Capitalist versus Socialists Video
Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 13 Next
Donny_Brasco @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:55 pm
Apollo Apollo:
$1:
That a good point despite the fact that Cubians can expect equal or better health care than Americans for pennies on the dollar.
When is the last time that a poor American could afford life saving surgury to save their life...medical breakthroughs are no good if the average person can't afford them.
When is the last time that a poor American could afford life saving surgury to save their life...medical breakthroughs are no good if the average person can't afford them.
Equal or better health care? They don't even have toilet paper in Cuba these days. I have vacationed to Cuba several times. They live in deplorable conditions.
The last time a poor American could afford life saving surgery is every day in the US. State sponsored hospitals are just as good as any Canadian hospital. By law, no hospital can turn away a patient that needs immediate care. Insurance or no insurance.
My point exactly. They are POOR! Yet manage to have a life expectancy comparable to that of the richest country in the world!
$1:
Once again, I looked at a few metrics for the USA, France, and Cuba (I did not cover Israel this time around.) Since the US government has been debating health care (non)reform for months, I wanted to see how the so-called wealthiest country in the world was measuring up to the much-denigrated French "socialist" system and the much-demonized "totalitarian communist" Cuban one. I only picked ten metrics, which I am presenting below.
1) General government expenditure on health as percentage of total government expenditure (2005)
USA: 19.1
France: 16.7
Cuba: 10.8
(The lower the better)
2) General government expenditure on health as percentage of total expenditure on health (2005)
USA: 45.8
France: 79.7
Cuba: 90.7
(Here, the higher the number the more health care is financed by the government or, like in France, a private organization that has a public character -- i.e., Social Security and health insurance in France are not administered by the government.)
3) Total expenditure on health as percentage of GDP (2006)
USA: 15.3
France: 11.1
Cuba: 7.1
(The lower the better, assuming that the results are equivalent)
4) Number of hospital beds per 1,000 population (2000-2008)
USA: 3.1
France: 7.3
Cuba: 4.9
(Measures the availability of rooms/beds for patients -- the higher the better)
5) Number of physicians per 1,000 population (2000-2007)
USA: 2.6
France: 3.4
Cuba: 5.9
(Fewer physicians means less attention or time dedicated to patients)
6) Number of nursing & midwifery personnel per 1,000 population (2000-2007)
USA: 9.4
France: 8.0
Cuba: 7.4
(More nurses means that the burden of health care is placed on the shoulders of nurses rather than physicians)
7) Life expectancy at birth (both sexes, 2007)
USA: 78
France: 81
Cuba: 78
(The higher the better)
Healthy life expectancy at birth (both sexes, 2007)
USA: 70
France: 73
Cuba: 69
(The higher the better)
9) Infant mortality rate -- probability of dying between birth and age 1 per 1,000 live births (both sexes, 2007)
USA: 6
France: 3
Cuba: 5
(The lower the better)
10) Under-5 mortality rate -- probability of dying by age 5 per 1,000 live births (both sexes, 2007)
USA: 8
France: 4
Cuba: 6
(The lower the better)
1) General government expenditure on health as percentage of total government expenditure (2005)
USA: 19.1
France: 16.7
Cuba: 10.8
(The lower the better)
2) General government expenditure on health as percentage of total expenditure on health (2005)
USA: 45.8
France: 79.7
Cuba: 90.7
(Here, the higher the number the more health care is financed by the government or, like in France, a private organization that has a public character -- i.e., Social Security and health insurance in France are not administered by the government.)
3) Total expenditure on health as percentage of GDP (2006)
USA: 15.3
France: 11.1
Cuba: 7.1
(The lower the better, assuming that the results are equivalent)
4) Number of hospital beds per 1,000 population (2000-2008)
USA: 3.1
France: 7.3
Cuba: 4.9
(Measures the availability of rooms/beds for patients -- the higher the better)
5) Number of physicians per 1,000 population (2000-2007)
USA: 2.6
France: 3.4
Cuba: 5.9
(Fewer physicians means less attention or time dedicated to patients)
6) Number of nursing & midwifery personnel per 1,000 population (2000-2007)
USA: 9.4
France: 8.0
Cuba: 7.4
(More nurses means that the burden of health care is placed on the shoulders of nurses rather than physicians)
7) Life expectancy at birth (both sexes, 2007)
USA: 78
France: 81
Cuba: 78
(The higher the better)
Healthy life expectancy at birth (both sexes, 2007)USA: 70
France: 73
Cuba: 69
(The higher the better)
9) Infant mortality rate -- probability of dying between birth and age 1 per 1,000 live births (both sexes, 2007)
USA: 6
France: 3
Cuba: 5
(The lower the better)
10) Under-5 mortality rate -- probability of dying by age 5 per 1,000 live births (both sexes, 2007)
USA: 8
France: 4
Cuba: 6
(The lower the better)
http://www.swans.com/library/art15/ga272.html
Pennies on the dollar...thanks for making my point.
faile @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:09 pm
Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:
My point exactly. They are POOR! Yet manage to have a life expectancy comparable to that of the richest country in the world!
Pennies on the dollar...thanks for making my point.
Pennies on the dollar...thanks for making my point.
Live free or die.
I'd rather have a good life with crap healthcare than a crap life with good healthcare. You can force all the communism you want upon yourself in my free society. Just don't try it on me.
Donny_Brasco @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:35 pm
faile faile:
Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:
My point exactly. They are POOR! Yet manage to have a life expectancy comparable to that of the richest country in the world!
Pennies on the dollar...thanks for making my point.
Pennies on the dollar...thanks for making my point.
Live free or die.
I'd rather have a good life with crap healthcare than a crap life with good healthcare.
I guess a good life with good helthcare is not an option that you ever thought of?
Thats ok, even good healthcare can't fix "idiot"
.
Zipperfish @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:47 pm
faile faile:
Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:
My point exactly. They are POOR! Yet manage to have a life expectancy comparable to that of the richest country in the world!
Pennies on the dollar...thanks for making my point.
Pennies on the dollar...thanks for making my point.
Live free or die.
I'd rather have a good life with crap healthcare than a crap life with good healthcare. You can force all the communism you want upon yourself in my free society. Just don't try it on me.
I'd rather have a good life and good healthcare. I've never considered the two mutually exclusive.
PluggyRug @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:27 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
I'd rather have a good life and good healthcare. I've never considered the two mutually exclusive.
Don't you mean elusive.
N_Fiddledog @ Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:03 pm
Great little blog post here, I think...
$1:
Why Big Government Doesn’t Work
by Doctor Zero
Author’s note: I’m sorry if this runs long. I think it’s important enough to spend some time on, and I wanted to present a thorough argument. I hope you’ll indulge me.
A person living entirely on their own produces very little, beyond the bare minimum necessities of survival. He has no real “wealth” - no surplus production, to spend on discretionary endeavors. He has few real options in life, beyond daily survival. His moments of real choice come when he gets lucky. An exceptionally fortunate hunt might feed him for a few days, and give him some precious leisure time. Otherwise, he does what he must do, and rarely has time to think about what he could do. Some people enjoy living this way, but most do not.
The situation improves somewhat in a small, voluntary collective: a partnership with a trusted friend, or a small family living on its own. Their combined efforts produce more surplus food, and they can address the necessities of life with less individual effort. They may develop skills and talents that prove valuable to each other. Some people are content to live this way, with a small and isolated family that maintains very little contact with the rest of humanity - but, again, most are not.
When families begin cooperating with each other, production and wealth explode. Communities generate tremendous amounts of surplus production, and commerce allows people access to goods and services they could never produce themselves. The amount of time required to deal with personal survival dwindles away to virtually nothing. Doubtless the reader works hard at his or her job, but your job probably has very little to do with feeding or clothing yourself, or defending yourself from predators. Instead, you produce goods and services that would be unimaginable to a more primitive society - could you explain your job to someone from the tenth century A.D.? In exchange, you earn money, which you spend to purchase what you need - and, more importantly, what you want. Even the poorest member of an advanced society has options.
An advanced society requires a method for allocating its huge amount of surplus production, and meeting the basic needs of its members. There are two general mechanisms for doing this: commerce and government. Every society uses a mixture of these methods. Even the most totalitarian government has a black market, and even the most free-wheeling capitalist society will have a government. Attempts to artificially engineer a society without either commerce or government are doomed to failure, because they will form spontaneously, no matter how strictly they are forbidden.
Government and commerce don’t just co-exist in an uneasy truce. They need each other. Commerce, the free exchange of money for goods and services, produces wealth through choice. Remember the example of the man living alone: the poverty of his existence comes from his lack of choices. The value of money flows from the way it allows consumers to express their choices. For a simple illustration of this principle, compare a ten-dollar restaurant gift certificate to a ten-dollar bill. The ten dollar bill is more valuable than the gift certificate, because you have more choice in how to spend it. A government increases the wealth of its citizens by providing security - stable currency, secure borders, protection from criminals, respect for property rights, and legally enforceable contracts, to name a few of government’s duties. This has the effect of increasing the citizens’ wealth, by increasing the choices available to them. A ten-dollar bill has more value in a large, lawful city than on a tiny island where few goods are available, or a den of thieves where nothing can be bought with confidence.
Consider the example of the impoverished loner versus the citizen of a prosperous society again. The citizens’ money represents wealth, thanks to his many choices, but it represents something else of enormous value: extra time. The loner spends most of his waking hours staying alive, and seeing to his minimal needs. The wealthy citizen spends almost no time on these things - he uses it for economically productive work, self-improvement, and leisure. A ten-dollar bill will purchase you a shirt that you probably don’t know how to make yourself… and even if you had the knowledge, it would most likely take you longer to make the shirt than it takes you to earn ten dollars.
Government allocates wealth through top-down commands, imposed by force. There would be no need for massive tax and spending bills if everyone was freely choosing to spend their money the way the government wants them to. Capitalism has priorities, while government has imperatives. Capitalists fulfill their ambitions through competition, which increases the choices available to consumers. The ambitions of the working class lead them to work harder, and engage in increasingly valuable and productive labor, to earn a better living for themselves and their families. This system is not perfect - there will always be people who try hard but don’t get ahead, and people who don’t make a very productive contribution to society - but over the long run, and measured against a population of millions, free market commerce will tend to produce increased choices, improved technology, and greater value through competition.
Government fulfills its ambitions through compulsion, which reduces choice. Sometimes compulsion is necessary - you can’t fund national defense by passing around a collection plate. When government exceeds the minimal functions necessary to provide stability and security, and begins interfering in the economy for the benefit of certain constituencies, by definition it reduces the overall choices available to its citizens. It doesn’t matter if the government’s intentions are noble - every law it passes to redistribute wealth inevitably reduces wealth, because it reduces choice.
In an economy dominated by the government, the ruling class fulfills its ambitions by serving faithful constituencies at the expense of others. It tries to address its failures by increasing control, which reduces wealth even further, in a downward spiral. It’s not in the nature of government to abandon failed programs, because if government was intelligent and morally superior enough to assert control over a situation in the first place, it will not see the logic in surrendering that control to inferior free-willed citizens. Instead, it will redouble its efforts.
In this environment, the citizens can best fulfill their ambitions by joining favored constituencies if possible, and becoming adept at petitioning the government for greater benefits. This tends to be more successful than working hard, as there is little competition in a state-run economy for the most skilled and productive workers. There are always exceptions - people who give 100% effort out of compassion, personal drive, or a religious calling. There will be politicians who are truly selfless, and sincerely wish to act as wise stewards for the resources of society. Exceptional people cannot be relied upon to power a society of millions. In the long run, and projected over a vast population, the incentives of a government-dominated economy produce stagnation, and strife between warring groups of citizens, who can only gain more benefits at each others’ expense.
That is why Big Government never works. It can’t address conflicting priorities efficiently. The ambitions of its masters are best served by catering to the demands of small, energetic groups, or big corporations who wish to compromise its rightful duty to ensure free trade. Its citizens are not rewarded for exceptional effort, or taking great risks. Worst of all, every single action it takes destroys the very wealth needed to improve the lives of its citizens. Big Government pounds on every problem with a hammer that crumbles in its hands.
by Doctor Zero
Author’s note: I’m sorry if this runs long. I think it’s important enough to spend some time on, and I wanted to present a thorough argument. I hope you’ll indulge me.
A person living entirely on their own produces very little, beyond the bare minimum necessities of survival. He has no real “wealth” - no surplus production, to spend on discretionary endeavors. He has few real options in life, beyond daily survival. His moments of real choice come when he gets lucky. An exceptionally fortunate hunt might feed him for a few days, and give him some precious leisure time. Otherwise, he does what he must do, and rarely has time to think about what he could do. Some people enjoy living this way, but most do not.
The situation improves somewhat in a small, voluntary collective: a partnership with a trusted friend, or a small family living on its own. Their combined efforts produce more surplus food, and they can address the necessities of life with less individual effort. They may develop skills and talents that prove valuable to each other. Some people are content to live this way, with a small and isolated family that maintains very little contact with the rest of humanity - but, again, most are not.
When families begin cooperating with each other, production and wealth explode. Communities generate tremendous amounts of surplus production, and commerce allows people access to goods and services they could never produce themselves. The amount of time required to deal with personal survival dwindles away to virtually nothing. Doubtless the reader works hard at his or her job, but your job probably has very little to do with feeding or clothing yourself, or defending yourself from predators. Instead, you produce goods and services that would be unimaginable to a more primitive society - could you explain your job to someone from the tenth century A.D.? In exchange, you earn money, which you spend to purchase what you need - and, more importantly, what you want. Even the poorest member of an advanced society has options.
An advanced society requires a method for allocating its huge amount of surplus production, and meeting the basic needs of its members. There are two general mechanisms for doing this: commerce and government. Every society uses a mixture of these methods. Even the most totalitarian government has a black market, and even the most free-wheeling capitalist society will have a government. Attempts to artificially engineer a society without either commerce or government are doomed to failure, because they will form spontaneously, no matter how strictly they are forbidden.
Government and commerce don’t just co-exist in an uneasy truce. They need each other. Commerce, the free exchange of money for goods and services, produces wealth through choice. Remember the example of the man living alone: the poverty of his existence comes from his lack of choices. The value of money flows from the way it allows consumers to express their choices. For a simple illustration of this principle, compare a ten-dollar restaurant gift certificate to a ten-dollar bill. The ten dollar bill is more valuable than the gift certificate, because you have more choice in how to spend it. A government increases the wealth of its citizens by providing security - stable currency, secure borders, protection from criminals, respect for property rights, and legally enforceable contracts, to name a few of government’s duties. This has the effect of increasing the citizens’ wealth, by increasing the choices available to them. A ten-dollar bill has more value in a large, lawful city than on a tiny island where few goods are available, or a den of thieves where nothing can be bought with confidence.
Consider the example of the impoverished loner versus the citizen of a prosperous society again. The citizens’ money represents wealth, thanks to his many choices, but it represents something else of enormous value: extra time. The loner spends most of his waking hours staying alive, and seeing to his minimal needs. The wealthy citizen spends almost no time on these things - he uses it for economically productive work, self-improvement, and leisure. A ten-dollar bill will purchase you a shirt that you probably don’t know how to make yourself… and even if you had the knowledge, it would most likely take you longer to make the shirt than it takes you to earn ten dollars.
Government allocates wealth through top-down commands, imposed by force. There would be no need for massive tax and spending bills if everyone was freely choosing to spend their money the way the government wants them to. Capitalism has priorities, while government has imperatives. Capitalists fulfill their ambitions through competition, which increases the choices available to consumers. The ambitions of the working class lead them to work harder, and engage in increasingly valuable and productive labor, to earn a better living for themselves and their families. This system is not perfect - there will always be people who try hard but don’t get ahead, and people who don’t make a very productive contribution to society - but over the long run, and measured against a population of millions, free market commerce will tend to produce increased choices, improved technology, and greater value through competition.
Government fulfills its ambitions through compulsion, which reduces choice. Sometimes compulsion is necessary - you can’t fund national defense by passing around a collection plate. When government exceeds the minimal functions necessary to provide stability and security, and begins interfering in the economy for the benefit of certain constituencies, by definition it reduces the overall choices available to its citizens. It doesn’t matter if the government’s intentions are noble - every law it passes to redistribute wealth inevitably reduces wealth, because it reduces choice.
In an economy dominated by the government, the ruling class fulfills its ambitions by serving faithful constituencies at the expense of others. It tries to address its failures by increasing control, which reduces wealth even further, in a downward spiral. It’s not in the nature of government to abandon failed programs, because if government was intelligent and morally superior enough to assert control over a situation in the first place, it will not see the logic in surrendering that control to inferior free-willed citizens. Instead, it will redouble its efforts.
In this environment, the citizens can best fulfill their ambitions by joining favored constituencies if possible, and becoming adept at petitioning the government for greater benefits. This tends to be more successful than working hard, as there is little competition in a state-run economy for the most skilled and productive workers. There are always exceptions - people who give 100% effort out of compassion, personal drive, or a religious calling. There will be politicians who are truly selfless, and sincerely wish to act as wise stewards for the resources of society. Exceptional people cannot be relied upon to power a society of millions. In the long run, and projected over a vast population, the incentives of a government-dominated economy produce stagnation, and strife between warring groups of citizens, who can only gain more benefits at each others’ expense.
That is why Big Government never works. It can’t address conflicting priorities efficiently. The ambitions of its masters are best served by catering to the demands of small, energetic groups, or big corporations who wish to compromise its rightful duty to ensure free trade. Its citizens are not rewarded for exceptional effort, or taking great risks. Worst of all, every single action it takes destroys the very wealth needed to improve the lives of its citizens. Big Government pounds on every problem with a hammer that crumbles in its hands.
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/20 ... esnt-work/
N_Fiddledog @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 12:56 pm
Concerning the points made on socialized health care earlier...
Have you seen that video Will Ferrel and a bunch of his celebrity buddies made where they get sarcastic, blaming all problems on the capitalists treating health care like a business?
There's a nice little collection of videos which have been made to spoof that spoof, or just critique it. Here's my personal favorite...
Zipperfish @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:24 pm
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Great little blog post here, I think...
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/20 ... esnt-work/
$1:
Why Big Government Doesn’t Work
by Doctor Zero
Author’s note: I’m sorry if this runs long. I think it’s important enough to spend some time on, and I wanted to present a thorough argument. I hope you’ll indulge me.
A person living entirely on their own produces very little, beyond the bare minimum necessities of survival. He has no real “wealth” - no surplus production, to spend on discretionary endeavors. He has few real options in life, beyond daily survival. His moments of real choice come when he gets lucky. An exceptionally fortunate hunt might feed him for a few days, and give him some precious leisure time. Otherwise, he does what he must do, and rarely has time to think about what he could do. Some people enjoy living this way, but most do not.
The situation improves somewhat in a small, voluntary collective: a partnership with a trusted friend, or a small family living on its own. Their combined efforts produce more surplus food, and they can address the necessities of life with less individual effort. They may develop skills and talents that prove valuable to each other. Some people are content to live this way, with a small and isolated family that maintains very little contact with the rest of humanity - but, again, most are not.
....
That is why Big Government never works. It can’t address conflicting priorities efficiently. The ambitions of its masters are best served by catering to the demands of small, energetic groups, or big corporations who wish to compromise its rightful duty to ensure free trade. Its citizens are not rewarded for exceptional effort, or taking great risks. Worst of all, every single action it takes destroys the very wealth needed to improve the lives of its citizens. Big Government pounds on every problem with a hammer that crumbles in its hands.
by Doctor Zero
Author’s note: I’m sorry if this runs long. I think it’s important enough to spend some time on, and I wanted to present a thorough argument. I hope you’ll indulge me.
A person living entirely on their own produces very little, beyond the bare minimum necessities of survival. He has no real “wealth” - no surplus production, to spend on discretionary endeavors. He has few real options in life, beyond daily survival. His moments of real choice come when he gets lucky. An exceptionally fortunate hunt might feed him for a few days, and give him some precious leisure time. Otherwise, he does what he must do, and rarely has time to think about what he could do. Some people enjoy living this way, but most do not.
The situation improves somewhat in a small, voluntary collective: a partnership with a trusted friend, or a small family living on its own. Their combined efforts produce more surplus food, and they can address the necessities of life with less individual effort. They may develop skills and talents that prove valuable to each other. Some people are content to live this way, with a small and isolated family that maintains very little contact with the rest of humanity - but, again, most are not.
....
That is why Big Government never works. It can’t address conflicting priorities efficiently. The ambitions of its masters are best served by catering to the demands of small, energetic groups, or big corporations who wish to compromise its rightful duty to ensure free trade. Its citizens are not rewarded for exceptional effort, or taking great risks. Worst of all, every single action it takes destroys the very wealth needed to improve the lives of its citizens. Big Government pounds on every problem with a hammer that crumbles in its hands.
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/20 ... esnt-work/
Good article thanks. Glosses over a few things, but overall, refreshingly practical.
Apollo @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:14 pm
$1:
Pennies on the dollar...thanks for making my point.
Hello, of course its pennies on the dollar. Doctors are paid $20 per month in salary. The same as cab drivers. As far as your stats, it only makes sense that Cuba would have more doctors per capita. Everyone has to work somewhere and the Cuban high tech industry is already at capacity.
http://freethoughts.wordpress.com/2007/ ... -show-you/
I find it interesting that it's usually Cubans that are the most vocal against their own countries healthcare yet the socialists in Canada and the US love it.
Donny_Brasco @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:21 pm
Apollo Apollo:
$1:
Pennies on the dollar...thanks for making my point.
Hello, of course its pennies on the dollar. Doctors are paid $20 per month in salary. The same as cab drivers. As far as your stats, it only makes sense that Cuba would have more doctors per capita. Everyone has to work somewhere and the Cuban high tech industry is already at capacity.
http://freethoughts.wordpress.com/2007/ ... -show-you/
I find it interesting that it's usually Cubans that are the most vocal against their own countries healthcare yet the socialists in Canada and the US love it.
Wow, nice blog. Way to move the stupidity bar on this site to a new low.
How about posting some links to actual facts? Would that be beyond your ability?
HARVARD PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEW:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/review/review_summer_02/677cuba.html
$1:
Socio-economic development is typically measured by health indicators such as infant mortality and life expectancy at birth. However, in Cuba, a nation beset by severely limited resources and political tensions both internal and external, these health markers are essentially the same as those in the United States and other parts of the industrialized world. Cuba also boasts the highest rate of public health service in Latin America and has one of the highest physician-to-population ratios in the world. Alone remarkable for a developing country, these feats are even more extraordinary considering the context of a US embargo that's been in effect since 1961. Because its access to traditional sources of financing is seriously hindered by the sanctions, which until rec- ently included all food and medicine, Cuba has received little foreign and humanitarian aid to maintain the vitality of its national programs. And herein lies the paradox of Cuba's health care system: because Cuba has so few resources, prevention has become the only affordable means of keeping its population healthy.
"I find Cuba's system to be very inspiring because it is so public health focused," says Tracy Rabin, who has made the Cuba trip twice. She traveled the first time as a student in the Department of Immunology and Infectious Diseases; this year she participated as a research associate and program manager for the Program on Ethical Issues in International Health Research in the Department of Population and International Health. Her impressions are not an illusion: despite the economic difficulties of recent years, spending on public health in Cuba has increased steadily, which reflects the political will to maintain successes achieved in this area. An August 1960 law established the Ministry of Public Health as the highest authority responsible for health care. The same year, the Rural Social Medical Service was created, allowing Cuba to place doctors and nurses in the country's remotest areas to bring medical attention to inhabitants there.
"I find Cuba's system to be very inspiring because it is so public health focused," says Tracy Rabin, who has made the Cuba trip twice. She traveled the first time as a student in the Department of Immunology and Infectious Diseases; this year she participated as a research associate and program manager for the Program on Ethical Issues in International Health Research in the Department of Population and International Health. Her impressions are not an illusion: despite the economic difficulties of recent years, spending on public health in Cuba has increased steadily, which reflects the political will to maintain successes achieved in this area. An August 1960 law established the Ministry of Public Health as the highest authority responsible for health care. The same year, the Rural Social Medical Service was created, allowing Cuba to place doctors and nurses in the country's remotest areas to bring medical attention to inhabitants there.
Free advice: if you want people to take you seriously don't post crap from bullshit blogs. Find a source from someone that actually can provide facts and back them up with details (sources are always nice).
FACT: Cuba is poor yet the public health indicators are similar to those of Americans.
Like air, water, police, fire, ambulance ... healthcare is a basic necessity for people to live. Healthy people are more productive. People who have access to the basic necessities in life can do more because they do not have to worry about where they are going to get these necessities from.
My opinion is that if Americans could shed the burden of the private health care black hole they could be more productive and become an even more powerful and richer nation. They would save thousands of dollars and hours every year - as noted in the article posted earlier - hunting for their basic needs in life.
Cubans may be unhappy with their political system. Not too many can complain about the state of their healthcare system as it outperforms almost every system on earth dollar for dollar.
N_Fiddledog @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:33 pm
Just to piss you off further Donny... j/k
Here's Fox news...
Donny_Brasco @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:39 pm
"Fox News" is an oxymoron.
I don't want to waste 2:57 of my life on that BS...so I'm not watching.
Zipperfish @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:48 pm
Boy, you'd think the mindless cheerleading for the glories of capitalism would have the grce to at least take a little time off following the crash of the global economic system by the very founders of capitalism--the banks.
I mean, I like capitalism as much a the next guy and all that, but that did point to some pretty fundamental flaws with getting a little too laissez-faire.
Apollo @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:45 pm
$1:
How about posting some links to actual facts? Would that be beyond your ability?
Which facts do you need to hear? Only the ones that back up your beliefs I guess.
FACT: Doctors in Cuba earn $20 per month, the same as every other worker in the country.
FACT: If you are paying medical professionals pennies on the dollar, then it would only make sense that the system itself would cost pennies on the dollar. No?
Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
$1:
"Fox News" is an oxymoron.
I don't want to waste 2:57 of my life on that BS...so I'm not watching.
I don't want to waste 2:57 of my life on that BS...so I'm not watching.
Once again you prove to all of us that you have no desire to hear anyone elses point of view unless they kowtow your beliefs.
How about the National Post?
Says Canada's National Post, which assessed Cuba and its health system in a three-part series:
Even the most commonly available pharmaceutical items in the U.S., such as Aspirin and rubbing alcohol, are conspicuously absent [in Cuba]... Antibiotics... are in extremely short supply and available only on the black market. Aspirin can be purchased only at government-run dollar stores, which carry common medications at a huge markup in U.S. dollars... This puts them out of reach of most Cubans, who are paid little and in pesos.11
The same National Post story continues, quoting Jasmin, a nurse from Moron, Cuba, "We have nothing. I haven't seen aspirin in a Cuban store here for more than a year. If you have any pills in your purse, I'll take them. Even if they have passed their expiry date."12
Cuban defector Dr. Leonel Cordova told the New York Times about his experience practicing in Cuba, "[E]ven if I diagnosed something simple like bronchitis... I couldn't write a prescription for antibiotics because there were none."13
I find it ironic that you would like to read the "Facts" of Cuba's health care system yet know very well that they are a closed communist society. 99% of all the news/facts coming out of Cuba are released by the government with their stamp of approval. They would never lie to us would they?
Apollo @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:47 pm
$1:
Boy, you'd think the mindless cheerleading for the glories of capitalism would have the grce to at least take a little time off following the crash of the global economic system by the very founders of capitalism--the banks.
The founders of capitalism were the people.
Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 13 Next