Fidel Castro is dead at age 90

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Okay then what is Cuba's problem with regards to healthcare? Feel free to spell it out for me.

[Causeless]

Okay then what is Cuba's problem with regards to healthcare? Feel free to spell it out for me.

That's a logical fallacy. Just because you can't think of another suitable explanation doesn't mean that there's something inherently economically wrong with universal healthcare.

Saying that any and all of Cuba's issues must be down to universal healthcare makes absolutely no sense when you look at other countries which are doing fine economically despite their similar healthcare systems,

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I'm not, I'm asking you to explain Cuba's issues with regards to healthcare.

[Causeless]

I'm not, I'm asking you to explain Cuba's issues with regards to healthcare.

I don't know.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Then I don't see where I'm wrong on this. Health coverage requires funding no matter what, it is all about where you get the money. Universal Healthcare gets its money from the government, usually from taxation. Cuba has no money and hence can't provide effective Universal Healthcare. People in Cuba have no money and hence they can't tax anything to acquire the money nor can they expect everyone to pay for their own healthcare.

[Dapacem]

Great news. I like my communist dictators dead. It wont bring back all the people he murdered but atleast we can be sure now he wont murder anymore.

[Causeless]

Then I don't see where I'm wrong on this. Health coverage requires funding no matter what, it is all about where you get the money. Universal Healthcare gets its money from the government, usually from taxation. Cuba has no money and hence can't provide effective Universal Healthcare. People in Cuba have no money and hence they can't tax anything to acquire the money nor can they expect everyone to pay for their own healthcare.

Where I believe you to be wrong is in your assumption that universal healthcare is fundamentally more expensive.

Yes, healthcare always requires funding... Obviously. That's not being disputed. What is being disputed is the claim that universal healthcare requires greater funding than the current system in the U.S.

[Love Mountain]

Then I don't see where I'm wrong on this. Health coverage requires funding no matter what, it is all about where you get the money. Universal Healthcare gets its money from the government, usually from taxation.

Wrong. Majority of universal health care systems do not rely on Government taxation, but rather on Government mandated privately run "sickness" funds like you see in the Bismarck model in Germany. This is a giant mis-conception that majority of right-wingers fall into. The most widely cited examples like Canada's Medicare, British NHS, and the "public" component of many universal health care systems are run by taxes, but the majority of healthcare is provided by private insurers at little to no profit because the Government mandates it so. Basic health coverage is required, private insurers usually compete on prices, service, and availability.

Cuba has no money and hence can't provide effective Universal Healthcare. People in Cuba have no money and hence they can't tax anything to acquire the money nor can they expect everyone to pay for their own healthcare.

Cuba is actually doing remarkably well considering who their peers are. Cubans healthcare systems is rightfully their national pride.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Where I believe you to be wrong is in your assumption that universal healthcare is fundamentally more expensive.

Yes, healthcare always requires funding... Obviously. That's not being disputed. What is being disputed is the claim that universal healthcare requires greater funding than the current system in the U.S.

I never said it was more expensive. All I said is that you still need to get the money from somewhere. Cuba can't acquire any money.

Wrong. Majority of universal health care systems do not rely on Government taxation, but rather on Government mandated privately run "sickness" funds like you see in the Bismarck model in Germany. This is a giant mis-conception that majority of right-wingers fall into. The most widely cited examples like Canada's Medicare, British NHS, and the "public" component of many universal health care systems are run by taxes, but the majority of healthcare is provided by private insurers at little to no profit because the Government mandates it so. Basic health coverage is required, private insurers usually compete on prices, service, and availability.

Cuba is actually doing remarkably well considering who their peers are. Cubans healthcare systems is rightfully their national pride.

I mean I don't disagree with that statement but the point still remains that neither the people in Cuba have the money to pay into a government mandated health insurance or taxes to pay the state to run their health services.

What do you mean their peers? I think you will have to explain this bit to me regarding Cuban healthcare.
But Cuba has been known for their good health care, among other things, since before Fidel Castro took power. If anything the Communist regime has made it worse. Now to make a comparison of Cuba's healthcare you might as well say "considering that Africa is an arid wasteland the starving kids in the slums of Nairobi did remarkably well today, in finding a slice of bread to eat". Cuban healthcare both objectively and subjectively is pretty bad. So you got free cough medication, you will still die from whatever else because no one, not even the government can afford medication or supplies in any significant numbers. But maybe if you are really lucky the USA will send a crate full of medical supplies and you will get to last for another week.

[Love Mountain]

I never said it was more expensive. All I said is that you still need to get the money from somewhere. Cuba can't acquire any money.

They spend about 10% of its GDP on their healthcare system. The money obviously comes out of the public. As opposed to our 17% which also comes out of the public in one way or another.

I mean I don't disagree with that statement but the point still remains that neither the people in Cuba have the money to pay into a government mandated health insurance or taxes to pay the state to run their health services.

No matter who you are you usually always have to spend a portion of your income that subsidizes others. Unless you live in an out-of-pocket system. Which 23 million Americans do. As well as the majority of the world.

What do you mean their peers? I think you will have to explain this bit to me regarding Cuban healthcare.

Cuba's peers are countries like Sudan, Venezuela, Uzebkistan, Finland, Angola, Ecuador, Sri Lanka, and Oman. Cuba's GDP rank is 66 or something. Needless to say that compared to similar economies of its size Cuban health is remarkably better. Per capita ranking its on par with Romania, Croatia, Turkey, Thailand, and so on. Does Cuban healthcare have its deficiencies? Sure, but for the most part, for the basic metrics at least... it has done fairly well especially when we consider the Cuban economy.

But Cuba has been known for their good health care, among other things, since before Fidel Castro took power. If anything the Communist regime has made it worse.

It's hard for me to tackle a hypothetical. Would Cuba have been better off without the Revolution? Maybe, I don't know. There are dozens of failed "capitalist" states. What I can say, is considering its poverty, Cubans and their health are relatively well off. Good health and access to healthcare is actually very rare when you consider the entire globe.

Now to make a comparison of Cuba's healthcare you might as well say "considering that Africa is an arid wasteland the starving kids in the slums of Nairobi did remarkably well today, in finding a slice of bread to eat". Cuban healthcare both objectively and subjectively is pretty bad. So you got free cough medication, you will still die from whatever else because no one, not even the government can afford medication or supplies in any significant numbers. But maybe if you are really lucky the USA will send a crate full of medical supplies and you will get to last for another week.

The majority of people in the world, and in Cuba die from cardiovascular disease due to old age. There are many diseases that even we have trouble curing or solving. Like rare cancers, HIV, or Alzheimer and Cuba certainly has it much harder than us tackling those, fortunately most deaths don't occur from those things, and while Cuba does have its difficulties I'd say they have the basics covered pretty well. They're actually better than us in some areas which shouldn't be possible if you follow common, un-educated wisdom like mine.

In the end Oda, most of us aren't millionaires and if health was my number 1 concern, which it isn't even though it should be, I'd live in France or Japan. They may not have all the wonder drugs, but chances are that 99% of the things that will require medical attention, will be much cheaper than in America. Both on my wallet, and on my taxes.

[ABH2]

They spend about 10% of its GDP on their healthcare system. The money obviously comes out of the public. As opposed to our 17% which also comes out of the public in one way or another.

Yea. It's pretty disingenuous to compare money extracted through force, or which never makes it to the workers in question (as in Cuba) with money spent willingly. But someone who can't or won't differentiate between individuals and society wouldn't pick up on that.

Wrong. Majority of universal health care systems do not rely on Government taxation

I don't even know what this means. 77% of Germany's healthcare spending is carried out by the government. Where does the government get that money, if not through taxation? You want to call it a 'sickness fund' and pretend that it's not taxation when you have just admitted it is mandatory. In Germany, it is tied to a proportion of ones salary. Didn't we have this very argument with the penaltax here, where the Obama administration was only able to keep its individual mandate because the court called a spade a spade and admitted it was...a tax? Because that's what it is.

No matter who you are you usually always have to spend a portion of your income that subsidizes others. Unless you live in an out-of-pocket system. Which 23 million Americans do. As well as the majority of the world.

Again, no distinction made between voluntary versus involuntary.

Does Cuban healthcare have its deficiencies? Sure, but for the most part, for the basic metrics at least... it has done fairly well especially when we consider the Cuban economy.

1. Assumes that metrics coming from an authoritarian regime can be completely trusted.
2. Ignores the connection between Cuba's economy and its healthcare.

Good health and access to healthcare is actually very rare when you consider the entire globe.

How about we stop comparing Cuba to third world Africa, and instead compare it to its neighbors and what it was pre-revolution?

Where I believe you to be wrong is in your assumption that universal healthcare is fundamentally more expensive.

Yes, healthcare always requires funding... Obviously. That's not being disputed. What is being disputed is the claim that universal healthcare requires greater funding than the current system in the U.S.

This isn't an apples to apples comparison in the slightest. But suffice to say it is very difficult to imagine a scenario where the government provides more people with healthcare whether it's through single payer or a universal system, and things get cheaper just as a result of that. The universal healthcare is fundamentally more expensive, especially for the government. It's just that governments have funny ways of shifting around those costs to obscure them.

What proportion of American healthcare costs stem from doctor pay? How much more do doctors need to be paid in America when they pay more for their education? Is it a healthcare cost when you are talking about educating doctors? Is America going to have Germany's educational system because it adopts a similar universal healthcare system? Are we going to be able to implement the same price controls on drugs? What, if any, hidden costs are there to adopting such policies?

Price controls don't really require universal anything. The point here being, America isn't suddenly going to be able to supply healthcare to everyone and make things cheaper because of the magical efficiency of our government. Which goes back to this...not being an apples to apples comparison in the least.

Even then, it's still fundamentally wrong to look at societal costs and to ignore that it is ultimately individuals paying and using the healthcare. I am not society. If I have no healthcare expenses, its cheaper for me not to have some universal system I'm mandated to pay into and may never even have a chance to use.

America's 'system' is not representative of some free market or even capitalist system regardless. Attacking the American healthcare system isn't the equivalent of proving that government healthcare is superior.

[Love Mountain]

Yea. It's pretty disingenuous to compare money extracted through force, or which never makes it to the workers in question (as in Cuba) with money spent willingly. But someone who can't or won't differentiate between individuals and society wouldn't pick up on that.

So for all your claims to engage in meaningful debate and accusing me of ideology, your very first sentence is critiquing Cuba's political system. Wonderful preview.

I don't even know what this means. 77% of Germany's healthcare spending is carried out by the government. Where does the government get that money, if not through taxation? You want to call it a 'sickness fund' and pretend that it's not taxation when you have just admitted it is mandatory. In Germany, it is tied to a proportion of ones salary. Didn't we have this very argument with the penaltax here, where the Obama administration was only able to keep its individual mandate because the court called a spade a spade and admitted it was...a tax? Because that's what it is.

You're right, my phrasing was misleading. Looking back at it I'm not sure what I meant anymore.

Again, no distinction made between voluntary versus involuntary.

That's because I do not care. If it's freedom to kill yourself that you want, you will always have that. If it's freedom from taxation, that's too bad. You will benefit whether you want to or not because everyone has to share the costs.

1. Assumes that metrics coming from an authoritarian regime can be completely trusted.
2. Ignores the connection between Cuba's economy and its healthcare.

1. Prove to me on an individual basis that all health statistics regarding Cuba are worthless.
2. Healthcare affects the economy positively and negatively. We're also not discussing the Cuban economy. Completely different topic that I am not familiar with.

How about we stop comparing Cuba to third world Africa, and instead compare it to its neighbors and what it was pre-revolution?

Because it's important to compare Cuba to it's economic peers. Not it's neighboring peers. Also, time moves forward and so does technology. Comparing 2010 healthcare to 1950 healthcare is pointless. There are far too many variables in between to make an accurate assessment.

This isn't an apples to apples comparison in the slightest. But suffice to say it is very difficult to imagine a scenario where the government provides more people with healthcare whether it's through single payer or a universal system, and things get cheaper just as a result of that. The universal healthcare is fundamentally more expensive, especially for the government. It's just that governments have funny ways of shifting around those costs to obscure them.

the

You keep harping on about these hidden costs. Please, tell me about them and cite it. Efficiency wise single-payer isn't bad. Neither is a Bismarck system. Or Japanese. Or French. Or Swiss.

What proportion of American healthcare costs stem from doctor pay? How much more do doctors need to be paid in America when they pay more for their education? Is it a healthcare cost when you are talking about educating doctors? Is America going to have Germany's educational system because it adopts a similar universal healthcare system? Are we going to be able to implement the same price controls on drugs? What, if any, hidden costs are there to adopting such policies?

A unified front by the Government can easily dictate drug and procedure prices to hospitals, insurers, and Pharma. Depending on implementation of course. If we make a committee of Hospitals, I suspect cronyism. If we simply have the HHS do it it'll have much more control, but then people yell Government. So who know how it would be implemented?

Price controls don't really require universal anything. The point here being, America isn't suddenly going to be able to supply healthcare to everyone and make things cheaper because of the magical efficiency of our government. Which goes back to this...not being an apples to apples comparison in the least.

If you are claiming that Healthcare won't be fixed magically and instantly then yes, it won't be. I don't know what exactly you are arguing here.

Even then, it's still fundamentally wrong to look at societal costs and to ignore that it is ultimately individuals paying and using the healthcare. I am not society. If I have no healthcare expenses, its cheaper for me not to have some universal system I'm mandated to pay into and may never even have a chance to use.

Again, I am not looking at you nor am I interested in your ideological subscription. If we want to cover everything, then we have to have a large risk pool. Mandating it a requirement is the easiest way to insure a large risk pool.

America's 'system' is not representative of some free market or even capitalist system regardless. Attacking the American healthcare system isn't the equivalent of proving that government healthcare is superior.

This is not some proof that a Free Market system is worse. This is looking for better solutions out of what we already have. Why would I "try" a Free market system when no successful system exists? I want to get the best out of what already exists and try to mitigate the downsides.

[Causeless]

Even then, it's still fundamentally wrong to look at societal costs and to ignore that it is ultimately individuals paying and using the healthcare. I am not society. If I have no healthcare expenses, its cheaper for me not to have some universal system I'm mandated to pay into and may never even have a chance to use.

So where is the line drawn?

If forcing people to pay taxes for healthcare is immoral, then how about other taxed money? Does U.S defense spending pay into this? The CIA? How about NASA? How about prisons? Education?

Is it deeply wrong to take taxes if it is raised by even a penny by any of these factors?

America's 'system' is not representative of some free market or even capitalist system regardless. Attacking the American healthcare system isn't the equivalent of proving that government healthcare is superior.

I've been very, very particular with my choice of words to avoid giving that impression. I'm merely implying that universal healthcare is an overall better system than the current system utilized in the U.S, but I'm not comparing it to other possible implementations.

The universal healthcare is fundamentally more expensive, especially for the government. It's just that governments have funny ways of shifting around those costs to obscure them.

Any examples of these "funny ways of shifting costs" which isn't also done by the U.S, and significantly changes the healthcare spending value?

Honestly this argument just seems like a workaround. Any concrete values that are given can just be instantly disregarded by saying "but what if it's deceptive?" without pointing out the actual flaws in that value...

I never said it was more expensive. All I said is that you still need to get the money from somewhere. Cuba can't acquire any money.

So where does this fit into your claims that universal healthcare is fundamentally flawed? And what system would've better suited Cuba?