Israel's defence against Iran attack overnight 'likely cost over $1bn'
Israel's defence against Iran attack overnight 'likely cost over $1bn'
The cost for one night of defence seen as significantly higher than the price Iran paid to mount its attack
It cost Israel more than $1bn to activate its defence systems that intercepted Iran's massive drone and missile attack overnight, according to a former financial adviser to Israel's military.
"The defence tonight was on the order of 4-5bn shekels [$1-1.3bn] per night," estimated Brigadier General Reem Aminoach in an interview with Ynet news.
"If we're talking about ballistic missiles that need to be brought down with an Arrow system, cruise missiles that need to be brought down with other missiles, and UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles], which we actually bring down mainly with fighter jets," he said.
"Then add up the costs - $3.5m for an Arrow missile, $1m for a David's Sling, such and such costs for jets. An order of magnitude of 4-5bn shekels."
You're viewing part of a thread.
The math has been done a number of times on this. 2016 and 2020 the Sanders campaign did it then a number of independent think tanks and institutes “fact checked” it.
At current levels of care most would expect to pay less.
At the level of care where we’re no longer subsidizing emergency services for preventable diseases almost all would expect to pay less still.
They won’t radically increase unless we get grifted.
It’s hard to explain how saving money would equate to us paying more so I’m interested in the how.
Sanders is an idiot who is wrong about almost everything. He didn’t even understand how Income Works. He wants to tax wealth which he can’t grasp is unconstitutional.
I would cite Bernie if you want anyone to take you serious. Nice man, just not very smart.
Christ dude I literally “cited” the campaign of Sanders that put out an idea as a platform and backed it with research and examples from the rest of the world.
The studies were not done by Bernie Sanders himself but even had they been I’d dare you to refute them intelligently.
You talk as if we ought to respect you but that also informs your opinion has no credibility.
You didn’t cite anything. You made a claim. A citation would have something I could verify. A claim is something I can’t verify. If Bernie is quoting it, it’s probably wrong. That man is dumb as a box of rocks.
If you’d like to cite the Cato report, I’d love to read it. I can’t find it as you claimed
I cited nothing.
I quoted the word because you used it incorrectly in a myriad of ways.
Here’s one, it’s not by their campaign so maybe you might be able to throw that bias of yours out.
Sorry it came from Lancet and not Cato. These studies are literally EVERYWHERE it’s honestly hard work to truly believe what you do.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8572548/
^ the article was published in Lancet.
You either didn’t read the article or didn’t t read what I said. The numbers are similar to mine. Yet the article doesn’t address what I stated. A citation is supposed to prove a point. With was it would increase taxes which the article confirms would happen but doesn’t quantify it.
Also with the drop in wages for doctors and nurses, we would face another shortage.
The Abstract ALONE claims the opposite.
You’re using words hoping people will believe you because you’re saying them like an asshole talking down to children.
To your “lower pay” point that’s not necessarily true and the article explains the how.
The savings to providers alone would be double the “decrease” in pay, again pay would only go down through a grift.
The abstract is not the article and no it doesn’t talk of the increased taxes. That’s further in the article.
If you’d read the article you’d see it prove my claim. Touché
My claim is most people will pay less, my claim has been that from the beginning.
The study I linked makes that argument.
There are countless others.
AFTER the article makes mention of government revenue increase it then informs how that increase in taxes revenue would result in a net decrease for the actual average person.
Your taxes might go up more than you pay into your health plan and it’s telling that you can’t see past your own nose to the point.
My claim is most people will pay less, my claim has been that from the beginning.
Your cite doesn’t make that claim. It’s not addressed in the article. They are taking total cost and dividing by the population.
It also has nothing to do with what i stated. I said our taxes would go up which the article confirms.
It does actually claim that.
You just have to read.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8572548/table/T1/?report=objectonly
It looks like people aren't buying your bullshit. Your echo chamber can't save you here.
If you would ignore your arrogance and lack of self awareness for a second, you could venture slightly outside the US for a comparison.
Case in point: Germany. We do have a mixture of semi-public and private insurances, and I would argue on average better health care access than the US right now. Insurance rates for the default public insurance is something like 8% of your income before taxes, plus the same amount paid by your employer. It's capped at about 420€ per month (so and 850€ including employer part). This insurance includes dependent children "for free", and if you're unemployed you'll get insurance paid for you.
So in short, 8% of your income, but never above 420€. Hardly any out of pocket payments. Comparable standard of care.
That means, it's absolutely possible, it's just that some people are dense enough to almost collapse into themselves and prefer to be screwed over.
As I said I have no issues with changing our system. Just the average person doesn’t get they will pay more.
I pay about 2400 a year for all my medical needs. That’s less than 1% of my income. Not even close to 8% and well below 420 euros.
It’ll change the burden from the employer to the person which I’m fine with but the employers won’t just hand that money to you. So it increases your cost and increases their profits.
We have to figure out an intelligent way to do it. Maybe tax revenue of companies to cover 1:2 and the population pays the other half.
Just flipping a switch doesn’t solve the issue.
Are you seriously arguing, that earning 250k a year is even somewhere close to "average"? The average is somewhere around 40k.
Also, wait just a few years until medical bills kick in. There's an over 50% chance you'll get cancer at some point. You think you can cover that with 2400 a year?
DING DING DING the person you’re responding to is woefully out of touch with what “the average” person means.
They attack the intelligence of a someone without understanding what my statement was.
I make well over 250k a year.
Already had cancer. Still didn’t exceed 2400 a year. Only one year did I exceed 2400 dollars. That years was about 8k but that’s because I have three surgeries crossing a new year. That year I spent about 2% of my income in medical care. I’ve never been able to deduct medical care from my taxes which requires it to exceed 7.5%
Congratulations? I'm glad you've had a pretty good experience when it's known the world over that we fall short. We're a laughing stock but that boot just tastes so good, doesn't it?
They got theirs and that’s all that matters, now stop being poor in their general direction.
Again, do you think that this is average? Do you really assume, that in a country with an average income of somewhere in the 40k range a person with 250k is even remotely representative for the population?
Okay, you're rich and don't get to have an opinion.
I pay about 2400 a year for all my medical needs. That’s less than 1% of my income. Not even close to 8% and well below 420 euros.
Did you just argue that your $2400/year is well below €420/year? At current exchange rates it's about $447, or about 18% of what you currently pay.
As others have pointed out, single payer is an overall cost save. It's not hard to imagine creating a tax that companies pay to cover this with the money they will save from not offering insurance to full time employees.
🍿