6 ms·

>> This is confusing to say the least, the US are providing Israel with heavy hardware and ammunition to kill the Palestinian civilians, and then they want to t

• apical_dendrite 1y ago
  > The US taxpayer has always paid for Israel’s citizens healthcare What is your source for this claim? Most US military aid to Israel goes to US defense contractors. The US hasn't provided any significant economic aid to Israel in decades.
  • siliconc0w 1y ago
    Dollars are fungible
    • dlubarov 1y ago
      By this logic, the US is funding X at 173 countries, where X is anything governments spend money on (healthcare, soup kitchens, cocktail parties?)
      • MentatOnMelange 1y ago
        Since the US has shuttered USAID which distrubutes food for humanitarian reasons, and made massive cuts to domestic healthcare program, this is indeed the logic of the current administration
      • jkaplowitz 1y ago
        Your rhetorical question is more true than you may realize: The high levels of US military spending is indeed a major reason why so many countries in (for example) Europe have been able to afford their robust social welfare systems instead of having to spend more of their budget on defense than they traditionally have. A lot of articles discussing the consequences of the Trump administration’s pressure on other NATO countries to spend more of their GDP on defense and its public hesitation to protect Europe militarily have discussed how some of European governments’ nonmilitary expenses may have to be reduced as a result.
        • impossiblefork 1y ago
          No, robust healthcare is cheaper than the US system. Here in Sweden we had this even back in the day when we spent 5% of GDP on defence, mostly materiel, and upon that had mandatory military service. The US healthcare system is more expensive than a Swedish-style healthcare system. Another fun fact: our university education is cheaper per head than our high school education. I think the education of physicians is maybe 1.5x as expensive as high school education, but that's an unusually expensive program.
          • jkaplowitz 1y ago
            If you focus only on healthcare, I agree completely. But then look at the rest of the system. I don't know about Sweden specifically, so I'll stick with Germany as the example I know better: free university education for everyone, strong unemployment benefits and worker rights, heavily subsidized mass transportation, lots of social housing even if still inadequate for the demand, the list goes on and on... Definitely not a cheap bill, and definitely more affordable when not having to spend that money on the military.
    • apical_dendrite 1y ago
      They aren't really dollars, so much as in-kind aid. The US pays Raytheon to manufacture interceptors in the US and then send them to Israel. So it's fungible in the sense that without US military aid, Israel would have to figure out how to pay for missile defense and other military needs. And maybe that involves less domestic spending on healthcare and maybe it involves making deals with other countries or making foreign or military policy changes. Maybe it leads to positive changes like peace deals, but maybe it leads to negative changes, like Israel switching its allegiance to countries that aren't as friendly to US interests. Ultimately, the person I'm replying to is giving a false impression of what the US is doing.
  • Cyph0n 1y ago
    Because the $1 saved on a missile can be spent elsewhere?