this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
62 points (95.6% liked)

World News

32303 readers
357 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 32 points 1 year ago (4 children)
[–] toxicbubble420@beehaw.org 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

or living wage, or affordable housing

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

or infrastructure or child care or

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passed in 2021 allocates $550 billion over the next five years. That's in addition to another $650 billion that was already allocated.

I know you and I have a habit of disagreeing on essentially all things, so feel free to not respond to this, but I did want to put an actual fact out for anyone else reading and thinking that we literally don't spend money on infrastructure while we throw tons of money at war, because that's simply not true, even if you think the proportions are off.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The infrastructure and jobs act was far less than what we need, because half the government wants to starve the poor and kill them with preventable diseases and enslave them in lifelong debt. Remember that.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wow, I can just feel the rush of the goalposts flying by!

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Eat my ass. It's a fact that the bill was whittled down by compromises because half the government thinks any form of government spending is too expensive. Yet that same half loves spending money on war. Where's the lie?

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social -3 points 1 year ago

Sorry, I'd rather not. I'm afraid I'm not a furry.

[–] shreddy_scientist@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago

The US government only disagrees on matters which support the average citizen. Other than that, both sides are in lockstep when it comes to voting on bills...

[–] ijeff@lemdro.id 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

They already spend a ton of public dollars on health. The problem is that it goes to insurance companies, administrative staff, and the downstream health costs of inadequate early access to care.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're kinda contradicting yourself.

They don't spend public dollars on health. They give it to insurance companies and administrative staff and pharmaceutical companies and other private moneyed interests, and then there's none left for us.

[–] ijeff@lemdro.id 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They actually do spend a lot of public dollars on health, it's just spent into a system that isn't efficient. Universal access to care drives down costs significantly across the board - instead they have piecemeal coverage and a system with overall costs inflated by administrative staff hired solely to manage insurance billing and delayed treatments.

It's an interesting area of policy where expanding coverage means lower costs overall.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A lot of the money they spend on "health" isn't actually spent on the labor or materials or research needed to provide healthcare, it's stolen as profit by private companies.

It's important to remember that this money isn't being spent on our healthcare. It's being handed to moneyed interests.

[–] ijeff@lemdro.id 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is true for any health system (labour and technology costs are huge components to health care, even in systems with universal coverage). However, there are also huge and significant costs inherent to any system that doesn't provide universal coverage (e.g., people delaying care leading to more severe illness costlier to respond to). Private insurance systems also introduce significant cost pressures even for non-profit and publicly funded providers by driving up staffing costs and requiring more support staff to operate.

All this to say, the US doesn't have a budget problem when it comes to health care - the primary obstacle is the policy challenge of switching to a system that does a better job at delivering care for everyone based on need rather than ability/willingness to pay. Massive cost savings follow when people are kept healthier.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago

My point is the money isn't actually being spent on labor or technology - it's just going into shareholders pockets.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 2 points 1 year ago

I assume that any military spending would be equally inefficient.

[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

how do you think it has the biggest army in the world

[–] penquin@lemmy.kde.social 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But when we ask for help as citizens, "how are you gonna pay for it, huh?"

[–] blazera@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago

famously poorly armed state of Israel

[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Please attach some basic conditions like... don't do war crimes.

[–] shiveyarbles@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago

How many billions do they need to pound Gaza into rubble? Seriously I'm not onboard.

[–] anindefinitearticle@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] shreddy_scientist@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Truly demonstrates how wildly preposterous it is at its core. Space exploration makes countries focus together on a bigger picture, which everyone's also interested in, and even makes us realize what our taxes are capable of financing. Regardless, its worth it alone just for showing youngsters how fascinating and worthwhile science is as a career choice...

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Straight up linking to a .pdf like a madman

[–] faltryka@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

One of these is not like the others.

[–] yip-bonk@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Two of these are not being pulverized by a nuclear power at the moment.

[–] shreddy_scientist@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Nonetheless, each is a proxy war interest of the US, which alone shows how it's atrocious. The first two actively are, all three have been, and the third is the most anxiety ridden one on my end. It'd could go from third times a charm to nuke real fast