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.”

      • prettybunnys
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        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.

          • prettybunnys
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            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.

              • prettybunnys
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                11 months ago

                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.

                  • prettybunnys
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    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.

          • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

              • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                11 months ago

                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?

                • prettybunnys
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  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.

              • OriginalMP3@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                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.