[okdood64]

A single soldier having a medical issue generally doesn't cancel a multi-month mission costing some X large sum of money, requiring another Y large sum of money to even finish cancelling it (returning their unit home).

Therefore it's not relevant and not needed for the public to know.

[therealpygon]

Yes, I’m sure aircrew never get so violently sick as to affect millions or billions of dollars in crew and and supporting assets due to an emergency, and armed service members are never transported by emergency transportations for eye-watering costs. Technical inequity that ignores facts is the argument of those without arguments.

The specifics of “who” has zero relevance to what is necessary for an ongoing situation; you don’t get to dictate your access and timeline to information just because you contributed a fraction of a penny to something.

[NetMageSCW]

The amount of money involved should have nothing to do with privacy. You don’t get to violate people’s rights just because it was expensive.

[alistairSH]

It could for anything remotely “special ops” - those are small specialized teams.

[RyanCavanaugh]

What are you going to do with this information? What policy would you plausibly advocate for on the basis of it?