JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

OffTopic

Surf a Flood of random discussion.
1/28/2018 1:58:14 AM
44

Nation “Too Broke” for Universal Healthcare to Spend $406 Billion More on F-35

[quote]The nation’s most expensive weapons program isn’t done showing U.S. taxpayers how much it will ultimately cost them, with Bloomberg reporting Monday that the F-35 fighter jet budget is now predicted to jump by a cool $27 billion. “Think about [F-35’s] $405 billion price tag when a family member dies of a preventable disease. Get angry.” Though the estimated future cost of the program had previously hovered at a mind-boggling $379 billion, an updated draft that could be submitted to Congress as early as today will reportedly exceed $406 billion—a nearly 7 percent increase. The new cost increases may come as a hit to President Donald Trump, who has bragged about his ability to get weapons manufacturers to offer the Pentagon “better deals.” Others simply pointed out how ridiculous it is that a weapons program so fraught with failures is allowed to receive such outlandish funding when lawmakers—mostly Republicans, but also many Democrats—continue to argue that the nation is “too broke” to increase spending on social programs that improve education or healthcare. The original cost of the program was $233B, which is $721 per person for a year. The average healthcare costs for a person in Canada, is $4,506. Also keep in mind that the Pentagon has estimated that over the lifetime of the aircraft they’ll spend over a trillion dollars on the program. A number that keeps going up as the costs continue to overrun and does not include retrofits, modernization, or upgrades; just maintenance. [/quote] Sad.

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

View Entire Topic
  • 1
    The F-35 program is a good example of why I'd be hesitant to push universal health care in the US right now. It's been a terrible program for American taxpayers, but it's still politically and financially advantageous for a lot of politicians to keep Lockheed Martin happy. We'd have the same problem with Universal health care; it'd be advantageous to a lot of politicians to keep certain drug companies happy. One of the biggest ways universal health care systems save money is by taking advantage of the strong position that comes with being able to negotiate contracts on behalf of an entire country. When you're dealing with that much volume for, say, drug companies or medical device manufacturers, you can really push for them to lower prices. I have no confidence that would be the case here. I think instead politicians would be using that negotiating power to draw bigger campaign contributions. I'm concerned that campaign finance reform needs to be addressed before universal health care can become a reality here.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

You are not allowed to view this content.
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon