5 ms·

It is ahead in development but way behind in providing that healthcare to it's citizens. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/infant-mortality-rate/cou

It is ahead in development but way behind in providing that healthcare to it's citizens. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/infant-mortality-rate/country-comparison https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/infant-mortalit... Life expectancy in Cuba is higher than that of the US (72.5 vs. 71.9). Health workers have eliminated polio, tuberculosis, typhoid fever, and diphtheria. Malnutrition incidence amount 1-15 years olds is 0.7% compared with 5% in the US[0] [0]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2315760/#:~:text=Life%20expectancy%20in%20Cuba%20is,with%205%25%20in%20the%20US https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2315760/#:~:text=Life%20expe....

bufferoverflow 5y ago
If the US didn't subsidize all the other countries, you'd see a much different picture. It's easy to provide better healthcare, when someone else is paying for all R&D and manufacturing.
- celticninja 5y ago
  Let's be entirely honest here, the US could provide health care for all, in the same way the NHS operates in the UK. It is not the R&D costs that are preventing this, it is a very powerful medical insurance lobby that prevents it. And no, it is not easier to provide better healthcare, even without doing the R&D.A higher GDP is what enables better provision of healthcare and the US has the highest GDP and is in the top 10 per capita, Cuba is at 87th.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    GDP PPP is more appropriate. Cuba has a fairly good PPP per capita GDP.
mariojv 5y ago
Your 2nd source is from 1990 and is at odds with the CIA World Factbook, the first source, which says that current life expectancy at birth is 80.43 in US, 79.41 in Cuba: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/life-expectancy-at-birth/country-comparison/ https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/life-expectancy... They're both basically similar in both years, which is astounding given the vastly higher material wealth of the US. Nice to know that both have increased a lot since 1990, though! I thought 72 sounded a bit young.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
That's a straw man and off topic from the discussion which is what countries has the most pharmaceutical advances. Everyone knows that the US health care system is awful compared to most other companies unless you're rich or have good company provided insurance plan, which covers maybe 65-75% of the population, the rest are told to pound sand and go bankrupt or just not get any care at all.

bufferoverflow 5y ago

If the US didn't subsidize all the other countries, you'd see a much different picture. It's easy to provide better healthcare, when someone else is paying for all R&D and manufacturing.

celticninja 5y ago
Let's be entirely honest here, the US could provide health care for all, in the same way the NHS operates in the UK. It is not the R&D costs that are preventing this, it is a very powerful medical insurance lobby that prevents it. And no, it is not easier to provide better healthcare, even without doing the R&D.A higher GDP is what enables better provision of healthcare and the US has the highest GDP and is in the top 10 per capita, Cuba is at 87th.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  GDP PPP is more appropriate. Cuba has a fairly good PPP per capita GDP.

mariojv 5y ago

Your 2nd source is from 1990 and is at odds with the CIA World Factbook, the first source, which says that current life expectancy at birth is 80.43 in US, 79.41 in Cuba: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/life-expectancy-at-birth/country-comparison/ https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/life-expectancy... They're both basically similar in both years, which is astounding given the vastly higher material wealth of the US. Nice to know that both have increased a lot since 1990, though! I thought 72 sounded a bit young.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

That's a straw man and off topic from the discussion which is what countries has the most pharmaceutical advances. Everyone knows that the US health care system is awful compared to most other companies unless you're rich or have good company provided insurance plan, which covers maybe 65-75% of the population, the rest are told to pound sand and go bankrupt or just not get any care at all.