Why did Cuba go with the Soviet Union, when they could have become a rich paradise if they remained friends with the United States?

[Justmi]

If we are talking about political ideologies, I always wonder when people talk about political structures and mention Communism - has Communism ever existed in its entirety or true form? Communism is mostly a facade for nationalistic dictatorship, using socialism to slip into the seat of power. Certain policies might have existed such as collective farming, but the true structure of Communism has never in my mind ever existed. Possibly Democracy had to incorporate its true structure because it was forced to - Democracy unlike Communism has accountability. And as we know, the dysfunction of Communism is because of its lack of accountability.

[CanuckSARTech]

ask the average domincan how the relationship with the US has helped them. seen a guy get hit by a car there and the locals where fighting over the guys dollar store watch. empting the guys pockets right there in the street. i take cuba over most latin american shyte holes any day

In Dom. Rep., if you hit and kill a person while driving, it's 7 days in jail. If you kill someone's cow, it's a year. [That's how it was when I was there in the late 90's on missionary trips, anywho.]

[CanuckSARTech]

If we are talking about political ideologies, I always wonder when people talk about political structures and mention Communism - has Communism ever existed in its entirety or true form? Communism is mostly a facade for nationalistic dictatorship, using socialism to slip into the seat of power. Certain policies might have existed such as collective farming, but the true structure of Communism has never in my mind ever existed. Possibly Democracy had to incorporate its true structure because it was forced to - Democracy unlike Communism has accountability. And as we know, the dysfunction of Communism is because of its lack of accountability.

Agreed. True communism, uncorrupted or such, has never really existed. Except in the "Star Trek" universe.

[cigcars]

Yes. Free education and health care. More than can be said for many countries out there. Obviously the upward mobility is far greater in any "Western" country, but the poverty stricken individuals suffer far more in them than in Cuba imo. This is not based on any research or anything of the sort, just what I have seen in my limited experience. If I am way off base here, I have absolutely no problem being corrected.

Yes Orion, like I said, the sky is the limit here and where you are as opposed to the severely limited opportunities in Cuba, but depending on one's definition of quality of life mixed with longevity of life, I feel that Cuba wins here. Also, when I say "poor", I do not mean people who live in low income housing and receive welfare cheques of $700/month. I mean those who have truly fallen through the large cracks in "the system" and who have nothing other than a raggedy old blanket and discarded cigarette butts picked off the street. Those people are not the ones who went to college to receive a computer science degree.

No doubt about how those with little to nearly nothing do at least have access to free education and healthcare in Cuba. We just recently had a 29 year old homeless lady who died from lack of or refusal of care after unsuccessfully visiting three different emergency rooms in Missouri for leg pains. At the third emergency room the staff decided to call police who dragged her by arms from the squad car and into a jail cell where she died on the floor from blood clots in her legs. She needlessly suffered and died in a major metropolitan hospital here because nobody gave a rat's ass about her due to her social status. In the US there are advantages in several respects for opportunities, yet I do believe in giving lots of credit to that society which will treat everybody importantly enough for ready access to education and life saving means. Just a hard to deny observation about who counts in some society's eyes.

[MPS]

Yea free to die in the hospital or at home with no medicine. Clearly none of you have any relatives in Cuba.

[cigcars]

Yea free to die in the hospital or at home with no medicine. Clearly none of you have any relatives in Cuba.

? Is one more justifiable than the other??

[David67]

I don't know why Cuba went Communist maybe they believed the whole "utopia" crap that commos go on about. The best man at my wedding fled communist Vietnam on a boat after he and his family were tortured by the communist. It always baffled him that some people who live comfortable lives in free countries talk up communisam. Below is something I wrote to a friend on the net regarding the different mind sets:

The Left believe in big government they have a plan for a utopia and how dare you or I stand in the way of that!

Conservatives on the other hand except that life cannot be perfect but we work hard and do our best. Conservatives do not follow an ideology so there is open debate amongst fellow conservatives etc.

[mykeuva]

No doubt about how those with little to nearly nothing do at least have access to free education and healthcare in Cuba. We just recently had a 29 year old homeless lady who died from lack of or refusal of care after unsuccessfully visiting three different emergency rooms in Missouri for leg pains. At the third emergency room the staff decided to call police who dragged her by arms from the squad car and into a jail cell where she died on the floor from blood clots in her legs. She needlessly suffered and died in a major metropolitan hospital here because nobody gave a rat's ass about her due to her social status. In the US there are advantages in several respects for opportunities, yet I do believe in giving lots of credit to that society which will treat everybody importantly enough for ready access to education and life saving means. Just a hard to deny observation about who counts in some society's eyes.

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.

[cigcars]

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.

*I'm very aware of any person being disruptive, etc. in any establishment, hospital, restaurant, etc. that would get them removed. Believe me I wouldn't put forth a story like this if that were the case. You can look it up, "Mar. 29, 2012. St. Louis, MO, homeless woman dies in police custody after being refused help from three different emergency rooms she went to..." for the full details. Having worked in emergency service situations I can tell you the doctor(s) probably didn't even bother come out of their offices to examine her. But I won't digress into all of that. And as I DID acknowledge in my original statement, I KNOW there are advantages/disadvantages in each of our respective countries. Whether you don't get help because one can't give it and/or not getting help because one WON'T give it are both unacceptable circumstance. Quick note: the young lady wasn't refused due to inability to pay - they just decided for her that she was just, as we call it, "Shammin'"

[ptrthgr8]

Conservatives on the other hand except that life cannot be perfect but we work hard and do our best. Conservatives do not follow an ideology so there is open debate amongst fellow conservatives etc.

I would challenge this insofar as the term "conservative" in the US has been hijacked by a big gov't ideology that doesn't understand at all that you can't have a big gov't "over there" and still expect to have a small gov't "over here." A gov't that imposes its will around the globe cannot also be a small gov't that doesn't impose its will upon the People within its borders.

And just to make this more congenial... Go, Wings!!!!

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

[mykeuva]

*I'm very aware of any person being disruptive, etc. in any establishment, hospital, restaurant, etc. that would get them removed. Believe me I wouldn't put forth a story like this if that were the case. You can look it up, "Mar. 29, 2012. St. Louis, MO, homeless woman dies in police custody after being refused help from three different emergency rooms she went to..." for the full details. Having worked in emergency service situations I can tell you the doctor(s) probably didn't even bother come out of their offices to examine her. But I won't digress into all of that. And as I DID acknowledge in my original statement, I KNOW there are advantages/disadvantages in each of our respective countries. Whether you don't get help because one can't give it and/or not getting help because one WON'T give it are both unacceptable circumstance. Quick note: the young lady wasn't refused due to inability to pay - they just decided for her that she was just, as we call it, "Shammin'"

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.'"

[cigcars]

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.'"

You're correct, it is Anna Brown. I'm not going to keep beating this occurrence into the ground with you, just to say that your quoting the hospital's side of the story that "she was given care" - is what they're telling investigators on the subject now because they are facing a lawsuit. You were saying she was given care as if she were cured/fixed and ready to say, "Thanks, doc! I'm fit as a fiddle and ready to dance now!" Obviously, she wasn't. Like I said, I won't keep nagging on this story. But I CAN tell you factually - in this land, poor people get poor medical coverage. My mom had suffered terrible pains throughout her body, kept going to her doctor who only kept throwing a bunch of pills at her and sending her home. Finally, at 3am my sister got a call from her...she was in so much pain she was in tears. My sister rushes over to her house, drives her to the emergency room, and Michael Corleone - wise, calmly and coolly threatens to go postal in there if they didn't do necessary tests to find out what was really wrong with her. Because sis is a little more influential and well-to-do wise, they got the more qualified doctor to examine her...and it was cancer, which if detected a little earlier may have meant she might still be with us. My brother-in-law's mother died the same way, appearing at the ER, or getting examined by Dr."I don't really care", and being misdiagnosed, then dying because they didn't find what the problem really was - the Big "C". My apologies for the long diatribe, but it's to tell you, Mykeuve, that the above story is not just some aberration or "complaint - fest" from me...but that this is a more than once or twice common occurrence for the non-rich and powerful throughout our nation. You HAVE to be aware of that unless you just choose to not notice. Thank you guys for bearing with me on I hope proving my point, unfortunate as it is.

[mykeuva]

You're correct, it is Anna Brown. I'm not going to keep beating this occurrence into the ground with you, just to say that your quoting the hospital's side of the story that "she was given care" - is what they're telling investigators on the subject now because they are facing a lawsuit. You were saying she was given care as if she were cured/fixed and ready to say, "Thanks, doc! I'm fit as a fiddle and ready to dance now!" Obviously, she wasn't. Like I said, I won't keep nagging on this story. But I CAN tell you factually - in this land, poor people get poor medical coverage. My mom had suffered terrible pains throughout her body, kept going to her doctor who only kept throwing a bunch of pills at her and sending her home. Finally, at 3am my sister got a call from her...she was in so much pain she was in tears. My sister rushes over to her house, drives her to the emergency room, and Michael Corleone - wise, calmly and coolly threatens to go postal in there if they didn't do necessary tests to find out what was really wrong with her. Because sis is a little more influential and well-to-do wise, they got the more qualified doctor to examine her...and it was cancer, which if detected a little earlier may have meant she might still be with us. My brother-in-law's mother died the same way, appearing at the ER, or getting examined by Dr."I don't really care", and being misdiagnosed, then dying because they didn't find what the problem really was - the Big "C". My apologies for the long diatribe, but it's to tell you, Mykeuve, that the above story is not just some aberration or "complaint - fest" from me...but that this is a more than once or twice common occurrence for the non-rich and powerful throughout our nation. You HAVE to be aware of that unless you just choose to not notice. Thank you guys for bearing with me on I hope proving my point, unfortunate as it is.

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?

[CanuckSARTech]

It's illegal in the US for practically any emergency room to refuse treatment based on an inability to pay (EMTALA)....

...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...

...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...

You're correct, it is Anna Brown. I'm not going to keep beating this occurrence into the ground with you, just to say that your quoting the hospital's side of the story that "she was given care" - is what they're telling investigators on the subject now because they are facing a lawsuit. You were saying she was given care as if she were cured/fixed and ready to say, "Thanks, doc! I'm fit as a fiddle and ready to dance now!" Obviously, she wasn't....

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?

If people think this doesn't happen every day in the U.S., you're kidding yourself.

Can you compare the medical systems in the U.S. with Cuba? Hell no. It's apples and oranges.

People like to refer to Canada as having "socialist health-care". Which we do to a certain extent. If you take the best parts of the Cuban health-care system, and apply it with the U.S. democratic / capatalist system, and with U.S. / western-democracies' financial bearing, that's what you have in Canada. But in no way is it perfect - there's human flaws in every system. Power and money always corrupts, no matter what, to one extent or another.

My wife's an RN in Ontario. The Ontario hospitals (and I'm sure others in Canada) see Americans (and other foreigners) come across the border into Canada to get universal health care - when they've been denied or otherwise restricted in the U.S. It's one of the reasons our system is under such strain lately from the financial impacts of this over the past decade or two.

But to say that because of EMTALA that all U.S. citizens are covered in getting life-saving medical care, it's a shell game. What exactly is "life-saving medical care"? It's up to most regions/hospitals to make that determination, and basically, if it's not a critical, within-24-hour A.B.C. situation (airway, breathing, circulation emergency), then sorry pal. It could be life-or-death terminal cancer with only a few days/months to live, or a blood-clot situation like that one story. But if it's something that they can patch up and fix and send them out ASAP, fine, but if it potentially long-term, or require more than "standard" tests (again, under what/who's definition?), then if you're without insurance in the U.S. you're toast.

And even then, in both Canada and the U.S. even, if you have standard insurance and you need a test or diagnostic proceedure, fine, we'll see you in 8 to 12 months. If you have better coverage, or can pony up the coin in a private clinic for private proceedures, and put you in a different queue, then you can be seen in 2 to 4 months, or perhaps sooner. The same as what happens in Cuba, except here it's about insurance coverage levels and money in the bank, and there it's about under-the-table ways of lining some pockets.

Just because the "quality of care" is better in the U.S., doesn't necessarily make it better than in Cuba, where everything, not just "life-saving medical care", and preventative care is covered.

[mazolaman]

You are correct Canuck.

[mykeuva]

If people think this doesn't happen every day in the U.S., you're kidding yourself.

Can you compare the medical systems in the U.S. with Cuba? Hell no. It's apples and oranges.

People like to refer to Canada as having "socialist health-care". Which we do to a certain extent. If you take the best parts of the Cuban health-care system, and apply it with the U.S. democratic / capatalist system, and with U.S. / western-democracies' financial bearing, that's what you have in Canada. But in no way is it perfect - there's human flaws in every system. Power and money always corrupts, no matter what, to one extent or another.

My wife's an RN in Ontario. The Ontario hospitals (and I'm sure others in Canada) see Americans (and other foreigners) come across the border into Canada to get universal health care - when they've been denied or otherwise restricted in the U.S. It's one of the reasons our system is under such strain lately from the financial impacts of this over the past decade or two.

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.

But to say that because of EMTALA that all U.S. citizens are covered in getting life-saving medical care, it's a shell game. What exactly is "life-saving medical care"? It's up to most regions/hospitals to make that determination, and basically, if it's not a critical, within-24-hour A.B.C. situation (airway, breathing, circulation emergency), then sorry pal. It could be life-or-death terminal cancer with only a few days/months to live, or a blood-clot situation like that one story. But if it's something that they can patch up and fix and send them out ASAP, fine, but if it potentially long-term, or require more than "standard" tests (again, under what/who's definition?), then if you're without insurance in the U.S. you're toast.

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.

And even then, in both Canada and the U.S. even, if you have standard insurance and you need a test or diagnostic proceedure, fine, we'll see you in 8 to 12 months. If you have better coverage, or can pony up the coin in a private clinic for private proceedures, and put you in a different queue, then you can be seen in 2 to 4 months, or perhaps sooner. The same as what happens in Cuba, except here it's about insurance coverage levels and money in the bank, and there it's about under-the-table ways of lining some pockets.

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.

Just because the "quality of care" is better in the U.S., doesn't necessarily make it better than in Cuba, where everything, not just "life-saving medical care", and preventative care is covered.

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.

[CaptainQuintero]

An important note, Socialism isn't interchangable with Communism.

The government takes some of our money and they give us things in return , that's basically socialism.

Communism everyone works towards a common goal as one community and the government provides the workers with what they need instead of having money.

The military, police, fire service, teachers, education etc etc are all 'socialised'.

Personally I don't see how some people can be to against socialised healthcare but love socialised military.

Anyway, just thought it was worth pointing out

[CanuckSARTech]

An important note, Socialism isn't interchangable with Communism.

The government takes some of our money and they give us things in return , that's basically socialism.

Communism everyone works towards a common goal as one community and the government provides the workers with what they need instead of having money.

The military, police, fire service, teachers, education etc etc are all 'socialised'.

Personally I don't see how some people can be to against socialised healthcare but love socialised military.

Anyway, just thought it was worth pointing out

Great point. Agreed.

[mykeuva]

Personally I don't see how some people can be to against socialised healthcare but love socialised military.

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.

[CanuckSARTech]

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...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....

Yes, but quite frequently, it's because of new/untested proceedures/therapies that aren't yet approved by Health Canada. Our system is slower and more careful in approving updated or newer drugs/therapies/proceedures. Quite often though, people aren't willing to wait, due to a bad outlook on time, and are willing to take the individual risks for personal gain, rather than waiting on Health Canada to approve whatever the item may be for the overall populace.

Or, it could be that the individual person would rather not wait the 6 months for a proceedure, and has the financial wherewithall to spend the money privately in the U.S. and have it done within 1 month (general timelines, here).

That's drastically different than refusal of accepted medical care.

...TYou 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....

Fully agreed here. Necessary evils, unfortunately.

...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....

Agreed there as well. But that's a mass market thing. The U.S. has 10 times the population base of Canada, with less land mass, therefore the costs are more easily spread. Add 10 times the population to the U.S.' current medical backlog, and it would be a huge disaster.

Again, my timeline estimates were approximate and maybe not better associated in that related quote. However, the point is that if you have standard coverage, you go in a standard queue, but if you have more money / better coverage, you go into another queue, similar to lining pockets in Cuba (so how can one really say that's any worse, when it's going to the doctor directly, and not just lining the pockets of a hospital conglomerate's CEO, or an insurance company instead?)

...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.

But therein is the fantasy that some have of care in Cuba (or many other countries that they may or may not have even visited, and just got hearsay information from media or such).

Is it the best? Absolutely not. But to say that there's no medicine, no specialists, etc., is just slanting things the other way. Is it is short supply due to a myriad of reasons? Sure. But it's still there if someone truely is in need of it.

I myself would rather find myself at the back of a queue for something simple (x-rays, routine bloodtests, non-urgent/emergency MRI's, dental cleaning appointments, etc., etc.), and personally incur that minor inconvenience and nuisance, to know that someone's grandmother or brother or child is guaranteed to be fully looked after in a true life-and-death intervention should the need arise, regardless of that person's weath or insurance status.

[mykeuva]

But therein is the fantasy that some have of care in Cuba (or many other countries that they may or may not have even visited, and just got hearsay information from media or such).

Is it the best? Absolutely not. But to say that there's no medicine, no specialists, etc., is just slanting things the other way. Is it is short supply due to a myriad of reasons? Sure. But it's still there if someone truely is in need of it.

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.

[CaptainQuintero]

the reason people distinguish socialized healthcare vs a military is because the military is a public good, while healthcare is not.

This is probably why no one will ever agree, this view is completely 100% against what I would say is one of my most important core values. No one will convince me otherwise and I'm sure vice versa

[mykeuva]

This is probably why no one will ever agree, this view is completely 100% against what I would say is one of my most important core values. No one will convince me otherwise and I'm sure vice versa

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.

[CanuckSARTech]

You're misquoting me a bit....

Not really. You said, "...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..." You said, "where there is no medicine to give...", etc. None. And yet, there is some. Not none. Rationing is something different.

...Again, Cuba rations, just like everywhere else.

Ahhhh yes. But (speaking only for the main context of this medical example back-and-forth), they ration due to economic reasons, due to a lack of resources, due to an outwardly applied embargo. The U.S. rations due to a desire for profit and capitalisation for the individual corporation and shareholder - to make money.

[CanuckSARTech]

This is probably why no one will ever agree, this view is completely 100% against what I would say is one of my most important core values. No one will convince me otherwise and I'm sure vice versa

Agreed. The concept of military (for other than unperverted, defensive needs) being a public good is always something that divides a room, even if it meets the core concepts of the definition.

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.

Yes, and that's the unadulterated Wikipedia definition of it. And an economic definition for it.

But there's plenty of debate to be had over whether or not a "public good", in today's day and age, can be placed of higher value than a "social good" (or even a common good). I'm sure that the vast majority of any country's populace would rather see some, at least, of the trillions going to overseas wars and such (with negligible benefit to the home country rather than economic boosting to defence contractors) to instead go towards education, certain public services (police, fire, sanitation, etc.), healthcare and such.