mykeuva

Best of luck Smithy!

One HQ please. Email incoming.

One please. Email incoming.

Now that's funny!

I agree with you I'd like to see cuts in military adventurism, and therefore cuts to military budgets. Where we differ is I would not sink the funds into other wasteful government projects. I'd not take it away from citizens...leaving more in people's hands to spend, invest, invent, and produce. That would allow societies to continue to improve life for all, as well as allowing societies to continue to grow.

I was hoping to wind this down, but really quickly.... For the first part, again, I was speaking in context of 1 person needing medical care. If there is medicine in Cuba, but it is given somewhere else, then to that poor person with no connections, no foreign currency, there is no medicine. Sorry, come back later, maybe then there'll be some for you. The "to a person" part of the quote you brought up isn't just filler. As to the second part, did you say that Cuba rations due to the embargo? I think that's what you meant by this, but just making sure: "they ration due to economic reasons, due to a lack of resources, due to an outwardly applied embargo".

I was speaking in economic terms, not assigning morality. A public good, in economics, is defined as being non rivalrous and having non exclusivity. It's simply the basic mechanics of the two items.

You're misquoting me a bit. I did not say those things (medicine, specialists, etc.) don't exist in Cuba at all. I asked in the context of one person. What good does it do to one person if we say "everything is covered", but that person can't get in to see someone? If they don't have the connections/foreign currency/gifts to give in order to get priority medicine/care? What good does it do that person if he/she has to go to a hospital for locals, where conditions are no better than 3rd world (where people from the us or Canada would be reluctant to go to the bathroom, let alone receive medical treatment)? Again, Cuba rations, just like everywhere else.

Perhaps I can be of help on this part of your post (ignoring the other parts, as that's a whole political philosophy discussion.) Anyway, the reason people distinguish socialized healthcare vs a military is because the military is a public good, while healthcare is not. In economic terms, a public good is one where you cannot exclude others from use, and use of it does not reduce the use by others. This is not true of healthcare. If I don't pay for national security, I still am protected by it. And my protection does not reduce the protection of my neighbor. Neither of these is true for healthcare. If someone doesn't pay for healthcare, they can be excluded. Also, if someone uses healthcare resources, it reduces the amount for someone else.

You're only telling part of the story. You make it seem like traffic is flowing one way, from the US to Canada, for healthcare. As usual, the truth is more complicated. Many Canadians come to the US for healthcare, to the point where US border hospitals have made arrangements with the Canadian ministry of health. http://www.freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/Canadians-visit-U-S-get-health-care One quote: "Dany Mercado, a leukemia patient from Kitchener, Ontario, is cancer-free after getting a bone marrow transplant at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit. Told by Canadian doctors in 2007 he couldn't have the procedure there, Mercado's family and doctor appealed to Ontario health officials, who agreed to let him have the transplant in Detroit in January 2008." And let's not forget the string of Canadian politicans making news by going to the US for treatments (cancer treatments, cardiac care). One, when asked about it, had the nerve to say it was nobody's business because it was his own health at concern. You are correct that the US only assures emergency care, and does not guarantee all care. But this is where reality unfortunately plays a part. Healthcare, like most other things in life, is a finite resource. The truth is, rationing happens everywhere, the US, Canada, Cuba, everywhere. The difference is I'm not pretending this truth doesn't exist by claiming everything is covered, and then closing my eyes to the realities on the ground. I'm going to have to take issue with the first sentence in the above quote. The US wait times for diagnostic procedures are drastically shorter than in Canada. An example is the use of MRIs. The US has a greater number, per capita, of MRI machines than Canada. In 1991, when the technology was becoming ubiquitous, Los Angeles alone had more MRI machines than all of Canada. This results in shorter wait times, as well as shorter distances travelled to get to these MRI machines. We're talking hours vs weeks, and a dozen miles vs a hundred. As a professor I had in a health law class put it, how do you measure the lost productivity of a person who is worried about a health condition and has to wait weeks in order to get a test done? That's a cost that's not factored in. And if you'll allow me to continue with the anecdotes, let me tell you the story of a personal friend my family has with an attorney from Canada. This person went to an eye doctor in Canada and was told he had a degenerative eye condition and needed a cornea transplant. He was given a pager, and was told to keep that with him for the next 9 months or so. It was emphasized he must have the pager with him at all times, as if he missed his call, he would have to go to the back of the queue and start the wait all over again. This person soon after had business in the states soon after. He decided to get a 2nd opinion from an eye doctor in the states. His appointment was on a Monday. He received the same diagnosis from the doctor. When our friend asked when a procedure could be performed, the answer he received back was: "Well, I'm out of the office Wednesday, how is Tuesday or Thursday work?" Again, rationing happens everywhere. This is part of the fantasy some people have with socialized care that I discussed earlier. It sounds nice to say "everything is covered." It does sound like utopia. Except heaven is not found on this earth. What does this mean in practice? What good does that do a person when there is no medicine to give, when no specialist is available, when equipment is lacking, when you find yourself in the back of the queue for an xray or a bloodtest, when you're in as much danger from the facility you find yourself in as you are from what ails you? "Everything is covered" sounds wonderful. Once you get into the details, things turn ugly. Not that the US system doesn't have its faults....but nobody claims that everything is covered in the US. Just like, in practice, it's not in Cuba.

And the bottom line is that the US, as a society, doesn't deny life saving care to poor people. Do they get equal resources to someone who has insurance/resources? No. But the poor of Cuba do not get equal treatment either. I think some people have the tendency to view socialism with the attitude of "isn't it great, everyone is treated equally?" These same people don't bother looking at actual facts on the ground, they're content with the socialism label and everything else doesn't matter. For instance, it doesn't matter that Cuba keeps separate health care facilities, personnel, and equipment for foreigners with hard currency, and prevents poor Cubans from even showing there faces in these places. It doesn't matter that a lot of Cubans are treated in places most people wouldn't go camping in, let alone receive health care, as long as the government claims all are treated equally (equally poorly). Do we really think a system where a patient needs to bring a doctor food/gifts/money in order to be placed at the front of a queue to make sure he/she gets an appointment for an X-ray, blood test, or operation is a more civilized system?

The woman's name appears to be Anna Brown. If that's not the one, forgive me and please point me to the correct story (I think it's the correct one though, the date and state match). Anyway, if it is the correct one, you misrepresented her story a little bit. It appears she was given care, refused to leave, and appears to have been mistreated by the police (the police claimed she was on drugs, and left her alone over night on the jail floor, and died from blood clots). I think the story here has more to do with her treatment by the police (who automatically assumed she was on drugs and proceeded to leave her alone w/o checking on her). One hospital contradicts your assumption that doctors didn't bother to check her. Either way, your general statement implying that life saving means (along w/ education, but that's another discussion) are denied in the US by society is factually incorrect. Again, it is against the law (EMTALA), in almost all emergency rooms, to deny medical care for reasons such as inability to pay, citizenship status, etc. Life saving means are available to all in the US, and the standard of care is quite a bit better than in Cuba. Below is the quote from the story I believe you were referring to: ------------------------------------- "St Mary's said in a statement yesterday that its staff followed medical guidelines and performed appropriate tests. 'Unfortunately, even with appropriate testing using sophisticated technology, blood clots can still be undetected in a small number of cases,' said the hospital, which acknowledged the 'outrage being expressed about this tragic event.'"

It's illegal in the US for practically any emergency room to refuse treatment based on an inability to pay (EMTALA). Maybe some people broke the law in your example (you'd have to provide a cite), but the "society" in the US does not deny access to treatment for a lack of ability to pay. And when you factor in quality of care (have you seen the facilities that poor Cubans are required to use, vs the ones they are barred from that exist for foreign nationals and connected friends of government officials), it's not even close. If someone claims they'd rather be a poor person in Cuba than the US, I think that speaks more to that person not knowing some significant information about both countries.

If you're going to be in Newark, New York City is extremely close. Might go into the city if you feel like. If you have your heart set on NJ, I can let you know of a few places (very good Portuguese food in Newark).

Oliva Serie V Melanio