Is it so much fun to be a prostitute ?

[RussDill]

With that, I take my leave of this thread.

Good day.

thats just because its under a pig-dog capitalist system without the guidence of the great leader. What, you thought this was somehow a question of basic human nature or something?

 

[dann]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
As a final point I would like to draw a parallel; a parallel that has been drawn on this thread before. This is the parallel between thieves and prostitutes.
It might seem that Dan's hypothesis states that, "by eliminating poverty one could eliminate prostitution."
Drawing the prostitute / thief parallel...
I might speculate that Dan would also hypothesize that "by eliminating poverty one could eliminate thievery."

No, not quite! I’d say that by eliminating private property you would eliminate thieves. There is a very basic flaw in your parallel which I’ll come back to.

Anecdote: I work on Wall St.

Fact: We have the highest concentration of privately, and corporate held, wealth in the world. Even the "poorest" broker would be rich by most standards of living in the world, the country and even the city. Every year dozens of brokers get convicted of various crimes that, when boiled down, are basic thievery.

Evidence: Eliminating poverty does NOT eliminate thievery.
Theory: Eliminating poverty would not eliminate prostitution.

The basic flaw in your argument is that you leave out the important point, prostitution, an occupation where you have to perform services that most people would find very unpleasant if not even disgusting.
The only parallels between prostitution and stealing are that they are both morally condemned by many people and (sometimes) illegal.
One difference, as I think I’ve already mentioned, is that stealing does not necessarily expose you to the same physical unpleasantness as prostitution does. You run a certain risk, but if you’re not caught it’s ‘free money’! And when you decide to try embezzlement or something similar, you probably expect (or at lest hope) to get away with it.
Another very important difference is – and this is one that two very different characters, Scrooge van Duck and Karl Marx, would agree on: There’s no such thing as “enough money”! (A direct quotation from Scrooge, I think, but I don’t know from which album, and I probably read it in Danish anyway) You can get enough (or even too much) of any other thing: air, water, food, sex, love, but it’s in the ’nature’ of money that you cannot get enough (or too much; ask Bill Gates!). In the words of Karl Marx, Capital, Ch. 3:

“The desire after hoarding is in its very nature unsatiable. In its qualitative aspect, or formally considered, money has no bounds to its efficacy, i.e., it is the universal representative of material wealth, because it is directly convertible into any other commodity. But, at the same time, every actual sum of money is limited in amount, and, therefore, as a means of purchasing, has only a limited efficacy. This antagonism between the quantitative limits of money and its qualitative boundlessness, continually acts as a spur to the hoarder in his Sisyphus-like labour of accumulating. It is with him as it is with a conqueror who sees in every new country annexed, only a new boundary.”

Adding to this motivation for stealing among the rich: You might say that it is the mission of the people on Wall Street to enrich themselves at the expense of other people. It therefore should not come as a surprise that some of them find it difficult to stop when they stumble upon or think out a way of doing so just because it happens to be illegal.
However, the unpleasant occupation of prostitution probably isn’t very widespread among stockbrokers, is it? And why not? Because they have much more efficient ways of earning (more than) a living. And if they get into financial difficulties – and that has been known to happen – other ideas would probably occur to them before they turned to prostitution; not because of their brilliant minds, but because they are in a situation that probably offers better opportunities, legal or illegal, than the ones of most women considering prostitution as a way to earn a living.

With that, I take my leave of this thread.
Good day.

Good day to you too.
(This is all I’ve got time for tonight.)

 

[pgwenthold]

The basic flaw in your argument is that you leave out the important point, prostitution, an occupation where you have to perform services that most people would find very unpleasant if not even disgusting.

[gratuitous insult]As opposed to a stockbroker?[/insult]

 

[Earthborn]

I'd say that by eliminating private property you would eliminate thieves.

That can't be true. If there is no private property there is communal property: everything belongs to everyone in the community. In this situation a thief is someone who takes some of the communal property and keeps it to himself, basically stealing from all the others.

prostitution, an occupation where you have to perform services that most people would find very unpleasant if not even disgusting.

And here I though prostitution largely involves doing things that most people find very pleasureable, even exciting.

However, the unpleasant occupation of prostitution probably isn't very widespread among stockbrokers, is it? And why not?

Perhaps because stockbrokers chose to become stockbrokers, not prostitutes? Or because daytrade cannot be easily combined with working at night?

 

[RussDill]

One difference, as I think I’ve already mentioned, is that stealing does not necessarily expose you to the same physical unpleasantness as prostitution does.

Every time you steal you expose yourself to the possibilty of being beaten, stabbed, shot, or caught by police. With legal prostitution, you run none of these risks.

Adding to this motivation for stealing among the rich: You might say that it is the mission of the people on Wall Street to enrich themselves at the expense of other people.

Every high profile case I know where people stole from investors, its not the rich who lose, but the retirees.

It therefore should not come as a surprise that some of them find it difficult to stop when they stumble upon or think out a way of doing so just because it happens to be illegal. However, the unpleasant occupation of prostitution probably isn’t very widespread among stockbrokers, is it?

And you don't think white collar crime is unpleasant? Constant stress and paranoia so intense, that many commit suicide.

And why not? Because they have much more efficient ways of earning (more than) a living. And if they get into financial difficulties – and that has been known to happen – other ideas would probably occur to them before they turned to prostitution; not because of their brilliant minds, but because they are in a situation that probably offers better opportunities, legal or illegal, than the ones of most women considering prostitution as a way to earn a living.

Are you suggesting that we offer a job to everyone that each individual person would choose over prostitution?

 

[dann]

Every time you steal you expose yourself to the possibilty of being beaten, stabbed, shot, or caught by police. With legal prostitution, you run none of these risks.

They need the security guards exactly because the job exposes them to these risks!

Every high profile case I know where people stole from investors, its not the rich who lose, but the retirees.

Yes, they would, wouldn't they?

And you don't think white collar crime is unpleasant? Constant stress and paranoia so intense, that many commit suicide.

Oh, the poor things! (I thought they usually commit suicide when they are about to be exposed or go bankrupt = having to go to jail or live under the circumstances that they expose all the poor people to ...)

Are you suggesting that we offer a job to everyone that each individual person would choose over prostitution?

That sounds like a good idea! (Who are "we" by the way? Don't tell me! You do have influence!)

 

[dann]

That can't be true. If there is no private property there is communal property: everything belongs to everyone in the community. In this situation a thief is someone who takes some of the communal property and keeps it to himself, basically stealing from all the others.

That is so hard to do when it already belongs to him. (But most important: the motive disappears.)

And here I though prostitution largely involves doing things that most people find very pleasureable, even exciting.

We have already been into that: page one of this thread.

Perhaps because stockbrokers chose to become stockbrokers, not prostitutes? Or because daytrade cannot be easily combined with working at night?

Or because prostitutes simple chose to become prostitutes, not stockbrokers? We have already seen a few postings about vocational guidance and breast size ...
(And, no, this is not a suggestion that anybody start making empirical studies!)

 

[dann]

Originally posted by toddjh
Okay, so that's one company [Introducing new technology, laying off workers]. Meanwhile, another company has used a technological advance to create a whole new industry, creating many more jobs. I'm a computer programmer. There weren't many of us 50 years ago.

Yes, and then you probably know how many people computer programming has helped make redundant over the years because new programs have eliminated their jobs! And you are probably also not unaware of the fact that a lot of computer people are often laid off. At least I know that it happened to a lot of people over here not so many years ago. And I think that a lot of your jobs are moved abroad too, for instance when employers discover that Indian programmers are much cheaper. Please remember what the argument was! We were presented with a very naïve model of what happens when companies rationalize their line of production which is what I pointed out with my examples.

More often they do. I have yet to see you respond to the fact that quality of life is much, much higher for both the average person and the poor than it was mere decades ago. Isn't that, along with relatively flat unemployment rates, proof that what you are saying is not completely accurate?

No, it isn’t. What I said was: ": technological improvement in a market economy doesn't take place because the workers are going to benefit from it. And very often they don't!"
I think there are 800 million starving people in this world. I don't know how many poor. (Two billion? Three?) And if you ever were present at a board meeting you would know for a fact that technological improvement doesn’t take place because the workers are going to benefit from it. That is not what stockholdes want! In many ways the average life of the average person has improved over the years, and in many ways it hasn’t. All over Scandinavia there appears to be an epidemic of work-related stress, for instance, because people are driven too hard by their employers or feel that they have to work too much to hold on to their jobs.

Sure I have [heard of people being laid off due to technological improvements]. It can be a pain, as any economic transition is. But they find another job eventually. A better one, if history is any indication -- jobs in developed countries today are, in general, much safer and more pleasant than in the past.

Well, over here we have a lot of people who never find a better (or any) job, and remain unemployed for the rest of their lives. It’s very often extremely difficult for people in many professions to be hired again if they are in their late forties when they are laid off. If you don’t believe me, try reading a book like Richard Sennett’s The Corrosion of Character. (And BTW, I can also recommend this thread started by Lavie Enrose. It may refer to conditions in Canada, but they don’t seem to differ much from conditions in Denmark or the USA.)

Ah, homonym. Sorry, I've been typing a lot today and my brain is fried.

I know how it feels!

It's a joke. It refers to any situation where there is a clear goal coupled with an extremely ill-defined plan for achieving it. You keep referring to "eliminating poverty" without any good suggestions for how we might do that.

Yes, in the discussion about prostitution I’ve pointed out that one thing only can eliminate it: eliminating the thing that makes people become prostitutes: poverty. And how do you eliminate poverty? Eliminate the thing that causes it: the market economy!

dann: I'm not in favour of the circumstances that force these alternatives on people.

I don't think anyone is. I simply think "eliminate poverty" is an inadequate response to the issue.

Does that mean that you agree with me that the circumstances described by me force “these alternatives”, one of which is prostitution, on people? In that case we have come a long way. Watch out, or you could be turning into a commie! J

Well, contrary to what you think, there are people who would be prostitutes even though they could find decent work elsewhere. Like I said in my first post in this thread, I know two of them personally. I do, however, agree with you that such is not the case for vast majority of them.

Then we do agree, at least on this issue, I think. I wouldn’t say that absolutely nobody at all could become at prostitute without being poor. I heard of one person who claimed to have done it for research. But then again: That would require that the phenomenon as such already exists - and it wouldn’t without poverty.

Edited to add: I should add that I agree with the other posters who point out that, if poverty were somehow eliminated, that would simply result in the wages of prostitutes increasing to the point where it would attract more people and fill the void. Very few people would have sex with multiple strangers for fun, but there are some who would do it for enough money.

Well, some do: swingers clubs. But they do cater to a minority. Your example suffers from the idea that poverty could be eliminated and this elimination co-exist alongside abundance of wealth. That could never be the case in a market economy where the Martin Sheens of this world will never run out of poor people to cater to his ‘needs’.

But you speak of wanting to abolish prostitution, but not wanting to abolish waitressing. Why the dichotomy?

As I’ve already pointed out: No, I don’t speak of not wanting to abolish waitressing! No dichotomy! But the occupation as such is not necessarily disgusting. And as the photo was supposed to demonstrate to you: I wouldn’t even mind doing it myself – for free - at a party, as in this case. I don’t mind having sex for free either – actually, it’s the only way I’d have it – but the idea of having to do it for a living is repulsive to me, as it is to most other people, and it is also the reason why drugs are a necessary ‘tool’ to many in that trade, but that is something that has already been covered more than once in this thread.

 

[dann]

dann
No, apparently her boyfriend had emptied her bank account.
But you don't really want to make an effort at finding out what you are talking about, are you?

Originally posted by RussDill
Again, that is her own problem, if she gave him access, then its poor judgement and planning, if he broke in, then it is a proscecutable crime.

Yes, and so she has to pay a lawyer which of course will help her not having to be a hooker, right?! She doesn't even have the money to pay the rent. You don't know what you are talking about and you make absoulutely no effort to find out!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

All you have to do is look to the DPRK and Cuba as a model. If they weren't unfairly embargod by evil world leaders, and were allowed to freely trade with capitalist countries, they'd be a utopia, duh.

Yes, they’d be a utopia, duh. You have no idea what you’re talking about and you don’t even try!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Originally posted by RussDill
In a legal buisness, people can be prosecuted for extortion, blackmail, abuse, working conditions, etc. If the situation exists and is being purposefully overlooked, then you have corruption.

And whoever said that anything had been “purposely overlooked”? As always, you have no idea what you are talking about.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Originally posted by RussDill
The sad thing is, the people with the sign on the side of the road are usually getting more cash than the people working for under the table cash. The poor bastard with the plastic cup is looking for a handout, rather than a job, and is likely mentally ill, alchoholic, or have a drug problem. These people need professional help, not cash.

Then you should tell the inconsiderate people who give it to them.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Originally posted by RussDill
They require health screening, drug tests, etc. You are saying that prostitution is bad on the merit that it requires these things.

No, I’m saying that these measures being required is no indication that this is a good job. They are not required for the same reasons for prostitutes as for pilots of MDs! There’s a big difference between on the one hand performing brainsurgery and flying a plane and on the other giving a blow job. Or do you think that drugtests for prostitutes in Nevada are required because they perform such a difficult job that so many lives depend on? Or because the authorities are afraid that they’ll fall out of the bed thus injuring the johns?

OK then, then it isn't a surprise that they don't require these things for high schoolers, but do for say, airline pilots or crane operators.

No, it isn’t! It isn’t even a surprise to me that prostitutes are required to do drug tests and health tests. Nor is it a surprise to me that they need security guards and bouncers. It is no surprise to me at all! (And, yes, I am saying that these things indicate that this is not a very pleasant occupation!)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Originally posted by RussDill
According to who? I would be highly skeptical that Cuba did not have prostitution, but it was not a problem, so it was overlooked. Also, if prostitution carries an 8 YEAR sentance (which I'd consider a human rights abuse), thats probably pretty good at discouraging it too.

You would be sceptical, yes. I can’t help that. You probably wouldn’t believe Cuban statistics anyway, even if they had any. (You don’t usually have a lot of statistics about a phenomenon that doesn’t exist!) An eight-year sentence would certainly discourage prostitution, yes. The interesting thing, however, is: When was this sentence (re?)introduced? And why wasn't it needed in the meantime?

And the soviet union did this as well. I think it would be difficult to find wholey unbiased reports on prostitution statistics from Cuba. In fact, I'd be surpised if you could find numbers, just vague statements.

See answer above! I’d be surprised if you could come up with any other argument than your general, very vague disbelief in Cuba abolishing prostitution in the 1960s, ‘70s and 80s. But then again: considering the 100.000 prostitutes in Cuba in the 1950s it was a very impressive achievement indeed!

 

[dann]

OK, RussDill, let’s get going:

dann: The problem seems to be that you cannot do basic arithmetic. I have heard this explanation before, and it is still wrong: The consumer gets neither an extra $40 or, more correctly, an extra $10, because HE'S BEEN MADE REDUNDANT! He already lost his job, and he hasn't even got the money he used to have.

RussDill: This would only work if a huge number of consumers worldwide (ie, greater than 50%) were the ones who lost their jobs. The point is, the othe 99.99% of people that still have jobs now spend that extra $40 on something else. That 0.01% of the population can find a job providing these new serivces.

No, it works every day all over the world. People are made redundant, and a lot of them never work again.

Lemme give you an example.
A society exists and only produces wheat.

([a little one sided, but OK) Each citizen must work their full day to provide enough wheat.

Suddenly, (!) someone invents something that automates portions of the wheat production. By your logic, this would be bad, because you wouldn't need as many workers, and these workers would then starve because they could not buy wheat, since they did not work.

NO! By my standards, this would be very, very good! - if we weren’t talking about a market economy. It is only the logic of the market economy that says that when machines save work, people don't simply work less, but some people don't work at all and therefore starve.

Lets say 30% of the workforce gets laid off. There is now a surplus of grain, can the extra grain be bartered for something?

I assume that the wheat production remained the same as before? With 70.000 workers 100.000 tons of wheat are produced, and the number of workers reduced from 100.000.

Certainly, the extra 30% of the workers grows grapes and makes wine, which it barters for wheat. At this point, everyone is all working the same number of hours they used to, getting the same amount of grain, but now has wine with their meal.

The naivety of your example here becomes evident: The workers who were made redundant start growing wine, just like that! No, they don’t! They’ve been made redundant, penniless, and therefore they have no money with which to buy land, trees, fertilizer and tools – or even wheat to feed themselves. Well, no, of course, in your example a group of employers, owners of land, trees, fertilizer, tools and extra money for wages are simply waiting somewhere in the wings for a group of workers to be made redundant!

dann: The wealth of a nation is very different from the wealth of its inhabitants.

The nation itself here owns very little, the people own property, either by themselves, or through cooperation with other citizens in what is known as a corporation.

It would be interesting to know what the purpose of the production is: Accumulation of money? Feeding the population? Feeding the owners of the means of production?
If the purpose is to feed the population, then everybody is happy, because everybody can now get enough to eat and reduce their working hours by 30%. Instead of working 30 hours a week, they now have to work only 20 hours. They could spend the extra hours partying. At that point it might occur to them that by working an extra hour a week, they could use the extra wheat to brew their own beer, which would undoubtedly liven up their otherwise rather boring wheat bread parties!

dann: You Americans ought to know. This, by the way, is the reason why the health care system in a relatively poor country such as Cuba is so excellent.

Oh yes, I always here about those miraculous medical advancements and groundbreaking surgeries in Cuba. BTW, do have a source for this "excellent" Cuba health care system? Oh, wait, they do have an excellent health care system, for the social elite:
http://www.canfnet.org/Issues/medicalapartheid.htm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Then let’s take a look at your anti-Cuban article:

Cuba's economy is in disarray as a direct result of its government's continued adherence to a discredited communist economic model. This decline has directly affected the health of ordinary Cubans. Lack of chlorinated water, poor nutrition, deteriorating housing, and generally unsanitary conditions have increased the number of cases of infectious diseases, especially in concentrated urban areas like Havana.

As we all know: In all the other Latin American countries the economies are flourishing as a direct result of their governments’ adherence to a successful capitalist economy! Yeah, right!

The grave economic problems in Cuba were exacerbated by the demise of the Soviet Union and the ending of the $5 billion in subsidies that the U.S.S.R. gave annually to the Castro government. Cuba made significant advances in the quality of health care available to average citizens as a result of these subsidies. However, it devoted the bulk of its financial windfall to maintaining an out-sized military machine and a massive internal security apparatus.

As we all know the quality of health care in Latin America is top notch. And not a single one of them, with the exception of Cuba, would ever dream of ‘maintaining an out-sized military machine ad security apparatus’. The reason for this, of course, is that all subsidies from the World Bank, the US Government etc. demand that the donated money is always used in a way that benefits the poor! Yeah, right! (It is particularly evil when Cuba insists on maintaining an army, in spite of the willingness of its powerful neighbour to defend Cuba against all enemies, right?!)

The end of Soviet subsidies forced Cuba to face the real costs of its health care system. Unwilling to adopt the economic changes necessary to reform its dysfunctional economy, the Castro government quickly faced a large budget deficit. In response, the Cuban Government made a deliberate decision to continue to spend money to maintain its military and internal security apparatus at the expense of other priorities--including health care.

It must have been a very painful transition, yes, but Cuba nevertheless succeeded in maintaining its health care system. The furniture may be a little worn, but if you compare the number of doctors in Cuba with other Latin American countries it is still amazing what they have accomplished. And that Cuba is able to send doctors abroad to help other countries never ceases to amaze me.

According to the Pan American Health Organization, the Cuban Government currently devotes a smaller percentage of its budget for health care than such regional countries as Jamaica, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic.

Then apparently Cuba must have a bigger budget. Or maybe it’s a question of Cuban doctors being as cheap as they are!

Health Care in Cuba: "Medical Apartheid" and Health Tourism
Of course, not everyone in Cuba receives substandard health care. In fact, senior Cuban Communist Party officials and those who can pay in hard currency can get first-rate medical services any time they want.

Of course, in any other Latin American country but Cuba substandard health care wouldn’t really bother anybody, would it? Substandard health care or even no doctors at all in a Peruvian or Guatemalan village would just be a sign of the people there not being able to pay for a doctor’s services, supply and demand. It wouldn’t bother anybody that the rich get all the medical care they can buy – sometimes by taking the next plane to the USA. Whereas in Cuba, with free health care for everybody, the writers of this article see nothing but signs of exploitation of the poor!!!

This situation exists because the Cuban Government has chosen to develop a two-tiered medical system--the deliberate establishment of a kind of "medical apartheid"--that funnels money into services for a privileged few, while depriving the health care system used by the vast majority of Cubans of adequate funding.

Yeah, right. It would surprise me if health care in Cuba didn’t suffer cut backs along with everything else in the 90s, but surprisingly enough it’s still there and still so efficient that I have heard of Cubans living in Denmark who went back to Cuba to be examined by the doctors there because they were not content with the examinations they had received by the hospitals here.

Following the loss of Soviet subsidies, Cuba developed special hospitals and set aside floors in others for exclusive use by foreigners who pay in hard currency. These facilities are well-equipped to provide their patients with quality modern care. Press reports indicate that during 1996 more than 7,000 "health tourists" paid Cuba $25 million for medical services.
Cuba's "Medical Technology Fair" held April 21-25 presented a graphic display of this two-tier medical system. The fair displayed an array of both foreign and Cuban-manufactured medicines and high-tech medical equipment and services items not available to most Cubans. The fair showcased Cuban elite hospitals promoted by "health tourism" enterprises such as SERVIMED and MEDICUBA.

That is not even all! The Cubans had to sell out of other resources as well. The wonderful beaches of Varadero were turned into a holiday resort exclusively for tourists, off limits to the Cubans, except for the ones who have to work there. You can imagine what that feels like in a country priding itself of the achievement of its revolution, one of which being that the beaches that used to be the private property of the rich, including a lot of norte americanos, were now open for everybody, black or white. Things like that have, of course, caused a lot of resentment, but the Cubans have stood up with it only because they have understood the necessity for these measures in the Special Period, “the ending of the $5 billion in subsidies that the U.S.S.R. gave annually”. Yes, a thing like that does take a lot of reorganization – and luckily the Cubans seem to know that this is something that they have to get through. They are not at all fond of “this two-tier medical system”. But the three-tier medical system in other Latin American countries going from luxurious health care for the rich and none at all for the poor is not an alternative that they would like to reintroduce. They didn’t like it in Batista’s days, and they don’t like it now.

On the other hand, members of the Cuban Communist Party elite, and the military high-command are allowed to use these hospitals free of charge. Certain diplomatic missions in Havana have been contacted and told that their local employees can be granted access privileges to these elite medical facilities--if they pay in dollars.

That the “Cuban Communist Party elite” is an elite the same way that the elite in the USA or in any other North or South American country is an elite, that is: with the privileges of the rich in those countries, is too absurd for ordinary Cubans to believe: They are able to see how party members and leaders live! And since hospital workers are also ordinary Cubans, it would not remain a secret for very long if health care for an elite was very different than for the rest of the Cubans. The Cuban revolution was fortunate enough to have Che Guevara as one of its leaders, and Che set a very good example when it came to the ‘party elite’ hoarding elitist privileges for themselves! (I can recommend the book Ernesto Che Guevara – A Revolutionary Life, by John Lee Anderson, an American, I think. It contains enough examples to show that, no, Che Guevara was not a god, he was not a Mother Theresa, he was a revolutionary and a human being with good and bad sides, but if there was one thing he could not stand, it was the leaders of the revolution being privileged in comparison with ordinary people.)

The founder of Havana's International Center for Neurological Restoration, Dr. Hilda Molina, in 1994 quit her position after refusing to increase the number of neural transplant operations without the required testing and follow-up. She expressed outrage that only foreigners are treated. Dr. Molina resigned from her seat in the national legislature, and returned the medals Fidel Castro had bestowed on her for her work.
In 1994, Cuba exported $110 million worth of medical supplies. In 1995, this figure rose to $125 million. These earnings have not been used to support the health care system for the Cuban public. In fact, tens of millions of dollars have been diverted to support and subsidize Cuba's biomedical research programs--money that could have been used for primary care facilities.

Yes, indeed. Cuba is so poor that all the money in one sector is at the same time needed in all the others! But in order to build up the economy these are some of the very drastic measures that they are forced to take.

Another means of earning foreign exchange at the expense of providing health care to ordinary Cubans is the government's policy to export its doctors to other countries. South Africa alone has nearly 300 Cuban doctors. Cuba, in the early 1990s, reportedly planned to have 10,000 physicians abroad by the turn of the century.
A group of Cuban doctors recently arrived in the United States said they were "mystified" by claims in a recent report of the American Association for World Health (AAWH) that the United States embargo is to be blamed for the public health situation in the country.
According to these doctors, "we . . . can categorically and authoritatively state that our people's poor health care situation results from a dysfunctional and inhumane economic and political system, exacerbated by the regime to divert scarce resources to meet the needs of the regime's elite and foreign patients who bring hard currency."

Yes, that is what you would expect to hear from defectors, isn’t it? And as doctors, that is as some of the people who have benefited from Cuba’s free education, they will be able to use this education to earn a lot of hard currency in the USA. The difference being that the hard currency will go into their own pockets and not towards helping the Cuban economy back on track. That is the way that a market economy functions, so let us forget about the thousands of Cuban doctors who work abroad and don’t defect, even though they have the chance. Because they know what they are working for, and what the purpose is of the sacrifices they make. Again the MD Che Guevara serves as an inspiration to them!

Referring to the growing disparity between health care provided to ordinary Cubans and that offered to tourists and high ranking Communist party members, the exiled Cuban doctors noted that they "wish that any one of us could provide tours to foreign visitors of the hospitals Cira Garcia, Frank Pais, CIMEQ, and Hermanos Ameijeiras, in order to point out the medicines and equipment, even the bedsheets and blankets, reserved for regime elites or dollar-bearing foreigners, to the detriment of our people, who must bring their own bedsheets, to say nothing of the availability of medicines."

I suppose that they did not mention the US blockade in that context. And as I’ve already pointed out: The Cubans know about Cuba providing health care for foreigners for money! They are the ones working there!

This statement by these newly arrived Cuban doctors is corroborated by the latest available trade figures for Cuba (1995). Cuba's imports totaled $2.8 billion dollars, yet only $46 million dollars--only 1.5% of overall foreign purchases--on medical imports for its 11 million people. By comparison, Cuba's neighbor, the Dominican Republic, spent $208 million dollars on medical imports for its 7.5 million citizens in 1995.

Cuban economy hit an all-time low in the middle of the 90s, so that would be a very good year to use for unfavourable comparisons. I still don’t think that Cubans in general would want to become Dominicans. Even the “group of Cuban doctors” probably knew enough about the conditions there to make them decide to defect to the USA instead.

U.S. Sales of Medicines and Medical Supplies to Cuba
The US embargo does NOT deny medicines and medical supplies to the Cuban people. As stipulated in Section 1705 of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, the U.S. Government routinely issues licenses for the sale of medicine and medical supplies to Cuba. The only requirement for obtaining a license is to arrange for end-use monitoring to ensure that there is no reasonable likelihood that these items could be diverted to the Cuban military, used in acts of torture or other human rights abuses, or re-exported or used in the production of biotechnological products.

Yeeaaah, riiiight!!! We, the US regime, do not deny anybody medical supplies. All we require is the right to guarantee that Cuba won’t use our antibiotics to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction! And the Cubans have no reason whatsoever not to believe in our good intentions!

Monitoring of sales can be performed by independent non-governmental organizations, international organizations, or foreign diplomats.

Whom we’ll trust the same way we trusted that Hans Blix guy, that is, as long as they report only what we want them to report!

Since 1992, 36 of 38 license requests have been approved to U.S. companies and their subsidiaries to sell medicine and medical equipment to Cuba. Sales have included such items as thalamonal, depo-provera, pediatric solutions, syringes, and other items. The Department of Commerce declined the other two requests for licenses it received for failure to meet legal standards. Both of these exceptions to the general policy of approving commercial medical sales occurred in 1994.
Moreover, the U.S. embargo on Cuba affects only U.S. companies and their subsidiaries. Other nations and companies are free to trade with Cuba. Should Cuba choose not to purchase from the U.S., it can purchase any medicine or medical equipment it needs from other countries. Such third-country transactions only cost an estimated 2%-3% more than purchases from the U.S. as a result of higher shipping costs.

And, of course, there is no such thing as companies dealing with Cuba being punished, is there?

Humanitarian Assistance
The Cuban Democracy Act encourages the donation of humanitarian supplies to the people of Cuba, including medicine, food, and clothing.
Since the passage of the Cuban Democracy Act, the U.S. has become the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Cuba. Much of the humanitarian assistance by U.S. non-governmental organizations consists of medicines and medical equipment. The U.S. Government has licensed more than $150 million in humanitarian assistance to Cuba over the last four years. That is more than the total of worldwide foreign aid to Cuba during that period.
U.S. humanitarian assistance has been distributed throughout the island, including to medical clinics. Monitoring is not required for donations of medicines for humanitarian purposes to non-governmental organizations in Cuba.

Just too bad that hospitals in Cuba happen to be governmental institutions!
"Even more farcical is the new opening which allows non-governmental organizations to purchase food and medicines. Thereby, churches in Cuba will be permitted to buy medicines but not Cuban hospitals (all governmental). So now the churches can do diagnoses, treatments and surgery. In turn, the hospitals can lead the prayers - for the patients who are treated by the churches.
David Wald Project USA/Cuba InfoMed”
http://www.cubasolidarity.net/blockade.html

In addition it is believed that the single largest source of medicines used in Cuba today is the large volume of "care packages" sent to Cuba by family members living in the U.S. These "care packages" are worth millions of dollars each year.

Which is probably the reason why the USA have recently placed new restrictions on what and how much family members are allowed to send to Cuba.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

dann: And it is the reason why you have so many prostitutes in the world's richest nation, the USA.
I'm not sure what you are trying to claim here. Are you trying to say that the US has a proportionally large population of people who cannot make money any other way than prostitution?

Nooooo! I wouldn’t dream of saying a thing like that! What I’m saying is that I’m so happy for you! To be able to live in a country that provides so many horny women, who dream of nothing but to sleep with ten stangers a day, with the opportunity to get paid for doing so and thus live a life of luxury. Where else but in the land of opportunity would they be able to fulfil their dream like that! It is just so typical that the Cuban communists deprived women of this privileged opportunity as soon as they took over after the US favourite pimp Batista!
And you and I, RussDill, we can both be proud and happy to live in countries where we won’t see some rich guy, say, the leader of a party or a corporation, receive better health care than the welfare mother of two living in the slums. We both know for a fact that a thing like that will never happen in either Denmark or the USA where we have one-tier health care systems where nobody is treated any different from all the others, no matter what their position is! No corruption and the same kind of health care, education and nutritional meals for everybody!
We are happy not be ruled by a Communist elite, but by decent politicians who would never dream of doing anything improper. Even your presidents wouldn’t stoop so low as to pay some prostitute for a spell of casual sex. In spite of their position they would much rather make do with a simple chubby intern. Just like everybody else! Now that’s a real-life Cinderella story! Unlike Castro and his ilk, men like that deserve our true respect and our daily sacrifices!
This, of course, is the only reason why you would like to see the health care system of Cuba replaced by the one they have in Haiti, isn't it?! And who knows? If Bush succeeds it might actually happen …

In the meantime we’ll have to await the film Sicko about health care made in the USA (not due till 2006):
http://www.detnews.com/2004/health/0412/22/health-40252.htm
I can also recommend the book Adventures in a TV Nation, especially the chapter about the 'health care competition' between Cuba, the USA and Canada (a very funny example of censorship in the USA): http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...45/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-1509374-2484022

And if you want to read up on the US blockade and its effects on health in Cuba, look here:
The Effect of the US Blockade on the Health of the Cuban people: http://www.cubasolidarity.net/inemheal.html
Cuban medical purchases from the USA still a fantasy: http://www.cubasolidarity.net/blockade.html#health

 

[dann]

In my answer to toddjh yesterday 01-22-2005 11:47 I refered to a thread started by Lavie Enrose, but I forgot to link to it: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49214

 

[RussDill]

They need the security guards exactly because the job exposes them to these risks!
[/quote

Eh? I was explaining how theft is more dangerous than legal prostitution.

Yes, they would, wouldn't they?

Yes, so why would stealing from the rich be some sort of motivation, your argument makes no sense.

Oh, the poor things! (I thought they usually commit suicide when they are about to be exposed or go bankrupt = having to go to jail or live under the circumstances that they expose all the poor people to ...)

Hence, white collar crime is not some easy choice that people just love to engage in.

That sounds like a good idea! (Who are "we" by the way? Don't tell me! You do have influence!)

My point exactly, its non-sensical, no one has such an ability. There are always going to be people who choose prostitution over the other options available to them

 

[RussDill]

That is so hard to do when it already belongs to him. (But most important: the motive disappears.)

No, it does not belong to him, it belongs to the community, and he must share it with everyone. If he wants it to himself for the full benifits, he must steal it.

 

[RussDill]

Yes, and then you probably know how many people computer programming has helped make redundant over the years because new programs have eliminated their jobs!

Yes, many extremely boring, repetative jobs have been eliminated. The cost of many goods and services has gone down by a huge factor, which means extra money in the economy, which means more jobs.

And you are probably also not unaware of the fact that a lot of computer people are often laid off. At least I know that it happened to a lot of people over here not so many years ago.

Times change, companies change, happens especially quickly with engineering. In fact, most jobs when you take them are for a specific length of time, ie, 18 months. Its not a big deal, you go get another job. In fact, most people view it as a plus, because you are always doing something new.

And I think that a lot of your jobs are moved abroad too, for instance when employers discover that Indian programmers are much cheaper.

That is the way a market economy works, if someone is more efficient at doing something, then they should do it. Surely this is also the goal of a communist economy, give the job to the individual who will do it most efficiently. Can you not see that everyone benifits by everyone doing the job that they are best at?

Please remember what the argument was! We were presented with a very naïve model of what happens when companies rationalize their line of production which is what I pointed out with my examples.

Yup, and it means that companies and consumers save money, which means they have extra money to spend, which means more jobs.

No, it isn’t. What I said was: ": technological improvement in a market economy doesn't take place because the workers are going to benefit from it. And very often they don't!"

Cite a technological improvement that workers and consumers have not benifited from? If so, would this same innovation harm a communist system? If so, why one and on the other?

I think there are 800 million starving people in this world.

Countries are willing to give enough food aid to feed everyone. However, many countries, like north korea, don't distribute it to the people who need it for political reasons. If they can use the food aid to feed their military for instance, they don't need to spend money on food, and can buy bullets instead.

I don't know how many poor. (Two billion? Three?)

Corruption breeds poverty. There is a very good example of this where I live, mexico.

And if you ever were present at a board meeting you would know for a fact that technological improvement doesn’t take place because the workers are going to benefit from it.

Being a worker present at board meetings that directly benifits from technological improvements kinda makes this point moot.

That is not what stockholdes want!

Eh? technological improvement makes a company more competative. A more competitive company makes more profits. A company that makes more profits can experience more growth.

In many ways the average life of the average person has improved over the years, and in many ways it hasn’t. All over Scandinavia there appears to be an epidemic of work-related stress, for instance, because people are driven too hard by their employers or feel that they have to work too much to hold on to their jobs.

Yes, the suicide rate there is very high. Oddly enough (for your theories), it is pretty low in the US. I think knowing that your capabilities aren't limited lowers stress.

Well, over here we have a lot of people who never find a better (or any) job, and remain unemployed for the rest of their lives.

Doesn't your government offer job education programs? Do these people both enrolling?

It’s very often extremely difficult for people in many professions to be hired again if they are in their late forties when they are laid off.

Probably because their profession is no longer usefull, pick a different profession. Get some continued education. After the transistor was invented, everyone who worked in vacuum tubes had to find a new profession. It would have not made sense to force the transition to not occur.

If you don’t believe me, try reading a book like Richard Sennett’s The Corrosion of Character. (And BTW, I can also recommend this thread started by Lavie Enrose. It may refer to conditions in Canada, but they don’t seem to differ much from conditions in Denmark or the USA.)

I recommend adam smith.

Yes, in the discussion about prostitution I’ve pointed out that one thing only can eliminate it: eliminating the thing that makes people become prostitutes: poverty. And how do you eliminate poverty? Eliminate the thing that causes it: the market economy!

So you are saying that povery does not occur in communist countries? We'll keep you around, you are pretty funny. Also, there have been many examples pointed out where the other alternative exist, but people choose become prostitutes.

Then we do agree, at least on this issue, I think. I wouldn’t say that absolutely nobody at all could become at prostitute without being poor. I heard of one person who claimed to have done it for research. But then again: That would require that the phenomenon as such already exists - and it wouldn’t without poverty.

There are many people who would rather do prostitution than jobs that pay less and require more work. There are many people who would do prostitution just to earn extra money on the side of the job they already have.

Well, some do: swingers clubs. But they do cater to a minority. Your example suffers from the idea that poverty could be eliminated and this elimination co-exist alongside abundance of wealth. That could never be the case in a market economy where the Martin Sheens of this world will never run out of poor people to cater to his ‘needs’.

Why not? Poverty in this country has virtually been eliminated by the standards of other nations. Poor people here are having trouble making car payments, as apposed to other countries where people have trouble finding a meal.

As I’ve already pointed out: No, I don’t speak of not wanting to abolish waitressing! No dichotomy! But the occupation as such is not necessarily disgusting. And as the photo was supposed to demonstrate to you: I wouldn’t even mind doing it myself – for free - at a party,

Clearly, you've never been a waitress for any period of time, and have no clue the difficulties the job entails. I would not define what you did at the party as "waitressing".

as in this case. I don’t mind having sex for free either – actually, it’s the only way I’d have it – but the idea of having to do it for a living is repulsive to me, as it is to most other people,

No one is forced to do prostitution, just as no one is forced to do drugs. It is always a choice.

and it is also the reason why drugs are a necessary ‘tool’ to many in that trade, but that is something that has already been covered more than once in this thread.

I don't see any drugs in legal prostitution.

 

[RussDill]

Yes, and so she has to pay a lawyer which of course will help her not having to be a hooker, right?! She doesn't even have the money to pay the rent. You don't know what you are talking about and you make absoulutely no effort to find out!

No, you are clueless. You don't have to buy a lawyer to prosecute a crime. The state prosecutes crimes.

Yes, they’d be a utopia, duh. You have no idea what you’re talking about and you don’t even try!

Then point to a time that a communist country has been a utopia, other than when it was being sent billions of dollars.

And whoever said that anything had been “purposely overlooked”? As always, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Then please, stop avoiding the issue, why would any explotation be occuring at a legal brothel.

Then you should tell the inconsiderate people who give it to them.

Somehow, I don't think that is a solution.

No, I’m saying that these measures being required is no indication that this is a good job.

eh? Who listed them as merits for it being a good job?

They are not required for the same reasons for prostitutes as for pilots of MDs!

Health screeing tests are required for the same reason for prostitutes and MD's. So they don't spread disease. Drug tests are also required for the same reason as all three, because drugs cause risky behavior.

There’s a big difference between on the one hand performing brainsurgery and flying a plane and on the other giving a blow job.

Wow, the jobs are different, what a surprise, however, the reasoning behind the screenings are similar.

Or do you think that drugtests for prostitutes in Nevada are required because they perform such a difficult job that so many lives depend on?

The health and safety of the customers depend on them being clean from drugs. Just as with doctors and pilots.

Or because the authorities are afraid that they’ll fall out of the bed thus injuring the johns?

People on drugs are prone to violent acts, and also are prone to contracting many diseases.

No, it isn’t! It isn’t even a surprise to me that prostitutes are required to do drug tests and health tests. Nor is it a surprise to me that they need security guards and bouncers. It is no surprise to me at all! (And, yes, I am saying that these things indicate that this is not a very pleasant occupation!)

So...then being a doctor is not a pleasent occupation either.

You would be sceptical, yes. I can’t help that. You probably wouldn’t believe Cuban statistics anyway, even if they had any. (You don’t usually have a lot of statistics about a phenomenon that doesn’t exist!) An eight-year sentence would certainly discourage prostitution, yes. The interesting thing, however, is: When was this sentence (re?)introduced? And why wasn't it needed in the meantime?

Wouldn't you be distrustful of a government locks people away for printing or saying negative things? If the government line is "we don't have a prostitution problem", you don't go out a publish statistics that say otherwise, it gets you locked up.

See answer above! I’d be surprised if you could come up with any other argument than your general, very vague disbelief in Cuba abolishing prostitution in the 1960s, ‘70s and 80s. But then again: considering the 100.000 prostitutes in Cuba in the 1950s it was a very impressive achievement indeed!

Again, its because anyone who doesn't tow the government line gets locked up and you don't hear from them.

 

[RussDill]

No, it works every day all over the world. People are made redundant, and a lot of them never work again.

No one is ever made redundant. Jobs and skills are made redundant. Some jobs never exist again. If someone is willing, they can reeducate themselves and get a different job, maybe in a different field. If a large percentage of people who's job's were made redundant never worked again, then the majority of people would be unemployed.

NO! By my standards, this would be very, very good! - if we weren’t talking about a market economy.

Why is it different? In a communist economy, the a few people select what gets made. They choose the people who can do it most efficiently. The only difference in a market economy is that everyone democratically decide what gets made. They choose the people who can do it most efficiently.

The end result, in an ideal world, is the same. However, in a communist economy, the select few with this amount of control, not only tend to make mistakes, but are corruptable.

It is only the logic of the market economy that says that when machines save work, people don't simply work less, but some people don't work at all and therefore starve.

If a machine saves time in a communist country, people don't simply work 4 hour days. The rest of their work day is spend doing something. And why make them commute from job to job in the middle of the day, just dedicate fewer people to wheat production.

In a market economy, these extra workers would innovate and create wine. I do not think communist planners would necessarily do this.

I assume that the wheat production remained the same as before? With 70.000 workers 100.000 tons of wheat are produced, and the number of workers reduced from 100.000.
The naivety of your example here becomes evident: The workers who were made redundant start growing wine, just like that! No, they don’t! They’ve been made redundant, penniless, and therefore they have no money with which to buy land, trees, fertilizer and tools – or even wheat to feed themselves. Well, no, of course, in your example a group of employers, owners of land, trees, fertilizer, tools and extra money for wages are simply waiting somewhere in the wings for a group of workers to be made redundant!

Yup, that is how a capitalist economy works. There are investors, both large and small, who would seek to also gain from such a venture. In this case, the wheat growers would loan the wine growers tools and food while their venture got started. The wheat growers that chose to loan would get a certain amount of "reward" wine in return.

It would be interesting to know what the purpose of the production is: Accumulation of money? Feeding the population? Feeding the owners of the means of production?

Whatever the consumer wants. The consumer votes with their dollar. Accumulation of money by a producer would be fruitless, money alone does nothing, they would spend the money at somepoint, or invest the money in other ventures. Feeding the population would not be a goal, that would be giving it away for no return. Feeding the owners of the means of production would be great, but say you are producing more than you eat.

The idea then would be to barter or trade your production for things other people are producing.

If the purpose is to feed the population, then everybody is happy, because everybody can now get enough to eat and reduce their working hours by 30%. Instead of working 30 hours a week, they now have to work only 20 hours. They could spend the extra hours partying.

They don't have any wine. They want wine. What can they do to get wine? The extra time in their day is not long enough to manage their own vineyard.

At that point it might occur to them that by working an extra hour a week, they could use the extra wheat to brew their own beer, which would undoubtedly liven up their otherwise rather boring wheat bread parties!

Then they all have their own brewery, and switch their labor from wheat to beer daily. It would be more efficient if they had a set of individuals that were dedicated to brewing beer.

Then let’s take a look at your anti-Cuban article:

As we all know: In all the other Latin American countries the economies are flourishing as a direct result of their governments’ adherence to a successful capitalist economy! Yeah, right!

Why say, "yeah right", The economic improvements are very self evident.

As we all know the quality of health care in Latin America is top notch. And not a single one of them, with the exception of Cuba, would ever dream of ‘maintaining an out-sized military machine ad security apparatus’.

Cuba is not even fighting an ongoing military campaign, many countries in latin america are.

The reason for this, of course, is that all subsidies from the World Bank, the US Government etc. demand that the donated money is always used in a way that benefits the poor! Yeah, right!

Why say "yeah right", why is this an unreasonable demand?

(It is particularly evil when Cuba insists on maintaining an army, in spite of the willingness of its powerful neighbour to defend Cuba against all enemies, right?!)

Cuba is in no danger of invasion. Maybe a removal of an oppresive dictator, but thats about it. In fact, castro is starving his people to finance an army for one purpose, to defend one man, himself.

Then apparently Cuba must have a bigger budget. Or maybe it’s a question of Cuban doctors being as cheap as they are!

Cuban doctors are cheap to tourists because the cost and standard of living in cuba is so low. Of course, that also means that the locals cannot afford these "cheap" doctors.

Of course, in any other Latin American country but Cuba substandard health care wouldn’t really bother anybody, would it? Substandard health care or even no doctors at all in a Peruvian or Guatemalan village would just be a sign of the people there not being able to pay for a doctor’s services, supply and demand.

In most of these countries, ie, brazil, emergency health care and immunization is part of a government program

It wouldn’t bother anybody that the rich get all the medical care they can buy – sometimes by taking the next plane to the USA.

A growing economy can only sustain so much, but the health care in these countries improves every day. A similar situation cannot be said about cuba.

Whereas in Cuba, with free health care for everybody, the writers of this article see nothing but signs of exploitation of the poor!!!

I didn't see anything about "free health care for everybody" I see a two tier system that serves the rich and those that pay, and shun the poor.

Yeah, right. It would surprise me if health care in Cuba didn’t suffer cut backs along with everything else in the 90s, but surprisingly enough it’s still there and still so efficient that I have heard of Cubans living in Denmark who went back to Cuba to be examined by the doctors there because they were not content with the examinations they had received by the hospitals here.

Because it is a two tier system. The health care that a tourist receives and pays for is not the health care that you get if you are poor and living there. The health care that a tourist receives in cuba is entirely based on capitalist ideas. If the health care you can get in cuba when you pay for it is better than any other place, it is only because you pay for it.

That is not even all! The Cubans had to sell out of other resources as well. The wonderful beaches of Varadero were turned into a holiday resort exclusively for tourists, off limits to the Cubans, except for the ones who have to work there. You can imagine what that feels like in a country priding itself of the achievement of its revolution, one of which being that the beaches that used to be the private property of the rich, including a lot of norte americanos, were now open for everybody, black or white.

You mean they don't have a black only beach, and a white only beach anymore? What about drinking fountains, public pools, buses, and restrooms, those are still segregated, right? The more you talk, the dumber you sound.

Having the beaches open to tourism wouldn't be so bad if the cuban people actually benifited. The money instead goes straight to the government, and the people never see these profits. I know that those in mexico are more than happy to open their beaches to tourists who are loose with their money, because the people actually benifit.

Things like that have, of course, caused a lot of resentment, but the Cubans have stood up with it only because they have understood the necessity for these measures in the Special Period, “the ending of the $5 billion in subsidies that the U.S.S.R. gave annually”. Yes, a thing like that does take a lot of reorganization – and luckily the Cubans seem to know that this is something that they have to get through. They are not at all fond of “this two-tier medical system”. But the three-tier medical system in other Latin American countries going from luxurious health care for the rich and none at all for the poor is not an alternative that they would like to reintroduce. They didn’t like it in Batista’s days, and they don’t like it now.

And if they would drop their tyrannical government, they could actually enjoy the economic fruits of tourism, their economy could actually grow.

That the “Cuban Communist Party elite” is an elite the same way that the elite in the USA or in any other North or South American country is an elite

No, because they have earned nothing, not even the respect of the people. The "elite" here are either famous, rich, or in politics. Those who are famous or in politics have earned the vote of the people. Those who are rich have also earned the vote of the people, by producing something that people want and will pay for.

that is: with the privileges of the rich in those countries, is too absurd for ordinary Cubans to believe: They are able to see how party members and leaders live! And since hospital workers are also ordinary Cubans, it would not remain a secret for very long if health care for an elite was very different than for the rest of the Cubans. The Cuban revolution was fortunate enough to have Che Guevara as one of its leaders, and Che set a very good example when it came to the ‘party elite’ hoarding elitist privileges for themselves! (I can recommend the book Ernesto Che Guevara – A Revolutionary Life, by John Lee Anderson, an American, I think. It contains enough examples to show that, no, Che Guevara was not a god, he was not a Mother Theresa, he was a revolutionary and a human being with good and bad sides, but if there was one thing he could not stand, it was the leaders of the revolution being privileged in comparison with ordinary people.)

In such a society, it is a slave/master relationship pure and simple. No individual can work hard, and become a member of the elite, because they are not a member of the party, it is a caste system. My girlfriends parents immigrated from south korea, they had no money, they worked hard, and now own and operate two tutoring centers and would be a member of what you consider the "elite".

Yes, indeed. Cuba is so poor that all the money in one sector is at the same time needed in all the others! But in order to build up the economy these are some of the very drastic measures that they are forced to take.

The biomedical research is a capitalist venture. The people will not be given the fruits of this venture, it will be sold to the highest bidder, just as all of the best of cuban health care.

Yes, that is what you would expect to hear from defectors, isn’t it?

Ok, how about we here it straight from the cuban people. Oh, wait, you can't, because if they say anything, they will be imprisioned. Everyday we have people coming here on rafts. In fact, the percentage of hatians in southren florida is huge. How can you trust a government that locks up those that disagree with them?

And as doctors, that is as some of the people who have benefited from Cuba’s free education, they will be able to use this education to earn a lot of hard currency in the USA.

No, to be a doctor in the US, you need to go to medschool in the US, and do your residency in the US (at least, if you come from a country with different health standards, like cuba). Becoming an MD in the US is a very long, rigourous, and expensive process. However, many cubans do come here, and go through that process with their hard work. Also, I am skeptical of anyone being educated in cuba to become a doctor other than the elite.

The difference being that the hard currency will go into their own pockets and not towards helping the Cuban economy back on track.

Rewarding someone for hard work *is* the way to keep an economy on track.

That is the way that a market economy functions, so let us forget about the thousands of Cuban doctors who work abroad and don’t defect, even though they have the chance.

Would you defect if you were a member of the social elite? If the rest in your country were essentially slaves? A moral person would. A greedy person would not.

Because they know what they are working for, and what the purpose is of the sacrifices they make. Again the MD Che Guevara serves as an inspiration to them!

Then the money and equal health care would go to the people, it is not.

I suppose that they did not mention the US blockade in that context. And as I’ve already pointed out: The Cubans know about Cuba providing health care for foreigners for money! They are the ones working there!

The blocade does not apply to medical supplies or doctors.

Cuban economy hit an all-time low in the middle of the 90s, so that would be a very good year to use for unfavourable comparisons.

Then give me more recent numbers

I still don’t think that Cubans in general would want to become Dominicans. Even the “group of Cuban doctors” probably knew enough about the conditions there to make them decide to defect to the USA instead.

The dominicans have better health care, they'd much rather be american anyway. About ONE TENTH of the cuban population has managed to leave cuba and enter the US.

Yeeaaah, riiiight!!! We, the US regime, do not deny anybody medical supplies. All we require is the right to guarantee that Cuba won’t use our antibiotics to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction! And the Cubans have no reason whatsoever not to believe in our good intentions!

The article specifically cites that medicial supplies that can be used in torture cannot be sent. IE, anthrax has a specific medical purpose, but we will not send it. Cuba has a history of torturing disadents, why would we be a party to that? Why is it unreasonable to require that?

Whom we’ll trust the same way we trusted that Hans Blix guy, that is, as long as they report only what we want them to report!

The actual role of the UN inspectors in international intelligence was very small. The vast majority of intelligence was carried by agencies. Most countries had intelligence that agreed.

And, of course, there is no such thing as companies dealing with Cuba being punished, is there?

eh? If someone sells or imports to cuba from the US, there will be recourse. If someone from another country does, it doesn't matter.

Just too bad that hospitals in Cuba happen to be governmental institutions!

Because it is understood that the governmental institutions are corrupt and have other priorities that are larger than the health of the people. This is something that we've learned the hard way about aid to countries with repressive governments. Don't give the aid to the government, it won't go to the people.

Which is probably the reason why the USA have recently placed new restrictions on what and how much family members are allowed to send to Cuba.

No, there are new restrictions on how often famility members can visit cuba (once every three years) and how much they can spend in a day (US$183).

Nooooo! I wouldn’t dream of saying a thing like that! What I’m saying is that I’m so happy for you! To be able to live in a country that provides so many horny women, who dream of nothing but to sleep with ten stangers a day, with the opportunity to get paid for doing so and thus live a life of luxury. Where else but in the land of opportunity would they be able to fulfil their dream like that! It is just so typical that the Cuban communists deprived women of this privileged opportunity as soon as they took over after the US favourite pimp Batista!

What is great is living in a country with economic freedom, it leads to economic prosperity. In what other country can you pay for education on your own, graduate, and buy your own 1500sq ft home at 23? Neither of my parents had the money to assist me, but it doesn't matter, what matters is hard work, that is why it is called the land of opportunity.

And you and I, RussDill, we can both be proud and happy to live in countries where we won’t see some rich guy, say, the leader of a party or a corporation, receive better health care than the welfare mother of two living in the slums.

I'm sorry she won't be getting the plastic surgery to correct her protuding ears that she so desperately needs. However, she will go to the same hospital, and receive the same standard of care if she has a medical emergency.

We both know for a fact that a thing like that will never happen in either Denmark or the USA where we have one-tier health care systems where nobody is treated any different from all the others, no matter what their position is!

Again, elective surgeries will not be provided to those who cannot pay. But, the same standard of care in the event of a medical emergency is provided. Routine health care is different, they will have to wait longer, boo-hoo.

No corruption and the same kind of health care, education and nutritional meals for everybody!

In what country has this *ever* been true?

We are happy not be ruled by a Communist elite, but by decent politicians who would never dream of doing anything improper.

For fear of being voted out of office, or in many cases arrested and jailed. Communist elite don't have to worry about this.

Even your presidents wouldn’t stoop so low as to pay some prostitute for a spell of casual sex.

No, but there was one who did some improper things with an intern, and lied about it in court. Actually, many presidents had a mistress, ie, JFK, but just the one lied in court and was disbared (licence to practice law stripped)

In spite of their position they would much rather make do with a simple chubby intern. Just like everybody else! Now that’s a real-life Cinderella story! Unlike Castro and his ilk, men like that deserve our true respect and our daily sacrifices!

The polititians here gain respect, and are in no position to demand sacrifices. Castro can demand any sacrifice he wants, whenever he wants, and can jail anyone who disrespects him. If anyone ever made the cuban equivelent of michael moore film, they would quickly be jailed and never heard from again. Here, they are not only treated by equals by the government, but they also get rich off their films.

This, of course, is the only reason why you would like to see the health care system of Cuba replaced by the one they have in Haiti, isn't it?! And who knows? If Bush succeeds it might actually happen …

Bush succeeding at bringing democracy and freedom to cuba? That would be a dream come true for millions of cubans. Of course, it probably won't happen for at least another 8 years.

In the meantime we’ll have to await the film Sicko about health care made in the USA (not due till 2006):
http://www.detnews.com/2004/health/0412/22/health-40252.htm

Another film packed with lies by the beloved moore. He's free to make any film he wants, and say whatever he wants. In fact, I'd fight to protect that right. And actually, there is no problem in pointing out shortages in any system in the US, its encouraged. In the meantime, I'll ask you to find any communist government that has a better health care system.

I can also recommend the book Adventures in a TV Nation, especially the chapter about the 'health care competition' between Cuba, the USA and Canada (a very funny example of censorship in the USA): http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...45/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-1509374-2484022

repeat after me, the US has no censorship. Anyone saying so is a crackpot.

And if you want to read up on the US blockade and its effects on health in Cuba, look here:
The Effect of the US Blockade on the Health of the Cuban people: http://www.cubasolidarity.net/inemheal.html

The US will continue to refuse to support a repressive dictatorship. The blockade is only their because Castro refuses to do what is moral and just, and would rather imprison and torture his own people purely on the basis of their political views.

Cuban medical purchases from the USA still a fantasy: http://www.cubasolidarity.net/blockade.html#health

BTW, I'm sorry, but I will not trust any news articles coming from cuba. Any writer in cuba is always mindful that they can be imprisoned by what they write. Would you trust the words of a man with a gun pointed to his head? All the information that I have says that medical imports to cuba are legal and do occur.