Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This is a good point. Rep. Rogers' amendment to DOD for FY25, which just came out, includes:

- $1.53B for expansion of small unmanned surface vessel production.

- $1.8B for expansion of medium unmanned surface vessel production.

- $1.3B for expansion of unmanned underwater production.

- $188mm for development and testing of maritime robotic autonomous systems and enabling technologies.

- $174mm for the development of a Test Resource Management Center robotic autonomous systems proving ground.

- $250mm for development, production, and integration of wave-powered unmanned underwater vehicles.

Perhaps less-safe seas will mean it's better to on-shore, but we do seem to be focused on keeping them secure. If nothing else, while America is more capable of autarky than most, we still pull a lot of critical minerals and other feedstocks from other places.

The healthcare debate is really complicated. We do spend a ton, but we also demand an extraordinarily high standard of care. We don't tend to deny people anything and waitlists are very rare. Now while a universal healthcare policy is doable, a lot of Americans would demand some level of additional private care, which means net healthcare spending might rise between the two systems.

I tend to hear arguments for universal healthcare like "negotiating drug prices". While that could save some money, we spend less than one-tenth of total dollars on prescription drugs. Hospitals are still the largest chunk at ~30%, and I'm unsure how universal care would realistically save us money there. Doctors/clinics are about 20%, and I don't see obvious savings there, either. "Other health" is opaque but there's potential for savings here; it includes "durable and non-durable products, residential and personal care, net health insurance, and other state, private, and federal expenditures."

This is a very hard problem to solve, and is compounded by the fact that we have an incredibly unhealthy population. I also hesitate to attribute this to "lack of care": obesity is massively comorbid with heart disease (the leading cause of death in most states), diabetes (a large ongoing drain on the health system), and end-stage renal disease (dialysis accounts for ~2% of the entire federal budget.). And yet, obesity is strongly prevalent in every income group, across men and women both.

There are people who say we have a moral obligation to give free healthcare to everyone. I don't agree, but I understand that's moral position. But I am less sure that data bear out the idea that publicizing healthcare would magically save so many dollars.

I'm not "avoiding" criticizing the rich or capitalism. I'm just not motivated by my personal morality to do so. I understand you and others are, and can respect that too, but these are two separate conversations: on one hand, what is practically right and wrong with the current policies? On the other, how ought we to act? The latter underlies the former and, if you want to criticize the former on grounds of the latter, you've got a long row to hoe. It's probably easier to segment practical discussions to one place and moral dialogue to another.

Expenditure data: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spe...

Obesity prevalence by income: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db50.htm



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: