Analysis: 'Sicko' Numbers Mostly Accurate

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: jpeyton

I hope this settles a lot of the hearsay about Moore's efforts to bring to light one of the greatest real threats to our country.

Like his other movies, it's mostly the truth, mixed in with a little sensationalism to make it entertaining.

Actually it goes beyond that.

The biggest threat is the people you see in here blasting people like Moore and me that are trying to save the U.S. from them.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,275
965
136
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The biggest threat is the people you see in here blasting people like Moore and me that are trying to save the U.S. from them.

LOL. Thanks, but no thanks! :cookie:
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Actually it goes beyond that.

The biggest threat is the people you see in here blasting people like Moore and me that are trying to save the U.S. from them.

I can't comment on Sicko, but Bowling for Columbine was one big lie about gun control. Look how great gun control has worked out for Chicago or New York City. Moore is saving nobody and getting rich.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: jpeyton

I hope this settles a lot of the hearsay about Moore's efforts to bring to light one of the greatest real threats to our country.

Like his other movies, it's mostly the truth, mixed in with a little sensationalism to make it entertaining.</end quote></div>

Actually it goes beyond that.

The biggest threat is the people you see in here blasting people like Moore and me that are trying to save the U.S. from them.
If the US is created in Moore's vision, I'll be hightailing it back to Canada (which he seems to want to felate anyway, but it's not as bulbous as he thinks).

 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: ElFenix
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Craig234
As for Cuba, with the economic situation they're in, made much worse by the embargo</end quote></div>

oh really?

I'll respond after completing the research into the issues you raised.

Yay AT debate.

You can easily find anti-Castro zealots who have web pages denying the embargo has any effect; their argument is that because Castro exports many doctors, that's the problem.

Castro is extraordinarily isolated by the US in the world, with huge pressure for others not to deal with him. He has to do some things to have relations with other nations.

Sending doctors is one such activity. The fact he does that doesn't prove the embargo has no effect.

Common sense would suggest that the embargo, which greatly reduces Cuba's wealth, has a very real effect on what they can spend on health care.

Some say 'every nation but the US trades with Cuba'. That sounds a lot better than it is - with Cuba's geographic proximity to the US, the vast bulk of its trade would be with the US, just as Canada, while hardly the largest economy of countries we trade with, is the US's #1 trade partner (or was last I checked). And the US actively pressures other nations not to trade with Cuba, especially in the Americas; IIRC, nations can lose huge amounts from the US if they trade with Cuba.

No, as usual, our boycott has a lot more to do with politics and hurting Cuban people as the price for the political points, than with improving Cuba. It certainly, by impoverishing Cuba, discourages other nations from considering going too far in liberalizing their own high concentrations of wealth. The policies hurt a lot of innocent people.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,275
965
136
Originally posted by: Craig234
I'll respond after completing the research into the issues you raised.

Yay AT debate.

You can easily find anti-Castro zealots who have web pages denying the embargo has any effect; their argument is that because Castro exports many doctors, that's the problem.

Castro is extraordinarily isolated by the US in the world, with huge pressure for others not to deal with him. He has to do some things to have relations with other nations.

Sending doctors is one such activity. The fact he does that doesn't prove the embargo has no effect.

Common sense would suggest that the embargo, which greatly reduces Cuba's wealth, has a very real effect on what they can spend on health care.

Some say 'every nation but the US trades with Cuba'. That sounds a lot better than it is - with Cuba's geographic proximity to the US, the vast bulk of its trade would be with the US, just as Canada, while hardly the largest economy of countries we trade with, is the US's #1 trade partner (or was last I checked). And the US actively pressures other nations not to trade with Cuba, especially in the Americas; IIRC, nations can lose huge amounts from the US if they trade with Cuba.

No, as usual, our boycott has a lot more to do with politics and hurting Cuban people as the price for the political points, than with improving Cuba. It certainly, by impoverishing Cuba, discourages other nations from considering going too far in liberalizing their own high concentrations of wealth. The policies hurt a lot of innocent people.

You give way too much credit to the US for "impoverishing" Cuba. The Castro regime single-handedly destroyed the Cuban economy. Consider Cuba's negligent economic growth despite ever increasing Soviet aid, topping at $6 billion a year in the 1980's, at the contemporary US currency. Cuba's GDP today is $44 billion, so $6b back then is a very significant capital injection into the Cuban economy. And yet, the economy did not grow, and collapsed when the USSR dissolved. Castro had almost 40 years to develop the Cuban economy his own way, it turned out to be a catastrophic failure.

Your claim that the US pressures other nations not to trade with Cuba is ridiculous, the embargo is a punitive measure passed to punish the Castro regime specifically, not anyone else. In addition, you stated that other nations can lose "huge amounts from the US" if they trade with Cuba, that is also fabricated. Last time I checked, the Netherlands is the largest importer of Cuban goods, the US took no action.

I doubt the quality of Cuban healthcare degraded much even when Castro sent planeloads of doctors to help mini-me Chavez. Cuba has crappy healthcare because it is dirt poor; the Castro regime is the sole reason.

The embargo is an outdated punitive measure designed to punish Castro for siding with the USSR and seizing property belonging to US nationals back in the 60's. I really see no reason to keep it going. But blaming Cuba's sorry state on the embargo is complete crap.
 

JACKHAMMER

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,870
0
76
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Actually it goes beyond that.

The biggest threat is the people you see in here blasting people like Moore and me that are trying to save the U.S. from them.

I can't comment on Sicko, but Bowling for Columbine was one big lie about gun control. Look how great gun control has worked out for Chicago or New York City. Moore is saving nobody and getting rich.

Not that Bowling wasn't a pile, but I live in Chicago - and it is not a violent city. I am not sure what you are reffering to ( I know about the ordinance)?
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: dmens
Originally posted by: Craig234
I'll respond after completing the research into the issues you raised.

Yay AT debate.

You can easily find anti-Castro zealots who have web pages denying the embargo has any effect; their argument is that because Castro exports many doctors, that's the problem.

Castro is extraordinarily isolated by the US in the world, with huge pressure for others not to deal with him. He has to do some things to have relations with other nations.

Sending doctors is one such activity. The fact he does that doesn't prove the embargo has no effect.

Common sense would suggest that the embargo, which greatly reduces Cuba's wealth, has a very real effect on what they can spend on health care.

Some say 'every nation but the US trades with Cuba'. That sounds a lot better than it is - with Cuba's geographic proximity to the US, the vast bulk of its trade would be with the US, just as Canada, while hardly the largest economy of countries we trade with, is the US's #1 trade partner (or was last I checked). And the US actively pressures other nations not to trade with Cuba, especially in the Americas; IIRC, nations can lose huge amounts from the US if they trade with Cuba.

No, as usual, our boycott has a lot more to do with politics and hurting Cuban people as the price for the political points, than with improving Cuba. It certainly, by impoverishing Cuba, discourages other nations from considering going too far in liberalizing their own high concentrations of wealth. The policies hurt a lot of innocent people.

You give way too much credit to the US for "impoverishing" Cuba. The Castro regime single-handedly destroyed the Cuban economy. Consider Cuba's negligent economic growth despite ever increasing Soviet aid, topping at $6 billion a year in the 1980's, at the contemporary US currency. Cuba's GDP today is $44 billion, so $6b back then is a very significant capital injection into the Cuban economy. And yet, the economy did not grow, and collapsed when the USSR dissolved. Castro had almost 40 years to develop the Cuban economy his own way, it turned out to be a catastrophic failure.

Your claim that the US pressures other nations not to trade with Cuba is ridiculous, the embargo is a punitive measure passed to punish the Castro regime specifically, not anyone else. In addition, you stated that other nations can lose "huge amounts from the US" if they trade with Cuba, that is also fabricated. Last time I checked, the Netherlands is the largest importer of Cuban goods, the US took no action.

I doubt the quality of Cuban healthcare degraded much even when Castro sent planeloads of doctors to help mini-me Chavez. Cuba has crappy healthcare because it is dirt poor; the Castro regime is the sole reason.

The embargo is an outdated punitive measure designed to punish Castro for siding with the USSR and seizing property belonging to US nationals back in the 60's. I really see no reason to keep it going. But blaming Cuba's sorry state on the embargo is complete crap.

You're wasting your breath. People like Craig think Castro and Che are the greatest people ever to live... despite history showing that they were (Che especially) cowardly, lying, mass murdering, lunatics. I'll never understand the left's love affair with Che... they believe every lie told about how great a person he was, and ignore the truth.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,275
965
136
Originally posted by: jrenz
You're wasting your breath. People like Craig think Castro and Che are the greatest people ever to live... despite history showing that they were (Che especially) cowardly, lying, mass murdering, lunatics. I'll never understand the left's love affair with Che... they believe every lie told about how great a person he was, and ignore the truth.

Screw em. Che was shot like the miserable dog he was, and Castro's reign will soon end leaving behind a sordid legacy. Cuba's misery is in plain sight for all to see and the Castro regime is the sole cause.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Ignore shadow9d9, his only tactic is to claim that the ONLY people aginst gov healthcare must have not seen this perfect 100% factual movie.

Yeah ignore the person who actually saw the movie.. focus on people who are judging and spouting garbage without even seeing the movie they are spouting garbage against! The government and healthcare shills are out in full force with damage control here!

If my republican doctor father could tell all of his friends to see the movie, I can surely endorse it here.

who actually cares if you saw the movie??
is that suppose to be a badge of honor?
Is that suppose to make your opinion more relevant than.....??

Good honest pople who saw the movie even say Michael Moore is full of BS and NOT accurately portraying things the way they really are???

Also this is the internet so you can have 3 fathers who are doctors as far as we know.....
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: dmens
Originally posted by: Craig234
I'll respond after completing the research into the issues you raised.

Yay AT debate.

You can easily find anti-Castro zealots who have web pages denying the embargo has any effect; their argument is that because Castro exports many doctors, that's the problem.

Castro is extraordinarily isolated by the US in the world, with huge pressure for others not to deal with him. He has to do some things to have relations with other nations.

Sending doctors is one such activity. The fact he does that doesn't prove the embargo has no effect.

Common sense would suggest that the embargo, which greatly reduces Cuba's wealth, has a very real effect on what they can spend on health care.

Some say 'every nation but the US trades with Cuba'. That sounds a lot better than it is - with Cuba's geographic proximity to the US, the vast bulk of its trade would be with the US, just as Canada, while hardly the largest economy of countries we trade with, is the US's #1 trade partner (or was last I checked). And the US actively pressures other nations not to trade with Cuba, especially in the Americas; IIRC, nations can lose huge amounts from the US if they trade with Cuba.

No, as usual, our boycott has a lot more to do with politics and hurting Cuban people as the price for the political points, than with improving Cuba. It certainly, by impoverishing Cuba, discourages other nations from considering going too far in liberalizing their own high concentrations of wealth. The policies hurt a lot of innocent people.

You give way too much credit to the US for "impoverishing" Cuba. The Castro regime single-handedly destroyed the Cuban economy. Consider Cuba's negligent economic growth despite ever increasing Soviet aid, topping at $6 billion a year in the 1980's, at the contemporary US currency. Cuba's GDP today is $44 billion, so $6b back then is a very significant capital injection into the Cuban economy. And yet, the economy did not grow, and collapsed when the USSR dissolved. Castro had almost 40 years to develop the Cuban economy his own way, it turned out to be a catastrophic failure.

Your claim that the US pressures other nations not to trade with Cuba is ridiculous, the embargo is a punitive measure passed to punish the Castro regime specifically, not anyone else. In addition, you stated that other nations can lose "huge amounts from the US" if they trade with Cuba, that is also fabricated. Last time I checked, the Netherlands is the largest importer of Cuban goods, the US took no action.

I doubt the quality of Cuban healthcare degraded much even when Castro sent planeloads of doctors to help mini-me Chavez. Cuba has crappy healthcare because it is dirt poor; the Castro regime is the sole reason.

The embargo is an outdated punitive measure designed to punish Castro for siding with the USSR and seizing property belonging to US nationals back in the 60's. I really see no reason to keep it going. But blaming Cuba's sorry state on the embargo is complete crap.

You're wasting your breath. People like Craig think Castro and Che are the greatest people ever to live... despite history showing that they were (Che especially) cowardly, lying, mass murdering, lunatics. I'll never understand the left's love affair with Che... they believe every lie told about how great a person he was, and ignore the truth.

Right-wingers lie pretty much every time they say what my position is.

I don't know why dmens hasn't had a 'vacation' yet for his inappropriate behavior in other threads.

I see the usual right-wing nonsense about their 'enemies', such as calling Castro and Che cowardly, as they do the insurgents and suicide bombers in the middle east, when that's absurd as has been discussed. Castro led an extremely dangerous revolution, the first of which did not work, and many, IIRC nearly all, of his fellow revolutionaries were killed. That's a heck of a lot of bravery, not cowardly.

I'm not much of a fan of Castro or Che; I give Castro some credit on some things, and see him as a terrible murderer on the other. To his credit, he's come to say some of his killing has been wrong, not that that makes up for it in the least. Che was a cold-blooded murderer as well. But that's not all they were; Robert Kennedy once said that if he'd been born there, he could be Che Guevera (I assume he didn't mean all the acts). I won't try to discuss the issue much though, for reasons both that the people involved in the conversation are utterly unable to discuss it beyond ignorant comments, to the fact that I'm not expert anyway.

A few comments, though - as bad as Castro has been, it's easy to forget what he replaced. Here's a note from William Attwood, who represented President Kennedy with Castro:

...the revolution he'd set in motion could never be reversed after 1959. To turn the clock back, as the exiles hoped to do, would have meant closing schools and clinics, taking shoes away from children, returning most sugar plantations to absentee landlords, reopening Havana's casinos and notorious brothels and denationalizing expropriated firms whose owners had by now fled. There was just no way. The social and economic transformation of Cuba was too far advanced. Even if the revolution was mismanaged, as it was, the Soviets seemed willing to bail out their protégée indefinitely by buying his sugar above market prices and selling him oil below market prices. As a result, Castro has cost them billions of rubles over the past quarter century; but why should this concern us?

As this shows, for all the bad Castro has done, the story has two sides. He's done good too.

Other commentary on the topic of US pressure on third nations not to sell to Cuba:

The US exerts many hidden pressures on other countries not to do business in Cuba. A simple example: no ship going to Cuba may dock in the US within 180 days of going to Cuba. This voids much shipping consolidation and increases prices by 30%. And then there is all the denial of medical technology, supplies, and drugs. Consider this scenario, which took place a couple of years back in Havana: a Canadian company has its x-ray oncology machines coming off the ship and two oncologists ready to install it, gratis, a donation. The firm is told that they will no longer be able to contract with any US entity if they go through and install. So their oncologists in the hotel in Havana have to turn right around and get back on the plane with the equipment... As a result, many thousands of death are not prevented.

Cuba theselves summarized the policies the US uses to pressure other nations:

As arguments unfolded at the United Nations in 1991, the U.S. State Department stood behind its initial statement of august 21 that: ?a blockade implies that the United States is taking action to prevent other countries from trading with Cuba. That is clearly not the case?. Cuba countered by summarizing 12 areas in which the United States seeks extraterritorial application of the embargo policy:
1 ? The United States prohibits a corporation or any other business entity organized under the laws of a third country and located and doing business in that country from exporting to Cuba products manufactured wholly in that third country, but which incorporates any United States component part or material. It doesn?t matter if the component part or material has been completely transformed in the new product. Exceptions are possible only upon application by the third country company, demonstrating that the U.S. origin component part materials constitutes 20 % or less of the value of the product.

2 - The United States prohibits nationals of third countries from re-exporting United States origin goods to Cuba unless their re- exportation is specifically approved by the U.S. Department of Commerce. It is the policy and practice of the U.S. Commerce Department to deny approval. It makes no difference wether or not the third country national originally obtained the goods for resale or how long the third country national has owned the goods.

3 - The above restrictions apply equally to U.S. technical data- information in any form, tangible or intangible which can be used in the design, production or manufacture of products. A third country national may not re- export to Cuba technical data that was exported (bought and paid for) from the United States. In many instances, third counties nationals may not export products manufactures wholly in the third country and containing no U.S. components or materials simply because the original products were made using U.S. technical data.

4 - The United States claims the embargo may be extended to business entities located in third countries, doing business in third countries and organized under the laws of third countries if the entity is owned or controlled by U.S. corporations or persons. ? Control? has been defined even when the U.S. interest constitutes less than 50 %. Current U.S. law allows such subsidiaries to engage in import and export transactions with Cuba. However, a wide range of commercial activity is forbidden including investments in Cuba and engaging in joint ventures with the island. Regarding import -export transactions, the subsidiary must apply for a U.S. Treasury Department license before singning any contract with Cuba and must demonstrate that it operates independent of the parent company; that no one from the head office will be involved in the transaction; that the transaction does not involve money from a U.S. account or U.S. financing; and that any financing or credit extension by the subsidiary will comply with U.S. Treasury Department regulations.

5 - The embargo applies to any third- country company with Cuban nationals on the payroll. They are prohibited from having any financial or commercial dealings with the United States or U.S. nationals. Any property the company may have in the United States will be frozen.

6 ? Third country banks are banned from maintaining dollar accounts for Cuba or Cuban nationals; the embargo also prohibits the third-country firm from using U.S. currency or money from a dollar account.

7 - The embargo prohibits the importation of third- country goods if a part or any component originated in Cuba, including raw material that has been totally transformed in the manufacturing process.

8 - The above prohibition applies to products including a component that originated in Cuba even when Cuba no longer supplies the material and regardless of how long the material has been owned by the third- country company or national.

9 - By executive order the United States maintains a ? blacklist? of hundreds of third-countries corporations and firms that U.S. nationals and companies are barred from engaging with in any financial transactions. These companies are deemed ?specially designated? nationals of Cuba, acting on behalf of the government of Cuba or is owned or controlled by the government of Cuba. On ocassion, the United States has taken a name off the blacklist after effective protest by the targeted company or its government. However, such companies will think twice before again engaging in trade with Cuba.

10 - By U.S. law, Washington representatives on all international financial institutions are required to oppose granting loans or other financial support to Cuba. These bodies include the Inter-American Bank, the International Development Association and the International Monetary Fund.

11 - The U.S. Congress recently approved the Mack Amendment, measures that call for extending the embargo to all U.S. subsidiaries. President Bush, by executive order, has prohibited foreign vessels that stop in Cuban ports from entering the United States; other congressional moves would deny U.S. aid to any country which furnishes assistance to Cuba, and still others targeted by name Cuba?s current trade partners.

12 - The policy of the United States is to pressure third-country governments and companies to sever ties with Cuba or face the consequences.

Here is a summary of the United Nations vote where the other nations in the General Assembly want the US to end the Cuban embargo - for the 15th year in a row.

It's a big document, but let's look at how the nations voted:

Vote on Draft Resolution on Cuba Embargo

The draft resolution on the necessity of ending the financial embargo on Cuba (document A/61/L.10) was adopted by a recorded vote of 183 in favour to 4 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People?s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People?s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States.

Debunking the misstatements of careless right-wingers gets old. Hopefully the other posters who actualy have an interest in the issues find something useful in the info.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,275
965
136
William Attwood? Why don't you include some sycophant quotes from Herbert Matthews too? There were many poor people in Cuba before 1959, now everyone is poor. Good job Castro. :(

After posting all that crap, you didn't dispute the main point; that the Castro regime is the primary reason for Cuba's economic woes and healthcare quality degraded as a result. Neither Cuba's UN whine nor the subsequent vote from the toothless general assembly changes that hard fact.
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
6
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: dmens
Nice, just drop out the whole context thing, it's only part of the CNN headline. Moore's entire act is based around creating bias by omission, are you trying to imitate him? Here is the whole headline so it is included in the thread:

'Sicko' numbers mostly accurate; more context needed

Is there a scene that shows the taxes incurred on the happy smiling people getting money for their cab ride home from the hospital? Naw that'd just get in the way. Even the CNN article is disingenuous. For example, medicare overhead is 1% only if tax deduction is taken out of the equation, but is a real cost nonetheless.

Oh, I didn't see this film yet, but I heard there's scenes regarding Cuba in it. Here's the real Cuban system. I doubt Moore ever saw the kind of care regular Cubans get. Useful idiot for Castro? Seems likely.

The article made the 'context' comments clear. He posted it fine.

You no doubt have some valid points that Cuba's health care looked better in the movie than many Cubans experience.

But think about your own bias - the US system unquestionably has its own many horror stories, but you don't want to talk about them; only the positive parts, right?

The US has some of the best medicine in the world - and probably the worst for many of its citizens.

As for Cuba, with the economic situation they're in, made much worse by the embargo, it's pretty amazing what they're able to do at all. There shouldn't be any comparison.

These Caribbean nations are *poor*; when I was in Jamaica, I broke my elbow, and was told the only x ray machine was on the opposite side of the country, several hours away.

Compared to every country in that region Cuba has outstanding healthcare. They also have a bunch of other perks for instance they aren't run by druglords. I've always had a problem with people bad mouthing Cuba, since compared to all the countries in the area Cubans have it pretty good. Just look at Panama.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,275
965
136
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Compared to every country in that region Cuba has outstanding healthcare. They also have a bunch of other perks for instance they aren't run by druglords. I've always had a problem with people bad mouthing Cuba, since compared to all the countries in the area Cubans have it pretty good. Just look at Panama.

Puerto Rico and Jamaica are run by druglords? Shocking.

Again, here is some of that outstanding Cuban healthcare used by regular people who aren't allowed into the tourist hospitals that Michael Moore and Maradona are so fond of.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: dmens
Nice, just drop out the whole context thing, it's only part of the CNN headline. Moore's entire act is based around creating bias by omission, are you trying to imitate him? Here is the whole headline so it is included in the thread:

'Sicko' numbers mostly accurate; more context needed

Is there a scene that shows the taxes incurred on the happy smiling people getting money for their cab ride home from the hospital? Naw that'd just get in the way. Even the CNN article is disingenuous. For example, medicare overhead is 1% only if tax deduction is taken out of the equation, but is a real cost nonetheless.

Oh, I didn't see this film yet, but I heard there's scenes regarding Cuba in it. Here's the real Cuban system. I doubt Moore ever saw the kind of care regular Cubans get. Useful idiot for Castro? Seems likely.

The article made the 'context' comments clear. He posted it fine.

You no doubt have some valid points that Cuba's health care looked better in the movie than many Cubans experience.

But think about your own bias - the US system unquestionably has its own many horror stories, but you don't want to talk about them; only the positive parts, right?

The US has some of the best medicine in the world - and probably the worst for many of its citizens.

As for Cuba, with the economic situation they're in, made much worse by the embargo, it's pretty amazing what they're able to do at all. There shouldn't be any comparison.

These Caribbean nations are *poor*; when I was in Jamaica, I broke my elbow, and was told the only x ray machine was on the opposite side of the country, several hours away.

Compared to every country in that region Cuba has outstanding healthcare. They also have a bunch of other perks for instance they aren't run by druglords. I've always had a problem with people bad mouthing Cuba, since compared to all the countries in the area Cubans have it pretty good. Just look at Panama.
Yeah all they had to give up in return is their freedom.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Googer
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: jpeyton

So, if Americans are paying so much and they're not getting as good or as much care, where is all the money going? "Overhead for most private health insurance plans range between 10 percent to 30 percent," says Deloitte health-care analyst Paul Keckley. Overhead includes profit and administrative costs.

"Compare that to Medicare, which only has an overhead rate of 1 percent. Medicare is an extremely efficient health-care delivery system," says Mark Meaney, a health-care ethicist for the National Institute for Patient Rights.</end quote></div>

Just as I suspected.

I wonder if the expense numbers also include the costs to businesses of having to hire benefits and health insurance account managers. I suspect that there are also other hidden costs involving both time and money that have gone unidentified not to mention the costs to our economy and decreased job mobility.</end quote></div>

It is the private competition and drive for profit that makes our health care the premier in the world.
minus the part were us health care is is premier of course...

 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: dmens
William Attwood? Why don't you include some sycophant quotes from Herbert Matthews too? There were many poor people in Cuba before 1959, now everyone is poor. Good job Castro. :(

After posting all that crap, you didn't dispute the main point; that the Castro regime is the primary reason for Cuba's economic woes and healthcare quality degraded as a result. Neither Cuba's UN whine nor the subsequent vote from the toothless general assembly changes that hard fact.

when a country is cut off from foreign aid and capital, how can you not assume that the embargo is not hurting that country.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: dmens
Nice, just drop out the whole context thing, it's only part of the CNN headline. Moore's entire act is based around creating bias by omission, are you trying to imitate him? Here is the whole headline so it is included in the thread:

'Sicko' numbers mostly accurate; more context needed

Is there a scene that shows the taxes incurred on the happy smiling people getting money for their cab ride home from the hospital? Naw that'd just get in the way. Even the CNN article is disingenuous. For example, medicare overhead is 1% only if tax deduction is taken out of the equation, but is a real cost nonetheless.

Oh, I didn't see this film yet, but I heard there's scenes regarding Cuba in it. Here's the real Cuban system. I doubt Moore ever saw the kind of care regular Cubans get. Useful idiot for Castro? Seems likely.

The article made the 'context' comments clear. He posted it fine.

You no doubt have some valid points that Cuba's health care looked better in the movie than many Cubans experience.

But think about your own bias - the US system unquestionably has its own many horror stories, but you don't want to talk about them; only the positive parts, right?

The US has some of the best medicine in the world - and probably the worst for many of its citizens.

As for Cuba, with the economic situation they're in, made much worse by the embargo, it's pretty amazing what they're able to do at all. There shouldn't be any comparison.

These Caribbean nations are *poor*; when I was in Jamaica, I broke my elbow, and was told the only x ray machine was on the opposite side of the country, several hours away.

Compared to every country in that region Cuba has outstanding healthcare. They also have a bunch of other perks for instance they aren't run by druglords. I've always had a problem with people bad mouthing Cuba, since compared to all the countries in the area Cubans have it pretty good. Just look at Panama.
Yeah all they had to give up in return is their freedom.
like anyone else is south/central america is free. :roll:
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,275
965
136
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: dmens
William Attwood? Why don't you include some sycophant quotes from Herbert Matthews too? There were many poor people in Cuba before 1959, now everyone is poor. Good job Castro. :(

After posting all that crap, you didn't dispute the main point; that the Castro regime is the primary reason for Cuba's economic woes and healthcare quality degraded as a result. Neither Cuba's UN whine nor the subsequent vote from the toothless general assembly changes that hard fact.

when a country is cut off from foreign aid and capital, how can you not assume that the embargo is not hurting that country.

They are cut off from US aid and capital only. The US embargo probably hurting them somewhat, but not nearly as much as the damage already done by the Castro regime.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,275
965
136
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
like anyone else is south/central america is free. :roll:

Way to insult all the free countries in the region. :thumbsdown:
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: dmens
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: dmens
William Attwood? Why don't you include some sycophant quotes from Herbert Matthews too? There were many poor people in Cuba before 1959, now everyone is poor. Good job Castro. :(

After posting all that crap, you didn't dispute the main point; that the Castro regime is the primary reason for Cuba's economic woes and healthcare quality degraded as a result. Neither Cuba's UN whine nor the subsequent vote from the toothless general assembly changes that hard fact.

when a country is cut off from foreign aid and capital, how can you not assume that the embargo is not hurting that country.

They are cut off from US aid and capital only. The US embargo probably hurting them somewhat, but not nearly as much as the damage already done by the Castro regime.
Agree the castros are doing more damage, but being shut off from trade with the richest nation in the world and it happens to be a short boat ride away is definitely affecting them. For one thing, if they were opened up to tourism, Americans may go there, though having gone there myself I'd recommend against it simply because there is a systemic, known, consistent liklihood of getting one's stuff stolen in the airports there BY THE @*#(ING COMMIE BASTARDS, I WANT MY WATCH BACK. And camera, and jewellry. Yeah, let the damn place rot and visit the Keys instead.