"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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

It's obvious to people without extreme anti-American bias.

Also, maybe don't throw out terms like "strawman" when you bizarrely transfigured my innocuous comment:

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

into:

> 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.

edit - It should be clear to anyone reasonable that the way you interpreted my original post evinces anti-American bias. What you don't seem to understand is that US interests and Germany interests have significant overlap. The idea that Germany doesn't benefit from pax Americana is absurd.

That doesn't mean that the US always uses its power responsibility, it just means that things are more complicated than the caricature of US foreign policy that often shows up on this website.

I believe that your position was strong during the cold war. From the end of WWII until the dissolution of the Soviet Union, American troops and bombs were a significant deterrent to Soviet imperialism in Europe.

However, the world has significantly changed since December 1991. I agree with the grandparent that today the primary usage of the large US bases in Germany are for staging people and material to the middle east. I also think that it's a reasonable opinion that these wars (or their scale and length) were unnecessary. Is that opinion evidence of "anti-american bias"? I believe that is an unreasonable conclusion.

So - from the 50's to the 90's did the US "subsidize" European economies to some amount by providing common defense from the USSR? Sure. It also served US interests as the policy was to "fight over there" instead of in the US.

Since then, the US has spent upwards of $3T on the GWOT, while declining in every health statistic year over year.

If we're tossing around charges of "anti-american'ism" - I counter than anyone who wants to continue on with an unchanged healthcare system is "anti-american" - as in literally in favor of a system that causes more children to die at birth, for people to live shorter, less predictable and more brutal lives.

Sorry, but I think you're seeing what you want to see.

I'm perfectly "reasonable", and it's rationale to question whether German military spend would increase just because some US troops leave.

I understand perfectly well that some US and German interests overlap, but certainly not all. It's also the case that the US does many things that there would be absolutely no appetite for in Germany (I'm not judging those actions here, just making a reasoned point).

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.

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

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.

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.

> 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?

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.