(Sorry, I only read the first page of this thread, but I feel I need to address it)

I do agree with krellin when he says that capitalism is inevitably superior to communism. Communist countries tend to not last very long.

However, I also think krellin is being an insufferable troll. There are much more civilized ways to discuss this issue than with RANDOM CAPITALIZATION and fucking profanity. I think it was also stupid to bring it up in the first place, because there are enough passionate capitalists and communists on this site to keep this debate going forever.

This whole notion of "Rolls Royce" healthcare is entirely misleading. The fact is high quality healthcare doesn't cost that much. The only reason costs are high in the US and other countries like the US is because they don't invest anything whatsoever in prevention and primary care. Dexter & Draugnar are offering a false choice. Cuba's system is far far more efficient than private healthcare, and the costs are far far lower. This narrative justifying healthcare apartheid on account of "cost" is a bogus one.

No, West Germany didn't have freedom of speech and the reunified Germany doesn't either. So what. Nothing in their constitution guarantees freedom of speech. Trying to apply the US Constitution to the entire world is a waste of time and actually counterproductive. After all, you are the one argues how bad this nation is and how wrong aspects of it are, so why impose our governmental standards on other countries if we are so fucked up?

As to Cuba and other countries (most [all?]) restricting travel and immigration - and in some cases, emigration... it is not unlike trade. ...only in the case the trade (and the imbalances that countries are trying to either prevent or cause) is in labor. Is it fair to the populace? Nope. But it's in the national interest of the country doing it (if they are doing it well). Remember, in all countries, capitalist or communist or monarchy, etc., we citizens are only commodities... we are a resource to be manipulated and profited from. Period.

@Putin - what was the last great advance in medicine to come out of Cuba? There hasn't been one. Why? Because the motivation to advance the field of medicine isn't there. What is that motivation? Greed. Developing new medication and new tools to diagnose and treat conditions cost money and the companies that do this expect a return on their investment. If it weren't for the advances of the rest of the world, Cuba's medcial technology would be where their cars are - stuck in the 50s.

"e rest of us. I actually have no problem with this, but I suspect Putin does. How about it, Putin? What are your views on concierge medical services? Especially when many of these concierge doctors use the income and influence to fund free clinics that provide reasonable and adequate care to those in need and volunteer their time in said clinics as well."

Ah yes charity. The way rich people try to get into heaven and absolve themselves of the sins of their life as exploiters and leeches. No, I'm absolutely opposed to any two-tier healthcare system where the rich get services others aren't provided by greasing the palms of doctors. It incentivizes refusing care to the poor and indigent and catering entire health practices to the rich. Why don't we have concierge policemen and firefighters while we're at it. Maybe concierge EMTs too. Don't worry, I'm sure they'll "volunteer" their time to give a scrap of concern to the rest of the public.

Our concierge legal system has worked so well, hasn't it? Obviously the poor and indigent are 'getting what they pay for'. Sometimes unqualified, always overworked lawyers who have no resources to defend their clients.

" After all, you are the one argues how bad this nation is and how wrong aspects of it are, so why impose our governmental standards on other countries if we are so fucked up?"

Draugnar, try to keep up. Ivo's "gotcha" was that East Germans fled so they could enjoy "freedom of speech". I was simply pointing out that wasn't true. Either pay attention or stop responding to me.

"we are a resource to be manipulated and profited from. Period."

We live in a society and have social responsibilities. Our choices affect others. We don't live on libertine islands, like liberals want us to believe.

@ Dexter: "Were we to provide Rolls Royce care to everyone it would surely bankrupt us"

This claim has already been disproved earlier in this very thread. The per capita cost of providing universal free healthcare or a very high quality to the people of Cuba is much, much *cheaper* than the US system.

* of a very high quality

Sorry, didn't catch Ivo's "freedom of speech" thing. Mea culpa. But it is true that there was more freedom to criticize the government in West than East Germany. But not true freedom of speech.

Oh, and many rich communities have their own private security forces, EMTs, and fire departments as well. So those "concierge" services do exist.

@Jamie - Do you swallow every statistic Castro feeds you without question? Every single figure about cost and income that comes from Cuba is sanitized by Castro's regime. You *cannot* trust it. Hell, I don't trust the US government to tell me the complete truth. Why would I trust a dictatorial regime to be open and honest?

@Jamie - Do you swallow every statistic Castro feeds you without question? Every single figure about cost and income that comes from Cuba is sanitized by Castro's regime. You *cannot* trust it. Hell, I don't trust the US government to tell me the complete truth. Why would I trust a dictatorial regime to be open and honest?

Error 500 retry - Sorry for the double post.

Putin33 said: "No, it's bribery. If you're making offers that other nationals wouldn't get, simply to induce people to emigrate, that's economic sabotage aimed at destroying East Germany. " And I say, more power to them (West Germany, that is). That said, I understand East Germany's tactics as well... but they were doomed to failure - thankfully. Governments and nations, like any organism, will do what they can to survive. Cuba is doing what it needs to to survive. Is it fair to the citizens? Define fair. This is the price they pay for their planned economy. The benefits are that people aren't starving in the streets and they have quality health care and education. ...and, like kids living at home, they give up some freedoms for their room and board. If they, as a population, don't like it on the balance, they can certainly change it. Not very helpful for the rightwing expats in Miami and their capitalist friends everywhere to whine about it (being that it's not our problem)... and not very helpful for us left-wingers to say how great they got it there in Cuba (unless we are willing to accept the bad with the good).

"@Putin - what was the last great advance in medicine to come out of Cuba? There hasn't been one. Why? Because the motivation to advance the field of medicine isn't there."

Uh, Cuba invests a lot in medical research. They've made significant advancements. They discovered a meningitis-B/pneumonia vaccine. They just recently came up with a therapeutic vaccine for lung cancer. Looks like your whole narrative of only greed motivates fails yet again.

"Do you swallow every statistic Castro feeds you without question? Every single figure about cost and income that comes from Cuba is sanitized by Castro's regime."

Ah right, so that's what we're falling back. The IMF, CIA, World Bank, and UN are all reporting "sanitized" figures. Those medical teams who report back on the tremendous results of Cuban medicine are all lying too.

This demonstrates that it doesn't matter what evidence is provided, the Draugnars and Ivos of the world will just cover their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears.

@Putin33, you quoted me: "we are a resource to be manipulated and profited from. Period."
and then said:
"We live in a society and have social responsibilities. Our choices affect others. We don't live on libertine islands, like liberals want us to believe."

I agree that no man is an island, etc. But, I'm not getting your point in this context.

Jamie - it's better because the poor kid can promise to work for X weeks and pay off his debt to the doctor. If the doctor is an asshole and doesn't want to bother with the kid in his free time without compensation, this way the kid at least has a chance to be treated.

Well, you were saying governments treat their populations like a resource/commodity to be manipulated. The fact is, a loss of human capital affects the rest of society in real terms. You can call that "manipulation" and make it sound sinister, but the government has a justified interest in making sure that it has skilled professionals who can provide much needed services to their country less it fall apart.

While I disagree with a lot of Putin's conclusions re:North Korea and Cuba, the Cuban health care system really is outstanding.

The rates for life expectancy, infant mortality, etc are all quite above average even when compared to the industrialized world.

I still don't get how the succes of socialized medicine in Cuba says anything about anything except that its possible. But then we knew that from other countries as well. Does the success of socialized medicine somehow prove that communism is better? Hardly. No more than them having the best cigars proves anything about anything else.

Socialized medicine and public education is unhitched from communism. Yes, the communists provide it and are proud of it... but then there are a number of democracies that also provide both socialized medicine and public education and are proud of it. So what? The two issues - communism and socialized medicine - are effectively unhitched from each other. Debating one as a lever against the other is flawed logic. About the only thing proven is that a Communist country can do some things right... but then we already knew that in regards to the cigars - so I don't get the point on either side of this argument.

so what exactly is "hitched" then

I would say Cuba's system is a bit more extraordinary the typical "socialized" system, but whatever, accepting your premise as true, what would be proof of socialism's superiority? What does a socialist country need to do to impress you?

@Putin33, regarding loss of human capital - etc.
It is clearly in the self-interest of the state - that was actually something I stated somewhere here. I didn't mean to suggest that the state was doing such things out of evil intent (i.e. just to be mean) - indeed, it is instead a cold calculation - perhaps with the best interests of the overall population in mind - and at the least, with the best interests of the current government in mind (not necessarily the same two things, obviously). Said another way: Countries/governments do things because it furthers the national/governmental interest... these things may or may not further individual interest - such a concern is rarely if ever a concern of the government (because we are simply a commodity/resource to them). I hope this clarifies my thoughts on it.

Fair enough.

"what would be proof of socialism's superiority? What does a socialist country need to do to impress you?"

I wasn't arguing for or against socialism. I personally favor something in the range between social democracy and democratic socialism... but I can't say I have definitive proof that these systems are better than say pure capitalism... but I would point to examples in Western Europe as reasonable examples of the success of the idea of combining socialist ideals with democratic ideals with capitalist ideals. Do I think there is a definitive argument out there for one system? No. Each has its failures that make that impossible. Complete libertarian capitalism has its Somalia, socialism has its East Germany, Soviet Union, and Maoist China. Democracy is fine and all - until the tyranny of the masses takes hold or until the PR/lobby/corruption machine of the corporatist monopolies takes hold - as it has in America. Each "pure" system has its weaknesses and its failures. A compromise seems in order... but then, successes can take many forms - from (in the case of medicine) a managed private system as the Swiss have or as a public system as the UK has... suggesting that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

@SantaClausowitz, you said: "so what exactly is "hitched" then"

Well - hitching was a poor word to use... what I mean is, that socialized medicine can and does happen without anything close to Communism being in power. ...and that the ideal of socialized medicine is not limited to being a communist ideal alone. Yes, the communists in Cuba value it - but so what? It's success or failure in Cuba is not proof of its overall wisdom elsewhere. There are too many other variables... and we would be wiser to compare our medical system to alternatives in countries with similar political systems (to lessen the number of uncontrolled variables). The UK, Canada, Sweden, France, Denmark, etc. would serve as much better test cases for some form of socialized medicine in a democracy.

"I wasn't arguing for or against socialism."

You said socialized education and healthcare aren't "linked" to socialism/communism per se, so they're not proof that it works well. So what would be proof? Is your point that nothing can be proof?

"but I would point to examples in Western Europe as reasonable examples of the success of the idea of combining socialist ideals with democratic ideals with capitalist ideals."

Yes well your 'compromise' is not sustainable. Your models are not really a 50/50 "mixed" model, as it is fundamentally a market economy.As you earlier pointed out, market economies can have socialized healthcare. The flaw in your model is that it relies on the market, and is suspect to the vicissitudes of the global economy.The havoc the financial crisis has wrought on your "ideal" models in Europe provides ample proof of this. The welfare states Europe are hung together by a rope of sand.