You mean the debate about whether health care is free as long as you pay for it with your taxes, and you pay for it before you need your appendectomy, rather than writing out a check to the surgeon at the time you need his services?
Is Castro Already Dead?
- Thread starter Brown
- Start date
-
- Tags
- castro fidel castro
You mean the debate about whether health care is free as long as you pay for it with your taxes, and you pay for it before you need your appendectomy, rather than writing out a check to the surgeon at the time you need his services?
Yep that's the one, the one in which you were wrong. Remember? You didn't know that every UK citizen is entitled to the same level of treatment regardless of the level of financial contributions they have ever made or will ever make.
But it's not free, is it? Surgeons don't work gratis, hospitals don't get MRI machines just donated to them, hospitals and clinics don't get built by volunteers, meds aren't supplied free of charge by the pharmaceutical companies. You pay for these things; some people pay more and some pay less (and some pay nothing), but they cost somebody something.
BTW, your new avatar looks just like my late cat Bandit. Who is he?
BTW2: Feel free to move this to the Castro thread...
Last edited:
I live in one. See the location under my avatar.
I think socialism is ultimately unworkable as an economic system, in that it resembles a giant Ponzi scheme where mandated entitlements increase faster than the growth of population can keep up. It works fine until the population levels off, but after that, things start to go crunch; Europe is increasingly having to deal with that very issue.
But I have no problem with a socialist economy as long as it doesn't require a repressive government, as long as the citizens are free to decide at some point they don't like the way their economy is going and to vote in new leaders. My problem with communism is that it's a catastrophically failed experiment and historically has only been able to keep going because the governments that instituted it stayed in power by killing - literally - any opposition.
You mean the debate about whether health care is free as long as you pay for it with your taxes, and you pay for it before you need your appendectomy, rather than writing out a check to the surgeon at the time you need his services?
No, I mean the one where:
1. You said that not everyone had a right to the same level of medical care.
2. The one where you didn't comment on issues such as patient excesses, premium rates/costs for private treatment, exemptions for pre-existing medical conditions.
3. You ignored the fact the NHS treatment is universally free at the point of delivery, despite clarification.
Really, have you considered becoming a conspiracy theorist?
I'm afraid that you're going to have to explain that for me, elsewise I'm going to take it as a "no".
You've lost me; which particular spects of the European model(s) do you refer to?
You have now changed your argument - you previously stated that:
"You mean the debate about whether health care is free as long as you pay for it with your taxes, and you pay for it before you need your appendectomy, rather than writing out a check to the surgeon at the time you need his services?"
That is just wrong. In the UK access to the NHS and medical treatment is not determined by what level of contribution you have made, if you are someone who has never ever paid one penny in taxes of any kind you are entitled to exactly the same treatment as someone who has paid a million in taxes and NI contributions. And there is no obligation afterwards for any additional payments so if you still don't pay tax then you still won't have to pay for any of your treatment.
My avatar is Jasper my nine, almost ten year old, one eyed bruiser of a tom - full picture: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2246353#post2246353
Either BPSCG is winding us up OR he tends towards the right hand side of the political spectrum. In a moment he's going to invoke the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, or somesuch......
Oh I'm sure it's a bit of both, after all these are political discussions.
Okay, perhaps I muddied the waters a bit by mixing the first two collective "you" with the third singular one.
But the point remains: You - collectively - pay for these things; some individuals pay more and some pay less (and some pay nothing), but they cost somebody something.
Is that incorrect?
And what would happen if for some bizarre reason, nobody paid taxes and NI contributions? Would everyone still get free health care? Or would it mysteriously dry up, because nobody was paying for it any more?
(Aside: The IRS headquarters building here in Washington, DC has a quote by Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes carved into the granite over the top floor of the building: "Taxes Are What We Pay For A Civilized Society.")
The best you can say about your system is that it is free for some people, those who can't afford to pay. But everyone else pays for it, a little at a time, with their taxes, in amounts sufficient to cover the costs for themselves and for those unable to pay. As I've said before in the Castro-is-dying thread (or is that this one? I'm losing track, and again, feel free to move this post there if you deem appropriate), there's nothing wrong with that, as long as that's the system you democratically choose, and can change or reject outright should you so choose later; it's a system that seems to work for you, because the UK is a prosperous country.
But it doesn't work for Cuba, because Cuba is poor. And, frankly, the U.S. system of health care wouldn't work in Cuba either, because (have I mentioned this?) Cuba is poor. The problem isn't whether Cuba should choose the health care system of your country or mine; the problem is that Cuba is wedded to an economic and governmental system that guarantees poverty, and therefore guarantees inadequate health care.
Well given the level of government borrowings it may be more accurate to say the next few generations will be paying for it but yes that's correct.
Well personally I would say the best we can say for our system is that is is more cost effective then a non-universal system and provide better health care for us then a non-universal system would but yes your point is correct, the UK system means that everyone is entitled to some of the best health care in the world regardless of an individual's financial means and for some that will mean they never pay anything.
Actually you've got part of that wrong, the NHS was created when the UK was pretty much a bankrupt country and society as a whole was anything but prosperous. (Don't forget we have literally only this month finished paying back the war loans the USA made the UK.)
I think you could argue that a universal healthcare system makes less of a difference in a prosperous country then in a not-so prosperous country (since universal health systems are more efficient and cost-effective then elective non-universal health care systems).
Of course however I do agree with you that the fact that Castro did not have a mandate from the people of Cuba to implement the systems they do have is an important point. However looking at it away from the idea of basic principles and looking at it from a utilitarian viewpoint it is very likely that the health care system they do have is better then it would have been if he had not decreed it to be a universal system (overall).
See above and are you saying the USA foreign policy toward Cuba has not had any financial impact? I find that very hard to believe.
I haven't got a list of Actual Communist Countries, because there aren't any. For the same reason I haven't got a list of rich ones.
I don't know, I've never been to Mexico. It is pretty ironic, though, that if poor Cubans try to flee to Miami, some people immediately see it as a proof of the failure of Communism. When millions of Latin Americans flee from the poverty of their capitalist countries, nobody ever sees it as an admission of capitalism's failure to provide for the citizens living in the many poor capitalist countries. Once they were called 'developing countries', but even that euphemism seems to have disappeared after the cold war was won by the West.
In the meantime I'll be waiting for your list of wealthy Latin American countries ..... Did you say Mexico?
I was not the one who mentioned Haita, but I quoted someone who did. It is funny that this comparison never occurs to you when Cubans are trying to get into the USA. Then it is never people from a poor country trying to get into a rich one. It is always people fleeing from Communism to Capitalism!
Which other ones? Why don't you instead compare health care, education and social benefits in Cuba with other poor countries?
No, that's right, you'd rather do the Stephen-Hawking comparison ...
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
Are Cuban citizens free to leave their country at will? That is, if there were no embargo, and the US did not restrict access, would the Cuban government allow them to leave at will?
Here's a list of Cuba's neighbors whose per capita GDP is higher than Cuba's:
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
- Dominica
- Grenada
- Jamaica
- El Salvador
- Saint Lucia
- Belize
- Saint Pierre and Miguelon
- Panama
- Dominican Republic (you know, the country that shares Hispaniola with Haiti?)
- Mexico
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Costa Rica
- Martinique
- Virgin Islands
- Netherlands Antilles
- Trinidad and Tobago
- Barbados
- The Bahamas
- Aruba
- British Virgin Islands
- Cayman Islands
- Bermuda
Here's a list of Cuba's neighbors with a lower per capita GDP:
- Nicaragua
- Honduras
- Haiti
I think that it depends on their education, I don't know. But I think that the US restricted access as soon as Cuba liberalized emigration ...
Thank you. It is not exactly what I asked for, though. My first question was:
I asked for “your list of wealthy Latin American countries”. Instead you present me with ”a list of Cuba’s neighbours whose per capita GDP is higher (!) than Cuba’s" – as if higher than Cuba’s per capita GPD = wealthy!
And as if wealthy, in the sense of “per capita GPD”, means that people (as opposed to capital) are doing well, which is why I asked my other questions:
Get it?
I actually prefer Cristal, but in spite of the claim, ”la preferida de Cuba”, most Cubans order Bucanero when they have the choice – probably because of the extra 0,5 % alcohol.
But I can get both here in Copenhagen, on the island of Amager where I grew up.
(Heeey, I just discovered that I can actually get it online!)
*shrug* Click on the link I provided yourself, then, and look at the countries and decide for yourself which ones are wealthy. And as for your complaint that I made a list of Cuba's Caribbean neighbors, just a quick boat ride away, rather than countries on the other side of another continent, as I said, the list would have been considerably longer if I had done that.
Well, now, who do you suppose owns the capital in those countries? Cows?
The link doesn't work. Where did I complain that it is a list of Cuba's Caribbean neighbours? I said: "as if higher than Cuba’s per capita GPD = wealthy!"
No, probably not. My guess would be capitalists!
Try it again - it works fine for me.
Or try this: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
Do you own any property? A car? A bank account? If so, then aren't you a capitalist?