Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dblack]

100% of Cubans still have free medical care and education, don't they, Bigot?

wow they have free shit, yay for them. I'd rather have opportunity to make some money and get better healthcare

so you want to be dirt poor like a Cuban, go right ahead bro!

and again what economic system is better than the US, I'm waiting

No, he wants ALL Americans to be dirt poor like Cubans.

.

But we won't need money. Everything will be free!!!

 

[bripat9643]

wow they have free shit, yay for them. I'd rather have opportunity to make some money and get better healthcare

so you want to be dirt poor like a Cuban, go right ahead bro!

and again what economic system is better than the US, I'm waiting

No, he wants ALL Americans to be dirt poor like Cubans.

.

But we won't need money. Everything will be free!!!

It's sad that some libturds believe that being 10 times poorer than the poorest American is worth it of you have free healthcare, no matter how shitty and worthless it is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Could be...

"This health centre is located in Havana in Cuba and belongs to the Public Health national System of Cuba.

"Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.

"Medical treatments are provided and surgical procedures are performed in all medical disciplines at the centre.

"Facilities at the centre includes modern surgery rooms, pre anaesthetic and post anaesthetic recovery rooms and 39 private rooms with two suites that have the best possible amenities for the comfort of patients.

"Services at the centre include health examinations, internal medicine, dental care and rehabilitation programmes."

Clinica Central Cira Garcia - Dentist in Havana - WhatClinic.com

"Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.

Anyone who pays hard currency is welcome.
That leaves out about 99.9% of Cubans.
So much for your free, workers paradise, eh comrade?

100% of Cubans still have free medical care and education, don't they, Bigot?

During that cold snap in mid-January, Cuban dissidents snuck out, via internet, a report claiming that over forty patients had somehow frozen to death in Cuba’s Mazorra mental hospital — not far from the one featured in Michael Moore’s paean to Cuban health care, Sicko. Cuba’s Stalinist regime, along with the media courtesans to whom it grants press bureaus and “journalist visas,” were utterly mum on the matter, however. It took three days — as the word spread through the mostly Spanish-language web –but finally the Stalinist regime issued a terse and exculpatory press-release on the matter.



But the story did not go away. Just last week, pictures of some of the dead were snuck out of Cuba. They proved that hypothermia alone was not the cause of death, any more than it was the cause of the death for the prisoners at Dachau or Buchenwald. Horrific malnutrition and savage beatings were plain to see for anyone genuinely interested in the causes.

Cuba?s Healthcare Horror | FrontPage Magazine

 

[gnarlylove]

But the story did not go away. Just last week, pictures of some of the dead were snuck out of Cuba. They proved that hypothermia alone was not the cause of death, any more than it was the cause of the death for the prisoners at Dachau or Buchenwald. Horrific malnutrition and savage beatings were plain to see for anyone genuinely interested in the causes.

Cuba?s Healthcare Horror | FrontPage Magazine

You don't care about Cubans' suffering, do you? Why would you post this? To make an intellectual point? Who is keeping tabs, you? This article is kinda old and the picture is likely an isolated thing, to sensationalize it, ya know?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But the story did not go away. Just last week, pictures of some of the dead were snuck out of Cuba. They proved that hypothermia alone was not the cause of death, any more than it was the cause of the death for the prisoners at Dachau or Buchenwald. Horrific malnutrition and savage beatings were plain to see for anyone genuinely interested in the causes.

Cuba?s Healthcare Horror | FrontPage Magazine

You don't care about Cubans' suffering, do you? Why would you post this? To make an intellectual point? Who is keeping tabs, you? This article is kinda old and the picture is likely an isolated thing, to sensationalize it, ya know?

I do care about the suffering Cubans. I look forward to the day the Castro regime is placed on the ash heap of history.

 

[gnarlylove]

That is something we can both agree on. Cheers!

 

[georgephillip]

There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run.

Absolutely.

In Cuba itself, meanwhile, private medicine is readily available to paying foreigners and well-connected locals. The two best hospitals in Havana, Cira García and CIMEX, are run for profit. Both are far better than normal state hospitals, where patients are often obliged to bring their own sheets and food.

Cuban health care: Nip and tuck in | The Economist

LOL!

The Economist

"The poorer countries of the world continue to struggle with an enormous health burden from diseases that we have long had the capacity to eliminate.

"Similarly, the health systems of some countries, rich and poor alike, are fragmented and inefficient, leaving many population groups underserved and often without health care access entirely.

"Cuba represents an important alternative example where modest infrastructure investments combined with a well-developed public health strategy have generated health status measures comparable with those of industrialized countries.

"Areas of success include control of infectious diseases, reduction in infant mortality, establishment of a research and biotechnology industry, and progress in control of chronic diseases, among others.

"If the Cuban experience were generalized to other poor and middle-income countries human health would be transformed.

"Given current political alignments, however, the major public health advances in Cuba, and the underlying strategy that has guided its health gains, have been systematically ignored."

Health in Cuba

So you want to turn the rest of the world into a totalitarian police state?

Cuba functions as a police state because of two generations of US attempts to invade, vilify, sanction, and ignore the positive contributions the Cuban health system has contributed to global public health:

"The unwillingness to take account of the Cuban experience, or to even view it as an alternative route through which some societies can move toward the universal goal of health promotion, represents an important oversight.

"The achievements in Cuba thereby pose a challenge to the authority of the biomedical community in countries that define the scientific agenda.

"This assertion by no means rests exclusively on Cuba's success in climbing the vital statistics charts.

"In virtually every critical area of public health and medicine facing poor countries Cuba has achieved undeniable success; these include most prominently—creating a high quality primary care network and an unequaled public health system, educating a skilled work force, sustaining a local biomedical research infrastructure, controlling infectious diseases, achieving a decline in non-communicable diseases, and meeting the emergency health needs of less developed countries.

"In the following discussion, we attempt to substantiate these claims with evidence and speculate on some of the implications of having allowed the debate over the Cuban experience to be silenced."

Health in Cuba

You should be more concerned about the totalitarian police state the Republicans AND Democrats are building in the US, IMHO.

 

[georgephillip]

Paying for healthcare is easy, when only the Party members get it.

"The Cuban government operates a national health system and assumes fiscal and administrative responsibility for the health care of all its citizens.[1] There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run. The present Minister for Public Health is Roberto Morales Ojeda."

Health care in Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A ******* paradise.

So explain the reason Cubans are willing to leave the socialist paradise on anything that floats?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

A lack of political freedom that has exactly nothing to do with the quality of medical care they receive.

 

[georgephillip]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

Do you have any proof of that statement?

"In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

Are you high? Compare the poor in the us and other capitalistic countries (europe).

And i guess the ussr was better? What system do you prefer?

I prefer a political system based on one person; one vote, instead of one $; one vote, and a health system that doesn't reward the denial of necessary medical procedures.

Capitalism holds the exact opposite view.

 

[dblack]

Do you have any proof of that statement?

"In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

Are you high? Compare the poor in the us and other capitalistic countries (europe).

And i guess the ussr was better? What system do you prefer?

I prefer a political system based on one person; one vote, instead of one $; one vote, and a health system that doesn't reward the denial of necessary medical procedures.

Capitalism holds the exact opposite view.

The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?

 

[Bombur]

Are you high? Compare the poor in the us and other capitalistic countries (europe).

And i guess the ussr was better? What system do you prefer?

I prefer a political system based on one person; one vote, instead of one $; one vote, and a health system that doesn't reward the denial of necessary medical procedures.

Capitalism holds the exact opposite view.

The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?

Is UHC more efficient? Does it meet our standards as a society more effectively than our current system?

Whether you like it or not the fact is the nation does support things like Medicaid and Medicare. The entire industrialized world has some form of UHC because it works and meets the needs of the people.

This is not an ideological issue. The ideology of healthcare has already been established with Medicaid and Medicare. It is almost entirely an efficiency issue at this point and our system is horribly inefficient in large part because we like to pretend it is based on market economics. Meanwhile UHC systems like that in Germany have better market based decision making in use.

 

[dblack]

I prefer a political system based on one person; one vote, instead of one $; one vote, and a health system that doesn't reward the denial of necessary medical procedures.

Capitalism holds the exact opposite view.

The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?

Is UHC more efficient? Does it meet our standards as a society more effectively than our current system?

Whether you like it or not the fact is the nation does support things like Medicaid and Medicare. The entire industrialized world has some form of UHC because it works and meets the needs of the people.

This is not an ideological issue. The ideology of healthcare has already been established with Medicaid and Medicare. It is almost entirely an efficiency issue at this point and our system is horribly inefficient in large part because we like to pretend it is based on market economics. Meanwhile UHC systems like that in Germany have better market based decision making in use.

Ok.. I hear you. Your answer is 'yes'. But I disagree. The political system, in as much as it is defined by government, is a system of coercion and, ultimately, violent force. We should employ it only as a last resort.

 

[RKMBrown]

Are you high? Compare the poor in the us and other capitalistic countries (europe).

And i guess the ussr was better? What system do you prefer?

I prefer a political system based on one person; one vote, instead of one $; one vote, and a health system that doesn't reward the denial of necessary medical procedures.

Capitalism holds the exact opposite view.

The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?

That's your question.

My question is not whether it belongs, but in what manner it belongs. Government's job is to break up monopolies, protect property, provide for the general welfare. General welfare is not individual welfare. ...

So IMO they should be breaking up drug monopolies, breaking up monopolies on our health care like medicare, and OCA. Government job should be to ensure there is a process to certify doctors, drugs etc. as that applies to the general welfare, then allow us to choose if we want certified doctors and drugs or not.

 

[RKMBrown]

Are you high? Compare the poor in the us and other capitalistic countries (europe).

And i guess the ussr was better? What system do you prefer?

I prefer a political system based on one person; one vote, instead of one $; one vote, and a health system that doesn't reward the denial of necessary medical procedures.

Capitalism holds the exact opposite view.

The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?

That's your question.

My question is not whether it belongs, but in what manner it belongs. Government's job is to break up monopolies, protect property, provide for the general welfare. General welfare is not individual welfare. ...

So IMO they should be breaking up drug monopolies, breaking up monopolies on our health care like medicare, and OCA. Government's job should be to ensure there is a process to certify doctors, drugs etc. as that applies to the general welfare, then allow us to choose if we want certified doctors and drugs or not.

 

[dblack]

I prefer a political system based on one person; one vote, instead of one $; one vote, and a health system that doesn't reward the denial of necessary medical procedures.

Capitalism holds the exact opposite view.

The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?

That's your question.

My question is not whether it belongs, but in what manner it belongs. Government's job is to break up monopolies, protect property, provide for the general welfare. General welfare is not individual welfare. ...

That's all just basic law and order stuff.

 

[Bombur]

The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?

Is UHC more efficient? Does it meet our standards as a society more effectively than our current system?

Whether you like it or not the fact is the nation does support things like Medicaid and Medicare. The entire industrialized world has some form of UHC because it works and meets the needs of the people.

This is not an ideological issue. The ideology of healthcare has already been established with Medicaid and Medicare. It is almost entirely an efficiency issue at this point and our system is horribly inefficient in large part because we like to pretend it is based on market economics. Meanwhile UHC systems like that in Germany have better market based decision making in use.

Ok.. I hear you. Your answer is 'yes'. But I disagree. The political system, in as much as it is defined by government, is a system of coercion and, ultimately, violent force. We should employ it only as a last resort.

Which is an ideological stance against government as opposed to one based on outcomes. If it is a matter of conflicts in ideology it just becomes about who has the most votes. This results in an inefficient government like the one we have today.

Alternatively I think it should be about outcomes. Our government shouldn't be about shouting matches based on belief but a recognition of the values of all our people and then an attempt to work together to help represent those beliefs and achieve the outcomes that are desired.

 

[dblack]

Is UHC more efficient? Does it meet our standards as a society more effectively than our current system?

Whether you like it or not the fact is the nation does support things like Medicaid and Medicare. The entire industrialized world has some form of UHC because it works and meets the needs of the people.

This is not an ideological issue. The ideology of healthcare has already been established with Medicaid and Medicare. It is almost entirely an efficiency issue at this point and our system is horribly inefficient in large part because we like to pretend it is based on market economics. Meanwhile UHC systems like that in Germany have better market based decision making in use.

Ok.. I hear you. Your answer is 'yes'. But I disagree. The political system, in as much as it is defined by government, is a system of coercion and, ultimately, violent force. We should employ it only as a last resort.

Which is an ideological stance against government as opposed to one based on outcomes.

It's not 'against' government at all. It's just a clear recognition of it's nature and how it should, and should not, be used.

Alternatively I think it should be about outcomes.

In my experience, "the ends justify the means" is always worth questioning.

 

[Bombur]

Ok.. I hear you. Your answer is 'yes'. But I disagree. The political system, in as much as it is defined by government, is a system of coercion and, ultimately, violent force. We should employ it only as a last resort.

Which is an ideological stance against government as opposed to one based on outcomes.

It's not 'against' government at all. It's just a clear recognition of it's nature and how it should, and should not, be used.

Alternatively I think it should be about outcomes.

In my experience, "the ends justify the means" is always worth questioning.

It is a moral belief about how it should be used.

The "means" in question are taxation. I have no problem talking about the nature of taxation but an emphasis on the outcome doesn't mean the "means" are ignored. The means are inherent in the outcome approach.

 

[dblack]

Which is an ideological stance against government as opposed to one based on outcomes.

It's not 'against' government at all. It's just a clear recognition of it's nature and how it should, and should not, be used.

Alternatively I think it should be about outcomes.

In my experience, "the ends justify the means" is always worth questioning.

It is a moral belief about how it should be used.

The "means" in question are taxation. I have no problem talking about the nature of taxation but an emphasis on the outcome doesn't mean the "means" are ignored. The means are inherent in the outcome approach.

The means in question are a convoluted cluster **** of corporatist mandates.

 

[RKMBrown]

The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?

That's your question.

My question is not whether it belongs, but in what manner it belongs. Government's job is to break up monopolies, protect property, provide for the general welfare. General welfare is not individual welfare. ...

That's all just basic law and order stuff.

Correct. I don't want a government that thinks its job is to manage my life.