4 ms·

Cuba gives free healthcare to its people and runs the largest medical school in the world [1] for free, with the explicit purpose of training foreign doctors so

Cuba gives free healthcare to its people and runs the largest medical school in the world [1] for free, with the explicit purpose of training foreign doctors so they can help their underprivileged communities. Meanwhile, in the US, the richest country in the world, people are dying because they can't afford life-saving insulin. [2] Life expectancy is higher in Cuba than the US! [3] It's not all black and white. Every country does good things and bad things. You just choose to ignore the bad things one country does and solely focus on them for another one. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELAM_(Latin_American_School_of_Medicine)_Cuba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELAM_(Latin_American_School_of... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/rise-patients-dying-rationing-insulin-u-n-tries-new-solution-n1083816 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/rise-patients... [3] https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/cuba/usa?sc=XE24 https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/cuba/usa?sc=XE2...

germandiago 5y ago
> Cuba gives free healthcare to its people I think you do not have basic notions of economy. How can something be free? If it is free, it is because someone is doing the work (the doctors). If the doctors do not get paid a market price they are being exploited (forced to work for less). So that is where it is paid. You get it for free, yes, at the expense of those people that could have a better life and in the name of the good for everyone else they are converted into a simple tool for the propaganda of their leaders. I wonder if that is ethical. I mean: forcing others to do a work that you consider good for the rest without giving them a chance for alternatives. Are those people worse than the people that deserve that health care? Should they be a means to a goal? There are two kinds of humans? The ones that are a means (doctors, rich people, etc.) and the ones that get benefits from them (the users or receivers of those things). No, I say no. Noone should be the means of anyone else. If we want something we ask for permission or cooperate. The rest is just propaganda.
- malermeister 5y ago
  I think you do not have basic notions of economy and what you just said is just propaganda. There's no two kinds of humans - from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. The doctors will get free healthcare too, if they need it. Trying to put market value on medical care is inhumane and prioritizes an economic system over human life. I'm not sure why you're talking about rich people here, but because you brought it up - the accumulation of capital is what's truly exploitative. Value doesn't come from speculative markets, but from the sum of labor put into it. Rich people realized that if they use some of their capital to provide the means of production, they can skim off surplus value from the workers putting in the labor. In other words, even though they don't do anything productive to create the value, they still take value that others created. That is exploitation.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - germandiago 5y ago
    I will explain to you again, I have researched this topic deeply and for a long time. "will get free healthcare too". In order to get healthcare, someone provides it. 1. if a doctor spends time to provide free healthcare because a regime says they must, they are exploited. This is one option. 2. if a doctor does it and is paid, someone has to pay that bill for the doctor. If the doctor is free for you, someone else is paying. 3. you can pay yourself. Those are essentially the three options. None of those are free. In 1. the doctor pays, in 2. a third person pays and in 3. you pay directly. No matter how hard you try, in every option you come up with someone will pay the bill. With time or with money or with any other exchange or will be pointed with a gun to do it.
    - scollet 5y ago
      "Free" as in "my neighbor has an apple tree".
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >the accumulation of capital is what's truly exploitative When I think of "accumulation of capital" in modern society, semiconductor fabs are the ultimate example. I can't imagine disagreeing that the building of such factories encompasses most of the world via supply chains and most of the exploitation in it. But I feel like there's an ambiguity and I don't understand what is to be our goal. Should we not have "accumulations of capital"? That is, should we tear down (and hopefully recycle) all of the incredibly expensive factories? Or should we have accumulations of capital that are not owned by specific people? What is ownership? I don't know about the real Mafia, but in fiction, there is the trope of the wealthy mob boss who owns nothing on paper, in order to avoid the law, but relies on relationships to define what he has. On the other hand, many large companies are presently not majority owned by any human being, but mainly by collective entities like index funds. Is that good enough? Or is that irrelevant to an economic system because some people own more index funds than others?
perl4ever 5y ago
>Every country does good things and bad things. You just choose to ignore the bad things one country does and solely focus on them for another one. I agree. Comparing two countries in an unbiased way is very difficult. >people are dying because they can't afford life-saving insulin If I develop type 2 diabetes, do you think my life expectancy would be longer in Cuba? Who can I trust for relevant statistics and information?
- ncmncm 5y ago
  If you develop type-2 diabetes, you may be able to cure it by not eating any sugar for a few weeks. And, keep it off after, if you never eat sugar except with enough fiber. I.e., apples ok, donuts & froot loops not. That is good advice for all of us: there is never a good reason to give yourself type-2 diabetes. For many people, cinnamon is a good temporary treatment for type-2 diabetes. But some people have a bad reaction to enough cinnamon, so start light. Type 1 diabetes is much bigger trouble: you need to inject insulin, because your pancreas is damaged, probably forever. Probably few Cubans have type-2 diabetes. It is a 1st-world problem; another name is Processed Food disease.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >If you develop type-2 diabetes, you may be able to cure it by not eating any sugar for a few weeks. Developing type-2 diabetes will be a process that happens over several decades. So which few weeks is it that I need to stop eating sugar? I need to know because I was going to make cookies. >there is never a good reason to give yourself type-2 diabetes I've taken medication that progressively leads to type 2 diabetes for about 17 years. You don't think I have a good reason? Or you just never imagined one? >Probably few Cubans have type-2 diabetes. It is a 1st-world problem; another name is Processed Food disease. Being able to get medication that causes type 2 diabetes as a side effect might be a first world thing too. I would be concerned about that. >Type 1 diabetes is much bigger trouble: you need to inject insulin People inject insulin for type 2 diabetes; I'm not sure what you are referring to.
    - ncmncm 5y ago

germandiago 5y ago

> Cuba gives free healthcare to its people I think you do not have basic notions of economy. How can something be free? If it is free, it is because someone is doing the work (the doctors). If the doctors do not get paid a market price they are being exploited (forced to work for less). So that is where it is paid. You get it for free, yes, at the expense of those people that could have a better life and in the name of the good for everyone else they are converted into a simple tool for the propaganda of their leaders. I wonder if that is ethical. I mean: forcing others to do a work that you consider good for the rest without giving them a chance for alternatives. Are those people worse than the people that deserve that health care? Should they be a means to a goal? There are two kinds of humans? The ones that are a means (doctors, rich people, etc.) and the ones that get benefits from them (the users or receivers of those things). No, I say no. Noone should be the means of anyone else. If we want something we ask for permission or cooperate. The rest is just propaganda.

malermeister 5y ago
I think you do not have basic notions of economy and what you just said is just propaganda. There's no two kinds of humans - from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. The doctors will get free healthcare too, if they need it. Trying to put market value on medical care is inhumane and prioritizes an economic system over human life. I'm not sure why you're talking about rich people here, but because you brought it up - the accumulation of capital is what's truly exploitative. Value doesn't come from speculative markets, but from the sum of labor put into it. Rich people realized that if they use some of their capital to provide the means of production, they can skim off surplus value from the workers putting in the labor. In other words, even though they don't do anything productive to create the value, they still take value that others created. That is exploitation.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- germandiago 5y ago
  I will explain to you again, I have researched this topic deeply and for a long time. "will get free healthcare too". In order to get healthcare, someone provides it. 1. if a doctor spends time to provide free healthcare because a regime says they must, they are exploited. This is one option. 2. if a doctor does it and is paid, someone has to pay that bill for the doctor. If the doctor is free for you, someone else is paying. 3. you can pay yourself. Those are essentially the three options. None of those are free. In 1. the doctor pays, in 2. a third person pays and in 3. you pay directly. No matter how hard you try, in every option you come up with someone will pay the bill. With time or with money or with any other exchange or will be pointed with a gun to do it.
  - scollet 5y ago
    "Free" as in "my neighbor has an apple tree".
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >the accumulation of capital is what's truly exploitative When I think of "accumulation of capital" in modern society, semiconductor fabs are the ultimate example. I can't imagine disagreeing that the building of such factories encompasses most of the world via supply chains and most of the exploitation in it. But I feel like there's an ambiguity and I don't understand what is to be our goal. Should we not have "accumulations of capital"? That is, should we tear down (and hopefully recycle) all of the incredibly expensive factories? Or should we have accumulations of capital that are not owned by specific people? What is ownership? I don't know about the real Mafia, but in fiction, there is the trope of the wealthy mob boss who owns nothing on paper, in order to avoid the law, but relies on relationships to define what he has. On the other hand, many large companies are presently not majority owned by any human being, but mainly by collective entities like index funds. Is that good enough? Or is that irrelevant to an economic system because some people own more index funds than others?

perl4ever 5y ago

>Every country does good things and bad things. You just choose to ignore the bad things one country does and solely focus on them for another one. I agree. Comparing two countries in an unbiased way is very difficult. >people are dying because they can't afford life-saving insulin If I develop type 2 diabetes, do you think my life expectancy would be longer in Cuba? Who can I trust for relevant statistics and information?

ncmncm 5y ago
If you develop type-2 diabetes, you may be able to cure it by not eating any sugar for a few weeks. And, keep it off after, if you never eat sugar except with enough fiber. I.e., apples ok, donuts & froot loops not. That is good advice for all of us: there is never a good reason to give yourself type-2 diabetes. For many people, cinnamon is a good temporary treatment for type-2 diabetes. But some people have a bad reaction to enough cinnamon, so start light. Type 1 diabetes is much bigger trouble: you need to inject insulin, because your pancreas is damaged, probably forever. Probably few Cubans have type-2 diabetes. It is a 1st-world problem; another name is Processed Food disease.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >If you develop type-2 diabetes, you may be able to cure it by not eating any sugar for a few weeks. Developing type-2 diabetes will be a process that happens over several decades. So which few weeks is it that I need to stop eating sugar? I need to know because I was going to make cookies. >there is never a good reason to give yourself type-2 diabetes I've taken medication that progressively leads to type 2 diabetes for about 17 years. You don't think I have a good reason? Or you just never imagined one? >Probably few Cubans have type-2 diabetes. It is a 1st-world problem; another name is Processed Food disease. Being able to get medication that causes type 2 diabetes as a side effect might be a first world thing too. I would be concerned about that. >Type 1 diabetes is much bigger trouble: you need to inject insulin People inject insulin for type 2 diabetes; I'm not sure what you are referring to.
  - ncmncm 5y ago