What if Michael Moore had not made "Sicko"?

[BeAChooser]

I guess that you think that the Danish system beats the US any time, then?

Yes, the Danes have a much higher per capita GDP than Americans. The Danes have a quite interesting system. I think we could learn a lot from them. But could we duplicate what they've done? That's probably not possible because the Danes have a number of advantages that allow what they do to work ... advantages that other countries (in particular ours) don't enjoy.

For one, they are a VERY small country. They are homogenous. They have traditions and cultural aspects that allow them to reach consensus on decisions in a far less divisive manner. Danish unions and businesses actually work together instead of constantly being adversarial. That stems from long cultural traditions. We have nothing equivalent in the US.

Also, the Danes are VERY capitalistic and business oriented. They have very few rules on businesses (in contrast to what the democrats want to do in the US). They embrace free trade, competition and there is little government ownership or involvement in business. In fact, if we could learn one lesson from the Danish (probably the reason their Per Capita GDP is so much larger), it would be "leave the economy alone". In fact, according to the OECD, Denmark has the least amount of government red tape and the shortest start-up time for new businesses in the EU. There is no minimum wage (which democrats are pushing all the time here in the US). And the Danes don't have our Social Security nightmare (lucky them). They actually contribute to individual accounts that move with them from job to job ... that they own. And as a result, they tend to retire making about 87% of their incomes. Where as we are just stealing from Paul to pay Peter.

The legal profession is a whole different ball of wax in Denmark, too. They mostly concentrate on contract law. Here, lawyers are the source of many societal problems. They make their money off encouraging problems (such as racism) and they have a far greater influence on the workings of the government and policy. If we want to be like the Danes, first thing we will have to do is follow Shakespeare's advice ... and kill the lawyers.

And do you know that 30% of Danes change jobs EVERY YEAR? Most of those are voluntary changes for better jobs. The Danes, as a people, are culturally far more upwardly mobile than we are (or for that matter, other European countries). I actually admire Danes because they emphasize individualism. We just seem to give it lip service nowadays. Especially democrats.

And yes, Danes have a very large welfare support system but do you understand that Danish welfare benefits are limited? A Dane can exhaust his lifetime allowance in less four years so they are strongly motivated to find a job and work. That's a far cry from what democrats want to do here in the United States ... make people life long dependents of the government ... and democrats.

And one more thing. As that link you provided noted, the cost of living varies from country to country. A better way of comparing the actual earnings of citizens in different countries is to look at the PPP ... purchasing power parity per capita, relative to the US. And your link provided a link to that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

And you'll note in this link that the US still has a PPP of $46,000. But Denmarks PPP is only about $37,000. The Danes, for the wonders of their system, have far less purchasing power than we do. In fact, their PPP isn't that much different from the UKs (at $36,000). And you'll note that Cuba's is still about $9,500. So I guess it isn't clear that the Dane's system beats ours. But there is still much to admire about the Dane's and their system. If we had some of their advantages and policies, who knows how high our Per Capita GDP and PPP would now be?

 

[shuize]

I may have to reverse my position on socialized medicine. Having recently realized that I have about enough money to retire and live off the interest, my only concern is being able to afford health care. If I could get someone else to pay for it (i.e. other taxpayers), I could move back to the U.S. and retire by the time I'm 40.

 

[DC]

I have, in fact, seen both Sick Around the World and Sick around America, and enjoyed both. To be frank, I loved Sick Around the World for, as you said, its constructive angle, how it showed off other right-wing countries and how they handled health care from the point of view of an American citizen. Its message was basically, "OK, so you don't want socialism, how about we look at how the other capitalist countries handle things, then?". Not that I necessarily agree with calling the UK a right-wing country, but I still really liked the docu.

Sick Around America is more like what I expect Sicko to be. It has the personal anecdotes, and talks about how the US system leaves many unprotected, even, as Rolfe says, the people who have insurance. I find it a whole lot easier to watch than Moore's movies, though - it doesn't play on emotion as much, nor does it use cheap stunts; it's not drenched in anti-Americanism or semi-conspiracy theories, and Around the World makes me a lot more positive to the makers in general.

I started watching the Stossel "docu" but coudnt even watch it in once because i think its such a huge pile of nonsense. But i made some valid points so far. Its to egoistic for my taste.

 

[Rolfe]

Sick Around the World is excellent. Required viewing, I'd say.

Sick in America is terrible. Like Moore but not so entertaining, and about 16 times as dishonest. And Moore was an idiot to agree to go on it. We dissected Stossel, and found out exactly how distorted and misrepresented each of his points was. Even though the guy is as irritating as hell.

So why are we supposed to dismiss Moore on superficial grounds without examining his examples?

You know what? A US TV ad was shown here last night, because it was so outrageously offensive about the NHS. It had the old lady in the bed who was going to have the plug pulled on her, and a solemn voice-over saying that if her treatment was going to cost a dollar over £20,000 (or something like that) she would not be treated. It was appeal to emotion, it was over-dramatic and it had schmaltzy heartrending music over it.

That's the way they make these things. There's no point switching them all off because you don't like it. They also contain assertions that need to be examined.

Rolfe.

 

[DC]

when there are so many good aruments not to go UHC, i wonder why they dont just bring up those arguments instead of spreading lies and halftrueths?

 

[Darat]

I've attempted to excise all the widely off-topic posts - unfortunately they don't really form a coherent thread in their own right so they've ended up in thread in AAH.

I don't think there was anything "wrong" with any of the posts (apart from being off-topic for this thread) so please feel free to copy the content of your moved posts back into any thread in which they would be "on topic".

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Sick in America is terrible. Like Moore but not so entertaining, and about 16 times as dishonest.

Interesting. Is there a thread here on this film, or a rebuttal somewhere?

 

[dann]

You asked and you receive.

Interesting choice of articles, BAC.

In your first one from the apparently unbiased American Thinker I wish you’d kept the headline about Cuba’s Pro-Life Heroine, who did not approve of ”Castro's fetal stem—cell research program on conscience ground.” The context would have made it easier to understand why she was unable to understand the purpose of ”Cuba's two—tier medical care system that enabled rich foreigners to come in for treatment at first—class facilities in Cuba, paying in dollars,” i.e. that Cuba in order to maintain not only its own healthcare system but also its medical aid to e.g. Africa used some of its fields of expertise to earn money from health tourism. It was never a secret, but now it has to be contrasted with cherrypicked examples of the lie that ”ordinary Cubans got some of the most atrocious medical care on the planet.”
An attempt at an objective description of Cuban healthcare can be found at the Wikipedia pages that I already linked to.

Your second article should also be read in its entirety, I think, but let me comment on a few of the points in the article:
1) If a medical expert is flown in from a country other than the USA to help diagnose or even operate on a leader of state, would that then indicate the intention to do the utmost to cure the patient or would it be a comment on the miserable condition of US healthcare?
It’s no surprise that if Castro is the patient, however, it must reflect on the alleged abominable condition of healthcare in Cuba. (Funny that they’re still able to sell healthcare to ”rich foreigners”, though …)
2) It is also obvious that when Cuba sends doctors to the poorhouses all around the world to work in districts that often would not otherwise receive any professional healthcare, it just has to be for evil purposes:
”He gutted Cuba's mangy health care system by shipping Cuban doctors throughout the hemisphere to provide "free" care to other nations' poor to help win presidencies for his favored candidates.
Castro also used his portable doctors as a propaganda club against the U.S.”
The truth in this, of course, is that Cuba produces an abundance of doctors, enough for them to help all around the world, unlike the US (and also EU) practice of buying doctors from third-world countries (and even of trying to entice Cuban doctors) to work in their hospitals instead of in the countries of their origin. (Otherwise the USA and the EU aren’t as generous with visas, by the way.)
In Cuba, however, having doctors help poor people in other countries does not exactly indicate that the country’s health-care system has been ”gutted”.
From an NHS study:
”* There appeared to be little evidence of a divide between the prevention/proactive response and the disease management/reactive response within Cuban healthcare.
* By far the biggest difference was the ratio of doctors per person. In Cuba it was one doctor per 175 people, in the UK the figure was one doctor per 600 people.”
From Wikipedia.
So what's the problem, then?

Congratulations with your third choice of article. It’s not particularly biased, but you manage to make it so. We obviously get very long quotations from some of the most ill-informed writers and very short ones from the people who actually seem to know what they are talking about. It wouldn’t even do to include this paragraph, would it?

”Cuban officials defend their system, however, saying that the $20m or more that the foreign tourists bring to the island each year bolsters Cuba's general finances and helps to support free universal health care for Cuban workers and their families.”
I recommend that you read all the articles in their entirety. It’s very revealing!

Your last story should also be read in its entirety since, again, you only quote what appears to you to back up your lack of facts. Actor Terrence Howard Touts Communist Cuba’s Health Care System

But it is true, obviously, that Cuba has many problems in its struggle to maintain a functioning health-care system for its citizens. The US blockade is not the least of its problems:
Yes, Cuba's healthcare is first world - and it's despite the blockade The shortage of life-saving drugs makes the island's achievements all the more impressive

But still the country and its people seem to manage – in spite of all odds – and in spite of the stupid lies you hear about this all the time!

In 2006, BBC flagship news programme Newsnight featured Cuba's Healthcare system as part of a series identifying "the world's best public services". The report noted that "Thanks chiefly to the American economic blockade, but partly also to the web of strange rules and regulations that constrict Cuban life, the economy is in a terrible mess: national income per head is minuscule, and resources are amazingly tight. Healthcare, however, is a top national priority" The report stated that life expectancy and infant mortality rates are nearly the same as the USA's. Its doctor-to-patient ratios stand comparison to any country in Western Europe. Its annual total health spend per head, however, comes in at $251; just over a tenth of the UK's. The report concluded that the population's admirable health is one of the key reasons why Castro is still in power.[83] A 2006 poll carried out by the Gallup Organization's Costa Rican affiliate — Consultoría Interdisciplinaria en Desarrollo (CID) — found that about three-quarters of urban Cubans responded positively to the question "do you have confidence to your country's health care system".[84]

Wikipedia

And all this, BAC, in order to make it seem as if Michael Moore's film Sicko is biased as far as its use of the Cuban example is concerned. You right-wingers have an extremely dishonest way of fighting against what you claim is propaganda.

 

[dann]

The reason Castro and his brother couldn't care less about these films is because the Cuban audience has remained diffident and unpersuaded by what they see on the silver screen.

Is that also the reason why the US rulers couldn't care less about Sicko?

 

[Cicero]

Is that also the reason why the US rulers couldn't care less about Sicko?

Should they care about a docuganda?

 

[Rolfe]

Interesting. Is there a thread here on this film, or a rebuttal somewhere?

Stossel solves the health crisis with capitalism

Rolfe.

 

[brodski]

Stossel solves the health crisis with capitalism

Rolfe.

Is that the link you wanted to add? It points to this BBC news article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1983457.stm about the death of Diane Pretty.

 

[dann]

I would suggest that Moore is at least as critical in his film of America's leaders and system of government as these political prisoners, who he conveniently ignores, are of theirs.

Conveniently ignores??! Maybe you didn't notice, but Sicko isn't a documentary about Cuba. It is a 'docusatire' about health care in the USA.
Moore finds a group of patients, US citizens, at least some of whom damaged their health cleaning up after 9/11, takes them to Cuba in a very spectacular (albeit not very realistic) manner - conveniently ignoring (if I remember correctly, and maybe I don't) that US citizens going to Cuba in this manner would get into serious trouble with the immigration authorities of the USA - and lets them experience the kind of tratment that they would receive if they had been Cuban citizens plagued by similar diseases. This is probably very unrealistic too, since Cuba doesn't offer its services free of charge to foreigners.
I've never experienced Cuban health care as a patient, and I have never taken any drugs bought in Cuba. However, I have heard Danish tourists tell me that they received help at casualty departments of Cuban hospitals for minor injuries free of charge and also weren't asked for their health-insurance cards (which they had), which seems to be a waste of resources since they could have charged the insurance companies but for some reason chose not to.

You seem to want the movie to be about something else: the shortcomings - not of US health care, but of - Cuba, which it isn't. Moore also focusses on health care when he makes his comparisons with England and France, not on differences in the electoral process.
Michael Moore might even have mentioned that on the one hand health care may be easy to come by in Cuba, but on the other it is impossible to download porn, which might have been relevant in a movie comparing conditions in general in the two countries, but that was not the theme of the movie he made and that is not the theme of the OP.
You also won't find much information about Cuban journalists or dissidents in Wikipedia's article about Health Care in Cuba. Dissident views are reported when they are relevant to the theme.
I know next to nothing about the reasons for imprisoning journalists in Cuba, and it wasn't easy to find information about it. This appears to be the official explanation from the foreign minister of the day: http://www.canadiannetworkoncuba.ca/Documents/Roque-Dissidents-Apr03.pdf

 

[BeAChooser]

now it has to be contrasted with cherrypicked examples of the lie that ”ordinary Cubans got some of the most atrocious medical care on the planet.”

Are they cherrypicked? How can you tell in a totalitarian state where information is controlled?

An attempt at an objective description of Cuban healthcare can be found at the Wikipedia pages that I already linked to.

Wikipedia tends to have a leftist slant in many of its articles. But let's look at your Wikipedia pages ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#Health

Challenges include low pay of doctors (only 15 dollars a month[128]), poor facilities, poor provision of equipment, and frequent absence of essential drugs.

And it's funny how in it's comparison of life expectancy between Cuba and the US, that Wikipedia article failed to mention the difference in calorie intake between the two countries. If it truly was objective, I think that fact would have been mentioned since we know that a low calorie diet has a substantial positive impact on life expectancy. And the low calorie diet was a direct result of the economic system that Castro forced on the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba

While the article claims the average cuban now gets 3300 calories a day, for many years they got much less than that ( about 1500 calories a day, nearly half the recommended amount). And again, no mention of the connection between a low calorie diet and longevity. No mention of the fact that Cubans exercise (due to lack of transportation) far more than Americans (and we all know that exercise is linked to life expectancy as well).

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN25383280

Cubans' weight loss in 1990s good for health - study

... snip ...

The result was a decline in obesity, and also in the number of deaths attributed to diabetes, coronary heart disease and stroke, according to the study published last week in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

Between 1997-2002, deaths caused by diabetes declined by 51 percent, coronary heart disease mortality dropped 35 percent and stroke mortality by 20 percent.

And even if they've now managed to get the average calorie intake up to 3300 calories a day, that's with a quarter of the population involved in agriculture (as opposed to 2% in the US). And estimates are that Cuba still has to import over 60% of it's food. What a success.

And I also note that your article claims that no private hospital or clinics are permitted in Cuba ... but I think the first hand accounts in the links I provided suggest that's not exactly true. And as for Cuba's low infant mortality rate (another boast in Wikipedia's supposedly *objective* articles) ... maybe that has something to do with their definition of stillborn.

http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2002/cuba-vs-the-united-states-on-infant-mortality/

The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category — the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old.

Why? Because the United States also easily has the most intensive system of
emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive
in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality — the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.

How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive — and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent — that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.

In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics.

This is clearly what is happening in Cuba.

1) If a medical expert is flown in from a country other than the USA to help diagnose or even operate on a leader of state, would that then indicate the intention to do the utmost to cure the patient or would it be a comment on the miserable condition of US healthcare?

Can you name an example where that has occurred in the US?

”He gutted Cuba's mangy health care system by shipping Cuban doctors throughout the hemisphere to provide "free" care to other nations' poor to help win presidencies for his favored candidates.
Castro also used his portable doctors as a propaganda club against the U.S.”

The truth in this, of course, is that Cuba produces an abundance of doctors, enough for them to help all around the world, unlike the US (and also EU) practice of buying doctors from third-world countries (and even of trying to entice Cuban doctors) to work in their hospitals instead of in the countries of their origin.

http://vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200608230820

CARTAGENA, Colombia 22 August 2006 - Carlos Rodriguez and his girlfriend, Johan Mary Jimenez, had little hope of leaving Cuba. They were both physicians, her father was a known dissident, and Rodriguez himself was an outspoken critic of the system.
Still, in May 2004, a Cuban government seemingly desperate to satisfy Venezuela's need for doctors slotted the two into Mision Barrio Adentro, President Hugo Chavez's campaign to provide healthcare for his country's poorest people.

... snip ...

Barrio Adentro, or ''Inside the Neighborhoods,'' was one of several programs Chavez set up with the help of Cubans, and an estimated 20,000 Cuban medical personnel are working in Venezuela.
Many of these Cubans wind up defecting. Exact numbers are impossible to get, but Julio Cesar Alfonso of the Miami-based Solidarity without Borders, a group that helps Cuban doctors abroad who defect, estimates that more than 500 have escaped the programs in many countries.

... snip ...

Although it was promoted as a way to help poor people who had minor illnesses, aches, pains and infections, Rodriguez and Jimenez said their Cuban supervisor made it clear that they also had to campaign for Chavez in the lead up to a 2004 recall referendum, which Chavez won handily.

''The idea is good,'' Rodriguez said of the mission. "But that wasn't what the mission was for. The coordinator told us that our job was to keep Chavez in power.

... snip ...


The Cuban medical personnel also provided the Venezuelans with Cuban medicines. Rodriguez, who was part of the team that distributed the medicine to neighborhoods, said ''boxes and boxes and boxes'' arrived weekly from Cuba via military aircraft.

... snip ...

Since the Venezuelan program was launched, Cubans on the island have complained about a significant drop in the number of doctors there and the already low supplies of medicines there.

”Cuban officials defend their system, however, saying that the $20m or more that the foreign tourists bring to the island each year bolsters Cuba's general finances and helps to support free universal health care for Cuban workers and their families.”

Sorry ... but "their system" has resulted in a per capita GDP of $9500 ... a fraction of that in countries without their "system".

Actor Terrence Howard Touts Communist Cuba’s Health Care System

Yes, Cuba's healthcare is first world - and it's despite the blockade The shortage of life-saving drugs makes the island's achievements all the more impressive

You and Terrence are the same type of liberals who just a few years before the collapse of the Soviet Union were touting it's health care system as amongst the best in the world. A few years later, we learned the real truth ... it was a bankrupt disaster. I really wonder if you or Terrence would like to live in a country with a per capita GDP of $9500 and under the watchful eye of Cuba's government?

In 2006, BBC flagship news programme Newsnight featured Cuba's Healthcare system as part of a series identifying "the world's best public services".

Yes, and a decade before the Soviet Union collapsed and we learned the shambles that their health care system was in, liberally biased media around the world were telling us how wonderful the USSR's health care system was ... claiming it was about the best in the world. I guess time will tell.

The report stated that life expectancy and infant mortality rates are nearly the same as the USA's.

The accuracy of these claims is adequately debunked above.

A 2006 poll carried out by the Gallup Organization's Costa Rican affiliate — Consultoría Interdisciplinaria en Desarrollo (CID) — found that about three-quarters of urban Cubans responded positively to the question "do you have confidence to your country's health care system".

http://www.gallup.com/poll/25915/just-one-four-urban-cubans-satisfied-personal-freedoms.aspx

Only one in four Cuban respondents (26%) said they are satisfied with their freedom to choose what to do with their lives, easily the lowest figure in Gallup database of more than 100 countries.

 

[gtc]

- and lets them experience the kind of tratment that they would receive if they had been Cuban citizens plagued by similar diseases.

Wait a second, I thought we had established that they were treated in the tier of Cuban healthcare only available to Government Officials and Foreigners.

Moore also focusses on health care when he makes his comparisons with England and France, not on differences in the electoral process.

Stop equivocating. Cubans haven't had a choice of government since the Communists took over. There is no electoral process that a Westerner would recognise.

I know next to nothing about the reasons for imprisoning journalists in Cuba, and it wasn't easy to find information about it. This appears to be the official explanation from the foreign minister of the day: http://www.canadiannetworkoncuba.ca/Documents/Roque-Dissidents-Apr03.pdf

This sounds like you are admitting that the Cuban government isn't particularly free and open. If they were, this information would have been easier to find.

 

[dann]

Wait a second, I thought we had established that they were treated in the tier of Cuban healthcare only available to Government Officials and Foreigners.

I don't think that 'we' have established any such thing. Michael Moore's group of patients seemed to be going to a regular Cuban hospital to receive the kind of treatment ordinary Cubans would receive.

Stop equivocating. Cubans haven't had a choice of government since the Communists took over. There is no electoral process that a Westerner would recognise.

This sounds like you are admitting that the Cuban government isn't particularly free and open. If they were, this information would have been easier to find.

And how exactly does that relate to Sicko or health care??

 

[dann]

Are they cherrypicked? How can you tell in a totalitarian state where information is controlled?

So now Castro controls my internet access? That's news to me. You cherry picked your examples, which becomes very obvious to everybody reading the articles you linked to, which is why I recommended that everybody reads these articles - not that they don't.

Wikipedia tends to have a leftist slant in many of its articles. But let's look at your Wikipedia pages ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#Health[/i]

And I guess that the international committees Wiki refers to all have a leftist slant too.

And it's funny how in it's comparison of life expectancy between Cuba and the US, that Wikipedia article failed to mention the difference in calorie intake between the two countries. If it truly was objective, I think that fact would have been mentioned since we know that a low calorie diet has a substantial positive impact on life expectancy. And the low calorie diet was a direct result of the economic system that Castro forced on the country.

So the Cubans not only have universal health care, they also eat a healthier diet instead of the slob that poor Americans are obliged to eat. Good for the Cubans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba

While the article claims the average cuban now gets 3300 calories a day, for many years they got much less than that ( about 1500 calories a day, nearly half the recommended amount). And again, no mention of the connection between a low calorie diet and longevity. No mention of the fact that Cubans exercise (due to lack of transportation) far more than Americans (and we all know that exercise is linked to life expectancy as well).

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN25383280

You are right: For many years, after their partners in the pact of socialist countries gave up on socialism and Cuba lost 80 to 85 percent of its foreign trade, the Cubans did not get enough to eat. In most other countries this would not be considered a contribution to longevity, by the way ....
And they exercised more than Americans! Good for the Cubans too! So apparently the Cubans not only receive proper health care, they tend to live healthier lives too! Great (well, not for the Americans ...)! (If only the Cubans would also cut back on those big cigars!)

And even if they've now managed to get the average calorie intake up to 3300 calories a day, that's with a quarter of the population involved in agriculture (as opposed to 2% in the US). And estimates are that Cuba still has to import over 60% of it's food. What a success.

Yes, indeed! What a success! In a few years the Cubans managed to completely turn around their whole infrastructure in order to feed themselves.
I can recommend a documentary about this theme by a US environmental organization: The Power of Community
You can find the film online: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil. And here's an article based on the film.
The film also mentions the simultaneous tightening of the US blockade against Cuba in this ’special period’ and it contains a lot of statistics and figures.
That the Cubans also managed to this without fuel for their tractors, pesticides and fertilizers makes the feat even more amazing. If I were a Cuban, I would consider making the American film about this my country’s main contribution to the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, December 2009.

And I also note that your article claims that no private hospital or clinics are permitted in Cuba ... but I think the first hand accounts in the links I provided suggest that's not exactly true.

You are thinking of the Cuban doctor, the pro-lifer, who didn’t approve of Cuban stemcell research and therefore pretends that she is concerned about the welfare of all Cubans? I don’t see where it implies the existence of private hospitals.
In my own country, however, we are well aware of the fact that the present premier Lars Løkke Rasmussen gave preferential treatments to private hospitals in Denmark when he was still minister of health. I don’t know if it was mainly for the benefit of stock owners in the industry or in order to make it appear as if privatization was more efficient. If it actually were, he wouldn’t have had to pay a higher price to private hospitals than to the public service hospitals that he’d been trying to starve of resources …

And as for Cuba's low infant mortality rate (another boast in Wikipedia's supposedly *objective* articles) ... maybe that has something to do with their definition of stillborn.

http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2002/cuba-vs-the-united-states-on-infant-mortality/

Are you trying to imply that the infant mortality rate of Cuba isn’t low?

Can you name an example where that has occurred in the US?

Not at the moment, no, but I’ll see if I can come up with an example. It isn’t all that unusual, by the way, that leading experts in other countries are contacted in cases like this. Happens all the time.

http://vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200608230820

As always I recommend that everybody read the whole article. Even in the case of an article from an anti-Chavez site, BAC is still able to make it even more biassed by careful cherry picking!

Sorry ... but "their system" has resulted in a per capita GDP of $9500 ... a fraction of that in countries without their "system".

Yes that is what ”their system” has resulted in – helped on the way by the US blockade. But it is peculiar that ”their system” is always what occurs to you in the case of Cuba, never when the capitalist poor houses around the world are the theme:
You can search for Cuba on this list of countries by GDP and tell me which countries you’d like to compare Cuba to: The USA? Or Denmark? Do you seriously want to compare the standards of living in a third-world country whose major historical events were the attempts of its population to liberate itself from the grasp of colonialist/imperialist nations like the USA or Denmark? (And still hasn’t quite succeeded in its endeavours to do so: Gitmo!) Comparing the wealth of the USA with the poverty of Cuba is similar to comparing Denmark with Tranquebar or Ghana.

If you seriously want to make a comparison of systems, why don’t you compare Cuba with http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/honduras.html? Jamaica? Haiti? Dominican Republic? El Salvador? Guatemala? Or the rest of the countries in Latin America?

And while we’re comparing …. You do know that the GDP doesen’t always reveal if the citizens of a country are actually doing well, don’t you? A dictator may be amassing the wealth of a country for himself and his family, or a minority of rich people may be earning the dough whereas the masses receive nothing. You know, kind of the way that you’d like to portray conditions in Cuba.
So why don’t we instead take a look at Cuba’s position in the List of Countries by Human Development Index.
I already know your objection: ”Wikipedia tends to have a leftist slant in many of its articles”. And so do statistics, apparently.

You and Terrence are the same type of liberals who just a few years before the collapse of the Soviet Union were touting it's health care system as amongst the best in the world. A few years later, we learned the real truth ... it was a bankrupt disaster. I really wonder if you or Terrence would like to live in a country with a per capita GDP of $9500 and under the watchful eye of Cuba's government?

Sorry, I don’t know Terrence – except from the article – but I am a communist, nor a liberal.
I already dealt with GDP comparisons above. As far as the ”watchful eye of Cuba’s governement” is concerned, I don’t know much about it. I do know about the watchful eyes of the Danish and the American governments, but they don’t seem to worry you much. And you wouldn’t have much reason to worry, would you?

Yes, and a decade before the Soviet Union collapsed and we learned the shambles that their health care system was in, liberally biased media around the world were telling us how wonderful the USSR's health care system was ... claiming it was about the best in the world. I guess time will tell.

It’s funny, but I don’t remember ”liberally biased media” in Denmark having anything good to say about the USSR or its health care system – and I have no idea how it was.

The accuracy of these claims is adequately debunked above.

The accuracy? You aren't seriously trying to imply that infant mortality in Cuba isn't low, are you?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/25915/just-one-four-urban-cubans-satisfied-personal-freedoms.aspx

So you couldn’t find anything useful about health care?


This is probably good news in your opinion,

HAVANA — Raul Castro announced Saturday that Cuba will cut spending on education and health care
http://blog.taragana.com/n/raul-cas...communist-after-he-and-fidel-are-gone-127849/

, since it will help make comparisons with the USA more unfavorable, but it isn’t good news to those of us who hope for better conditions for the Cubans.

 

[Eyeron]

I'm not going to watch any more Michael Moore. After reading the "59 Deceits Of Fahrenheit 911" and watching "Farenhype 911", I just can't watch any of his films after that. What those two works show is how erroneous Michael Moore is and how his personal biases and prejudices affect his film making.

 

[Architect]

I'm not going to watch any more Michael Moore. After reading the "59 Deceits Of Fahrenheit 911" and watching "Farenhype 911", I just can't watch any of his films after that. What those two works show is how erroneous Michael Moore is and how his personal biases and prejudices affect his film making.

Now, son, remember that you have to be as sceptical about those responses as you do about the original. Is their "debunking" correct? What might their prior position be? To what extent do they undermine the overall case put by the original film? And so on......

 

[Eyeron]

The devil is in the details.