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

[mykeuva]

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.

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.

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".

[canadianbeaver]

From the article i get that The issue is not whether healthcare and socialism are more desireable systems. The issue reflects back to pre- Kennedy era Bay of Pigs and was the Revolution and was the choice of the Cuban leading forces of the time to follow the rebels and USSR support or stick with the more democratic, corrupt regime? My knowledge is limited but I am pretty sure that is what the article is saying.

This makes me think of the scene in the Godfather when Al Pacino goes looking for Fredo..

[mykeuva]

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.

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.

[mazolaman]

It's an interesting discussion.

Here in the UK, we are still lucky to have the NHS, that will treat you if you arrive sick, whether you payed your taxes or not. This, I think,is a broader definition of a public good, and a great example of a social system (not a communist system).

It is close to breaking point for many reasons, people don't want to pay their taxes, the government doesn't want to fund it, high levels of "health tourism" from countries where you have to pay, and the drugs companies who demand the highest possible price for their drugs.

This last example is why the health systems should not be private, as they will always demand as much as the market will take, and will always produce medicines that they forsee being used by the wealthiest. So the NHS is paying top price for medicines to deal with type two diabetes, while there is little research on new antibiotics or anti malaria medicine. (I recall Novartis has just been found guilty of trying to get out of it's duty of releasing patents for one drug, by claiming they have changed the ingredients...this would have stopped the poorer countries of the world gaining access to this medicine for another 25 years)

This, for me, is the problem when a profit making industry is in charge. And many people will be seen as not viable money making "customers".

Interestingly, under the current government, nearly all our social services are being cut to shreds. NHS, schools, fire services, life boats, etc etc...the only social service that thrives under a conservative government in the UK is the Police Force.

[TexAg]

Two words:Truman Doctrine