā¦
mercThe history of torpedoes is fun. The original ones were attached to a spar at the front of boats. The boat had a steam engine and which they used to get up to speed to try to ambush and ram enemy capital ships. The threat these boats posed to capital ships gave rise to ātorpoedo boat destroyersā, which we just call ādestroyersā today.
The first kinds of torpedo boats that launched stand-alone torpedoes did use torpedo tubes, but they werenāt underwater. Underwater launching of torpedoes only started when torpedo boats evolved into U-boats (undersea boats, a.k.a. submarines). Destroyers remained torpedo boat destroyers, but now rather than hunting small, fast boats on the surface using small, fast guns, they hunted stealthy boats that were underwater with depth charges.
āļø-Theyāre also saving you money. You spend $1000 on ammunition to prevent the sinking of a $1 billion ship.
OBJECTION!Itās not saving me a dime, it aināt my $1 billion ship.
And if it doesnāt get sunk, my tax dollars would just go to building another ship.
The government spends every dime it can on the military anyway. If they could squeeze more to replace a ship they would already be squeezing more to build a new one. They already spend as much as the next nine countries combined.
If the war machine was going to grind to a halt just because they had āenoughā ships and bombs, it wouldāve done so already. Itāll keep going, more and more forever, starting more and more conflicts just to justify lining their pockets, until they finally bite off more than they can chew and kick off nuclear armegeddon. Any of their shit that gets wrecked in their stupid, psychotic adventurism is a good thing because it slows them down from that, even if just a little.
None of it saves me a dime and even if it did I wouldnāt care because my dimes wonāt be worth anything when they destroy the world.
GoofSchmoofer
And generations of people who hate us.
Conceptually, Iām not opposed to having a powerful military for defense of your own borders and those of allies.
I am highly opposed to defunding cancer research so we can blow up schools full of small children.
But there is clearly a reason; deflection from the fact that our president is a pedophile.
Kilgore TroutBut a peaceful military does not exist. Once you increase spending for it to a relevant portion of the national budget, you need to use it to make the economy happy.
Youāre right, but again we donāt live in an anarchist like state here we donāt need to worry about bad actor nations or actors in general. I would love there to be a situation where borders and countries disappear and we come together as a species. That does not meet well with the reality of our situation. Even then, I would still think some defensive force necessary because well, Iām not too optimistic on the galaxy at large.
redlemace
einfach_orangensaftAh yes, who dosent know what american tax dollars are also paying for those at least 2x russian weapon systemes that did sneak into the compilationā¦
M0oP0oyeah at least two of the cwis and I think that ripple rocket launch at 0:14 are russian.
I think the point is valid tho.
That doesnāt make it not relevant, if anything it shows itās a multinational issue of just arms build up to sabre rattle at the best of times.
this one slaps. itās always difficult to vizualise just how much a large amount of money can be and just how readily they burn it on death.
Not just death, often for nothing at all. How many of those videos were missiles fired into open ocean?
Except itās just completely random numbers slapped on the footage.
care to name the weapon system and itās actual cost for munitions and rearmament? Or is this a ātrust me broā moment?
I could go search for them, or you could notice that the pricetag is defferwnt for every of the 3 torpedoes shown.
Now can you facture in the person firing it, the ship itās firing from, the cost to operate that ship, and the R&D costs of that weapon alone?
How? How do you assign how much of the R&D should be counted for the one missile fire or burst from a Phalanx?
And much more importantly, what for? How would pricing random weapons firing on a random video help anyone with anything?
For example, F35 cost like $2 trillion when all costs are considered, but only like $100mil each. Slight difference, right? And to the second part, thatās the whole point of the thread, how much money America would save if it wasnāt for these weapons.
The thread was started by me calling the numbers in the video bullshit. The thread was never about whether america spends too much on its military.
If the thread is about people who already agree with the point slapping each other on the back, sure, go ahead.
But if you want to convince anyone, you may not want your numbers to be obviously made up. Putting aside that the phalanx shooting is an order of magnitude off, the same torpedo has 3 different prices one after another. Even someone who has no idea how much these things cost can see itās BS if they pay attention.
OK, but you also see how saying America wouldāve saved $100mil if it didnāt have an F35 in a video would also be misleading, right?