The US already spends more per-person than most states with socialized medical care. The difference is that in America that money goes to insurance companies and billionaires sitting at home while in socialized medical schemes it goes to doctors and nurses and for medications and facilities.

This country was founded by rich capitalist for rich capitalist. The suffering and the threat of increasing suffering is the point.

Universal healthcare would actually be an investment in the people of this nation and has the potential to increase the GDP

Who would work for army and ice then

In a Universal healtcare system, there is a monetary incentive for the autorities to make laws and regulations to prevent disease - prevention is a lot cheaper than fixing things after the damage is done.

In a pure for profit healthcare system there is no such incentive for the autorities - in some ways, there might even be the opposite incentive, depending on the levels of Corruption and how much more profit the Healthcare sector can make if people are more sick: after all, when a country spends twice as much as a percentage of the GDP in Healthcare, that means there's a lot more money to be made in Healthcare, and private interests have an incentive to buy politicians and regulators to help them profit as much as possible.

Beyond this there is also the whole "doing what's best for our people" incentive, which is the US is so weak that it doesn't even apply to some obviously bad things (for example, easy availability of guns, which is definitelly bad for people's health) much less to more subtle pathways to damage people's health such as unhealthy food.

Fat people often just get scolded by doctors for being fat and are not offered any actual care. Lots of fat people refuse to go to the doctor unless they're practically dying because it can be humiliating and/or traumatic. Also BMI is anti-science bullshit. Refined sugar is not good for you, but don't blame fat people for straining the system. Blame the system for straining fat people.

Also need to subsidize grocery distribution into food deserts. Many people don’t even have access to fresh produce if they wanted it.

yeah at least two of the cwis and I think that ripple rocket launch at 0:14 are russian.

I think the point is valid tho.

Yeah, that bugged me more then it should.

That doesn't make it not relevant, if anything it shows it's a multinational issue of just arms build up to sabre rattle at the best of times.

The US national debt is $38 trillion, soon to be $39 trillion.

So you're either crazy or had a stroke...

Except for on submarines, where there isn't a deck, deck-launched torpedoes have been normal for about as long as torpedoes have been used. It's much more of a nuisance to do things underwater than above the surface, so unless you've got a good reason, like being a submarine, generally we don't.

The history of torpedoes is fun. The original ones were attached to a spar at the front of boats. The boat had a steam engine which they used to get up to speed to try to ambush and ram enemy capital ships. The threat these boats posed to capital ships gave rise to "torpoedo boat destroyers", which we just call "destroyers" today.

The first kinds of torpedo boats that launched stand-alone torpedoes did use torpedo tubes, but they weren't underwater. Underwater launching of torpedoes only started when torpedo boats evolved into U-boats (undersea boats, a.k.a. submarines). Destroyers remained torpedo boat destroyers, but now rather than hunting small, fast boats on the surface using small, fast guns, they hunted stealthy boats that were underwater with depth charges.

From submarines, sure. Not from ships. Ships launching torpedoes from tubes above water has been a thing for a really long time.

subs do. helos drop air launched units like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_46_torpedo, and boats use things like ASROC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RUR-5_ASROC and surface torpedo tubes like the mk32 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_32_surface_vessel_torpedo_tubes