comment: >
  
  Yes they absolutely must. Prob won't stop at Ukraine, let alone 4 oblasts. He won't stop until you stop him. No country can believe they can just conquer all or parts of their neighbors, especially when they have nukes and their neighbor doesn't. That will just start a wave of nuclear proliferation. 
  This won't end with Ukraine, not will it and with Russia. The world is watching.
context: This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  Western countries must be prepared to provide long-term support to Ukraine as Russia shows no signs of relenting, Nato's secretary general has said.
  Jens Stoltenberg told the BBC that military support would ensure the survival of Ukraine as a sovereign country and force Russia to sit down and negotiate an end to the war.
  "We need to provide support to Ukraine now, including military support, because that's the only way to convince Russia that they have to sit down and negotiate in good faith and respect Ukraine as a sovereign independent nation in Europe," Mr Stoltenberg said.
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 Russia^#2 New^#3 Year^#4 Stoltenberg^#5 >
  
  lol why are the comments a pissing contest for who's helped the most? We should all just agree that we need to continue supporting them. >
  
  B/c the US is doing the right thing, and edgy teenagers on the internet can't handle that. It's hard to be a contrarian and woke at the same time while the US is providing all this much needed support >
  
  Americans want healthcare. >
  
  universal healthcare would cost American less than the current system. There is no financial obstacle to achieving it, its not a binary choice between military spending and healthcare >
  
  It's more complicated than a dollar sign on a piece of paper.
  The current system employees a lot of people and undoing it requires coming up with a plan for the employment vacuum it would create.
  I'm not disagreeing that single payer is a better system, but the current system is so entrenched that unwinding it will require a lot of upfront planning, care and monumental cost. It's really not as simple of a transition as people make it out to be. >
  
  Bernie stans will kill me, but single player is not the only way to achieve universal healthcare 
  Countries like France, Germany, Singapore all have mixed public private healthcare systems with relegated price caps to ensure affordability, and thats probably the path that makes the most sense for the US >
  
  Germany, I think has a private health care system that sets strict limits on how much an individual receiving health care has to pay. In the same way that medicare does in the United States. That seems like an obvious solution. But additional taxes almost constitute a political death sentence in the United States. So Medicare for all is dead on arrival. Which is unfortunate. And short sighted. >
  
  
  Germany, I think has a private health care system that sets strict limits on how much an individual receiving health care has to pay. 
  
  germany has a split public/private health care system. anybody earning above 64,350€ gross (in 2022) has the option to insure themselves privately. certain people also have to insure themselves privately (servants of the state, "beamte"). anybody in a private insurance will get the full preexisting conditions dance - but you still have the option to stay in the public healthcare system.
  for anybody in the public health care system, they will not even know how much the doctor earned off of them, unless it's an optional service, which they pay in full (there are extra insurances that will cover more, most noticably dental). anybody privately insured will see the full bill, pay it, and then get reimbursed by their insurance. the price a privately insured person will pay/get reimbursed usually is higher than the one a public insured person's insurance will pay. the insurance costs itself is deducted from the paycheck every month, automatically by the employer, and paid to the insurance. insurance is not bound to the employer however, it's your own choice. you are also insured when unemployed. >
  
  Thank you for filling in the bits that I'm missing. I'm not familiar with the system, I'm just parroting what I've heard.
  I would ask about the deduction from the paycheck, as some Americans end up with multi million dollar bills. Is that controlled properly, or do some Germans get saddled with uncontrollable debt? Is medical debt a common force towards bankruptcy in anywhere but America? >
  
  
  I would ask about the deduction from the paycheck, as some Americans end up with multi million dollar bills. Is that controlled properly, or do some Germans get saddled with uncontrollable debt?
  
  For the public health care, it's entirely based on your income (capped at 58,050€). It is not depended on the costs of your medical treatment. It is covered half by yourself, half by your employer. On your paycheck, in addition to income tax, you'll find the following, always in percent of the after-tax income:
  
  half of 14.6% healthcare, + extra costs of your insurance of roughly 1.2%
  half of 3.05% long term care (i.e. if you need help doing things because of age or illness, this will pay for either professional help or a family member)
  half of 18.6% pension ("Rente", capped at 84,600€ income)
  half of 2.6% unemployment insurance
  
  so for a person that did not hit any caps, they'll be deducted roughly an additional 20% of their after tax income.
  for the privately insured I can't really answer. What I do know is that the are much cheaper when younger, but once you get older get more expensive (or outright impossible) and it's very difficult or impossible get back into the public variant. So it can get quite problematic when you aren't working anymore and the rates are rising.
  
  Is medical debt a common force towards bankruptcy in anywhere but America?
  
  It's not in germany. All things a doctor can do are billed based on a comprehensive list of individual routines. while there is a multiplier the doctor can use when billing each item, it's not obscene. privately insured persons generally will be billed more, as their insurances will pay it. >
  
  Stop Russia here. Now. 
  They will make us regret any other decision. >
  
  I mean the war crimes alone, the children... >
  
  He is simply making a left-handed reference for the wait 
  Ukraine has has been waiting to be accepted into Nato. Nato won't officially acept until the war is settled, and Nato has been around for over 60 years, that's pretty long term. >
  
  NATO will never accept Ukraine until it takes back all the territories as well as Crimea. >
  
  
  until the war is settled
  
  that's pretty much the same to this >
  
  The United States has by far provided the most military assistance to Ukraine, more than every other country combined.
  
  Wikipedia >
  
  The US mostly provides aid in the form of weapons. The US spends more on its military budget than the next 5 countries combined. What do you expect? >
  
  
  The US mostly provides aid in the form of weapons.
  
  Also worth noting is that it isn't a one-way street either. The US is picking up plenty of lucrative export orders too resulting from this live fire sales demonstration
  The US spent plenty in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria only for their proxies to run away or sell their weapons to the highest bidder. The world laughed at them, and America's inability to train and equip an army might have been one of many factors that weighed on Putin's final decision
  This is the first time in decades that America has supplied a country with weapons who have proven willing to stand and fight and use them, and now Republican's are still moaning (after having committed America to spending a lot more in other theatres) that American sponsorship is in danger of embarrassing their ideological role model
  Edit - should have added that it's not just arms sales that America is getting money back on from this war either. America now exports 70% of their LNG to Europe, effectively replacing Russia as the primary supplier and allowing them to overtake Qatar as the largest exporter in the world. Now that's a significant slice of any pie. 
  For all those Republicans moaning about the supply of weapons to Ukraine, you'll probably find that America's doing quite well on the net balance of payments resulting from this war. Sadly though, its a very easy sell to simplistic voters >
  
  Those diehard republicans moaning about Ukraine are few and far between. Most seem to understand the deep implications involved in this war and support it, and by most I mean a majority of republicans. Did you watch Zelensky's visit? Most republicans clapped and yes, there were a few notable holdouts but that number was very low all things considered... less than double digits, regardless of whatever story Tucker Carlson is crooning about. >
  
  
  Those diehard republicans moaning about Ukraine are few and far between. Most seem to understand the deep implications involved in this war and support it
  
  Their support will be worth buttons and quickly evaporate if Trump wins the Whitehouse again. They'll do what ever he tells them to, because they're essentially feckless. 
  On that very same day Don Jnr described Zelensky as "an ungrateful international welfare queen", and Trump himself described Putin as "smart" and "savvy" on Feb 24th. 
  The problem  here is the de facto Republican leader is a Russian sympathiser, and the congressional GOP has frankly got a risible track record of standing up to Trump. 
  Any Republican's who have a genuine concern about the fate of Ukraine and Russian expansion is duty bound to vote against Trump. Let's see how many will do? >
  
  I personally think Trump is done and dusted; he's pissed off too many of his own base. He may try to bully his way into another nomination but he will not win. Again, he's pissed off too many republicans in too many key battleground states. I live near Trump country and I see only like 10% of the flags up I used to see, he's an embarrassment at this point. >
  
  Sadly, I've heard all this before circa 2015/16, that Trump was an embarrassment and Trump stood no chance etc The bottom line is there are many more Americans sympathetic to Trump's world view than American is comfortable about acknowledging. Americans also seem to be the most oblivious to it as well, and the poorest judges of his latent popularity 
  I want to see some proper evidence that he's 'done' before I start to believe it. Too many Redditors offered their opinion, a few years ago, and nearly every single one of them was wrong >
  
  It's not like any proof I can give you will change your mind, but, just keep an open mind with regards to republicans supporting Ukraine. The Senate support was unanimous, doesn't that count as a show of bipartisanship? Have some faith man, the nomination is still a long ways away and that is the only proof you'd likely accept. 
  I'd like to remind you most Republicans are older and remember the Cold War perfectly well. Supporting Ukraine is a no-brainer. >
  
  Yes, we must continue to make it clear to all that this war will not end until Russia withdraws. NATO and the West will not be bluffed out of helping Ukraine by Russian fearmongering and lies. >
  
  A few will complain about it, but the majority of people are strongly supportive of Ukraine. >
  
  NATO is there long term support I thought? And it's mutually beneficial, everyone wins (except Putin) >
  
  It would be if Ukraine was a Nato member, but alas it is not. >
  
  Care to explain? >
  
  Ukraine is not part of NATO. What is there to explain? >
  
  So you think that just because Ukraine is not in nato, that they won't get long term support? >
  
  They will get support for as long as it's beneficial to the US and NATO. >
  
  Exactly, and that's not going to change any time soon. >
  
  Don't be so sure about that. If the politics change in America, funding will most likely get cut. >
  
  And NATO should force a vote in Ukraine.  If you want long term support you need to join >
  
  I always have thought the rest of the world hated the United States… Unless money is involved. >
  
  Not really I love American people but I feel like their government messed up so much in the middle east and other parts of the world without any consequences, I don't think that's fair at all. However I know how corrupt the political system is in the US especially because of corporate interests and lobbying groups.
  I also know that the international system is not fair, and some countries get to do what they want with impunity and without accountability.. Sad world if you're from a poor or 3rd world country that's been wronged by the US and it's allies cuz basically you will never see justice for crimes committed against your people. I hope one day the US would actually own up to all the terrible things it did but I dream.. >
  
  Americans want a better election system and lobbying system. Politicians should not be involved in the financial market, any involvement should be at most participation in a blind trust. Politicians should not be allowed to accept large donations from companies. Why should a company have a bigger influence over politicians rather than the general public who is electing them? If these issues are addressed in an amendment, then the United States may start to improve and elect deserving politicians who are not driven by greed. Both parties in the united states operate by greed. Politicians should not be exiting office at a profit of millions of dollars. They are public servants, not the other way around. >
  
  I totally agree.. I also think if any country did bad things, they must be held accountable for their actions and I have never ever seen the US or any Western countries actually get held accountable for their fuck ups. I think this is really unfair and sad. >
  
  Everything not Russian or Chinese is bad, and people that house Ukrainian refugees are racist, and only like white people, according to your past posts.
  Your posting history is... something one would expect out of a Chinese or Russian troll.
  I wonder why that is.
  Also interesting that your account is... shall I say... rather new? >
  
  The problem is we live in democracies. And if the cost of living gets worse, people get fed up, and a party will come along promising to stop aid and put home first, and will get into power because of it, and the parties that promise to put home first are usually fascist. >
  
  I thought Russia was running out of ammo? >
  
  If they continued spending ammo at the rates they were back in June, and did not further increase production, or increase imports, then they would be running out of ammo. 
  As it is they will be forced to divert more resources to ammunition production, and will be forced to use less artillery, but they aren't actually going to simply run out of ammo >
  
  Putin is destroying his country, not the west. U.S. is all in. Just some with the American GOP nationalist right are not, which is mystifying but not at the same time. De-Putinizing his tentacles will take time and even longer every day Putin holds power.