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.”

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      5 months ago

      Insurance. Employers, people.

      Even the year I had 3 surgeries I didn’t pay 26k out of pocket. I paid like 8k.

      As I said I’m not opposed but I’m also not foolish enough to think the average persons taxes won’t radically increase.

      • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        5 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.

        • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

          • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            5 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.

            • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              5 months ago

              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

              • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                5 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.

                • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  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.

                  • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 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.