[Krokku]

You could buy 0.018 Tomahawk missiles for that or treat 54 people for every Tomahawk missile fired.

All of the Tomahawk missiles fired since 2001 would have provided 119.000 people with free Corona treatment.

I am thinking that countries with free healthcare care more about keeping their own people healthy than dropping missiles and misery on other countries people.

[Balgair]

"Each Javelin round costs $80,000, and the idea that it's fired by a guy who doesn't make that in a year at a guy who doesn't make that in a lifetime is somehow so outrageous it almost makes the war seem winnable."

- Sebastian Junger

[CPLX]

That math only makes sense if you take the medical industry’s insane pricing model as gospel.

If you had a straightforward nationally run healthcare system the math would be way more favorable still.

[surewhynat]

Other countries have price caps on their procedures. This makes sense to make the price for a procedure the same across hospitals. It's the same work. Marketing and Sales people should not be involved in the pricing structure of healing a broken leg.

[lidHanteyk]

We know that a good rule of thumb in the USA is that health care costs are roughly twice what they ought to be. So just multiply by two: We could have treated around 238k people.

[vidarh]

Much more than twice. The per capita cost (across all Americans, not just those eligible) for Medicare and Medicaid is higher than the healthcare costs of most other developed countries before you even factor in private insurance.

[pwdisswordfish2]

What’s the rule of thumb on the pricing of military equipment?

[tc313]

While your point is valid, it also illustrates how the U.S. subsidizes European entitlement programs by implicitly reducing those countries’ defense spending. If the U.S. were to cut back on defense, European countries would have to cut back on social welfare programs.

[tpetry]

Are you trying to say europeans have money to spend on an almost fair medical system because they are spending far less money on military because the USA spends enough to „protect“ the europeans? Because that would sounds like a joke. Europe is spending less money in military because its not entering so many wars or conflicts.

[leftyted]

The 30,000 US troops stationed in Germany and the existence of NATO are significant factors in European countries spending so little on defense.

[GordonS]

This is a total fallacy - those troops being stationed in Germany does not mean Germany would station 30k of their own should the US troops leave.

[leftyted]

I didn't say that. I said that, without the US presence in Germany and without NATO, Germany would have to spend more on defense.

I don't understand how anyone can disagree with that; it's obvious. The German government certainly knows it, which is they allow the Americans to keep 30,000 troops in their country.

A lot of people on HN have an extreme anti-US bias. It's pretty tiring.

[GordonS]

My comment didn't display any anti-US sentiment, so your strawman falls down.

> I don't understand how anyone can disagree with that; it's obvious

No, it's far from obvious.

Those troops are now there to serve US interests, not German ones, primarily using Germany as a logistics base for deployments/missions in the Middle East.

Indeed, there's an argument to made that their spend could even reduce, since they might become less of a target.

[umvi]

Yes, that is more or less true. EU countries can afford to spend so little on military because the USA protects Europe's interests in other parts of the world including the ocean and middle east. Trump toyed with the idea of withdrawing from NATO and EU panicked because they have no military.

[m_ke]

US destabilizing the middle east and causing a refugee crisis is not helping european social welfare programs.

[vidarh]

If the US was to cut back on defense, European countries probably would cut back on defense too. A large part of European spending goes to keep the US happy, and to defend against the fallout of US wars.

It's a price we pay for favourable trade arrangements, not something Europe would maintain on its own.

[originalvichy]

You are saying that as if US has defenses in Europe for sheer good will and charity. My country of Finland is doing quite alright with military spending despite being a highly militarized country. There’s a difference between spending money on a defense force and spending money projecting force.

[pinkfoot]

> If the U.S. were to cut back on defense, European countries would have to cut back on social welfare programs.

Why? What if they are happy with their defence spending as it is? Its an unproven American trope that their defence would HAVE to increase.

Who, pray tell, is going to invade nuclear armed France and the UK?

[captncraig]

There is no minimum number of missiles that must be produced no matter what. I think op was simply suggesting that fewer missiles total should be made across the board.