Fidel Castro is dead at age 90

[ABH2]

he offered his people mild economic improvement in return for their liberty, Castro has offered moderately efficient healthcare as a sop to ameliorate his undemocratic rule

You know what the biggest difference here is? One is past tense. The other is still ongoing and has been the status quo for half a century. It's also comical to me that nothing is said about Castro's suppression of freedom.

You then throw out the healthcare canard - once again - ignoring that Chile is currently a wealthy democracy that has the same sort of health outcomes (and probably superior if we dig deeper than simply life expectancy and infant mortality). Those defending Castro don't seem to be very curious at all when it comes to explaining why Pinochet was forced to give up power and why the Castros have lived comfortably. I mean, besides just taking it as evidence of how much the Cuban people love Castro. Economic rights are freedoms, as well. I know the left scoffs at that notion, but economic rights are the most fundamental and basic any individual can have. And there's this crazy trend where dictatorships that have allowed economic freedoms have tended to give way to nations that respect civil rights.

This is still Castro apologism.

the great flaw of socialist countries outside Scandinavia (which have constitutional monarchies advised by semi- or soft socialist parliaments)

The Scandinavian countries ARE NOT socialist. They have a welfare state and redistribute wealth produced by relatively free and open markets.

Even with US assistance Cuba would never be a wealthy country,

There's no basis for this claim. Cuba was in fact wealthy by Latin American standards in the middle of the century. It was as wealthy as a number of European countries at that time. Cuba does have a massive advantage over many countries on the planet. This is like saying that there's no way tiny Singapore, Hong Kong, or Taiwan could end up being highly wealthy when Cuba has a number of natural advantages over both.

but having a leader so antagonistic to the mob and the CIA (apparently there has been a strong working relationship in the past?) means Cuba was the subject of a lot of hurt from El Norte.

Repeating it for the fiftieth time without actually addressing any of the counter arguments doesn't make it any less untrue.

[StarDreamer]

The Scandinavian countries ARE NOT socialist. They have a welfare state and redistribute wealth produced by relatively free and open markets.

Indeed, I would say that the nordic countries are very much capitalist, free market societies. They do however have social policies to take care of those less well of in society, as a way to ensure unity and lessen the burdens that a oppressed lowerlass would cause. But society itself is not socialist at its core. The nordic countries can never be brought forward as a model for working socialism, but only as a possible model for dealing with the problems of capitalism.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Indeed, I would say that the nordic countries are very much capitalist, free market societies. They do however have social policies to take care of those less well of in society, as a way to ensure unity and lessen the burdens that a oppressed lowerlass would cause. But society itself is not socialist at its core. The nordic countries can never be brought forward as a model for working socialism, but only as a possible model for dealing with the problems of capitalism.

Yeah Norway and Denmark don't even have minimum wage.

Where does this meme that Cuba has great healthcare come from? Absolutely baffling when one actually sees what is happening with Cuba's "healthcare", if we can even call it that.

[Nikitn]

Yeah Norway and Denmark don't even have minimum wage.

Nobody who works legally earns less than NOK130 per hour in Norway. It's actually quite true that Norway is one of the most 'socialist' countries in the world - very high tax on rich, universal healthcare/education, very low social inequality (a bus-driver earns 60-70% of what a MD does - as it should be), no private jails (that's just ridiculous), no inefficient "you have to finish undergrad before starting law school/med school" scams etc.

It's the same in Denmark, Iceland and Sweden (and I presume Finland, too).

Where does this meme that Cuba has great healthcare come from? Absolutely baffling when one actually sees what is happening with Cuba's "healthcare", if we can even call it that.

WHO? I mean come on, why would anyone trust the hysteric rants of the Miami-cubans ? It's not all bad in Cuba.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Health care is terrible in Cuba. The only place with decent health care is Havana. If you are paying in cash as a tourist then of course you would get optimal health care. Free and universal doesn't mean much when it is bound to the sad reality that plenty of people have died in Cuba because the healthcare and scarcity of medical supplies are so awful.

[Love Mountain]

Health care is terrible in Cuba. The only place with decent health care is Havana. If you are paying in cash as a tourist then of course you would get optimal health care. Free and universal doesn't mean much when it is bound to the sad reality that plenty of people have died in Cuba because the healthcare and scarcity of medical supplies are so awful.

That's the reality of a troubled economy rather than the concept of socialized medicine.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

That's the reality of socialized medicine in a tier economy.

[ABH2]

Every ill Cuba's healthcare has is on display anywhere there is 'socialized' medicine, only to a lesser degree because the governments aren't quite as authoritarian and the nations aren't poor because they are capitalist. Further, socialism doesn't produce wealth. It doesn't create prosperity. Both, in fact, are harmed by it. Socialism is parasitic and cannot survive without its host.

What's been very apparent throughout this thread is that many people don't really care about the results a healthcare system produces, but far more about the notion of universal coverage which is another way of saying 'equality.' Not equality as it has traditionally been understood by actual liberals, but equality in outcomes. It's OK if everyone is poor and miserable because they are suffering together. Equally (unless you have the right political connections).

Nobody who works legally earns less than NOK130 per hour in Norway. It's actually quite true that Norway is one of the most 'socialist' countries in the world - very high tax on rich, universal healthcare/education, very low social inequality (a bus-driver earns 60-70% of what a MD does - as it should be), no private jails (that's just ridiculous), no inefficient "you have to finish undergrad before starting law school/med school" scams etc.

Why should a bus driver have to take 60-70% of what a MD makes? Why shouldn't he have equal pay? Is he not providing to society to the best of his ability, and thus shouldn't he receive pay to meet his needs?

Not mention when people about what socialist wonderlands the Scandinavian countries are is that their tax systems are relatively very regressive (it's not just the rich paying a lot), they tend to have low corporate tax rates, and low amounts of regulation.

America actually has the most progressive tax system in the West. The highest marginal income tax rates in the US are higher than in Norway. The reason we collect less percent of our GDP isn't because we don't tax the rich as much, but because we don't tax the middle class and poor. Scandinavian countries have a far 'flatter' tax.

[Love Mountain]

Would you prefer top-tier medicine for the privileged elite?

[ABH2]

Would you prefer top-tier medicine for the privileged elite?

If the question here is whether I'd prefer top-tier medicine for the 'privileged' elite, by which I guess you mean rich, instead of the politically connected, then the answer is overwhelmingly YES. At least in the case of the rich guy, there's a chance he did something of value to the human race to earn his privilege.

If this is a knock on private healthcare/insurance, I'd just point out that there is no nation on the planet where the 'top tier' isn't reserved for the elite. This is as true in the UK as it is here. The UK has, perhaps, a lower floor for care provided, but in its public system, a much lower ceiling. But as you have indignantly told me, nothing stops the wealthy from seeking care elsewhere...like the US. But the guy who has paid into the national system his whole life and is denied care is less likely to be able to afford that. Or, even if he does, he will have essentially paid for his healthcare twice.

But the proponents of nationalized healthcare or single payer typically don't want to acknowledge that care is in anyway rationed. They want to pretend that healthcare somehow operates beyond the basic laws of economics. The relatively smart ones know this is nonsense, and are simply lying. The rest are simply rubes.

[Love Mountain]

Wasn't talking to you. I was asking Oda.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Would you prefer top-tier medicine for the privileged elite?

Not sure what you mean by "privileged", do you mean rich people or the state officials?

In Cuba your only chance is the latter because the only other people with enough money to accomplish this are tourists who pay in cash. Otherwise you are just a poor comrade who gets the worst service possible. You know like having to pay for complex procedures in the black market or being refused outright and then dying. Or sleeping on the floor or even recycling medical equipment which has not been sterilized.

[Love Mountain]

Not sure what you mean by "privileged", do you mean rich people or the state officials?

In countries like Cuba state officials are rich people. Just look at Ukraine.

In Cuba your only chance is the latter because the only other people with enough money to accomplish this are tourists who pay in cash. Otherwise you are just a poor comrade who gets the worst service possible. You know like having to pay for complex procedures in the black market or being refused outright and then dying. Or sleeping on the floor or even recycling medical equipment which has not been sterilized.

I prefer socialized medicine even in a poor country. Worst service possible for someone who has nothing is preferable to no service possible. With enough money and connections you are not limited to medicine in your country anyway, you're mobile because cash is King.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

That is what I meant, the only rich people in Cuba are state officials.

Cuba is only poor because Fidel destroyed the economy with his insane Communist policies. As it stands Cuba is practically the Congo in that regard. If Fidel had actually tried to make the country better then chances are many people would not be as poor as they are now. All he really did was increase the amount of impoverished individuals. At least with a payer system they would actually be able to afford these things rather than depend on the charity of other countries, particularly the United States which gives Cuba the vast majority of their medical supplies since the 2000's.

[2-D Ron]

So yes, he did have some positive developments, much like Castro, although not to the same extent perhaps. Still doesn't change the fact that they were both dictators over their people using methods of bloody repression though.

Yeah, he should of created an Oligarchy like the US and UK and totally alienate the voter so only the usual order of neo-libs get in every election like a normal elitist.

That is what I meant, the only rich people in Cuba are state officials.

Cuba is only poor because Fidel destroyed the economy with his insane Communist policies. As it stands Cuba is practically the Congo in that regard. If Fidel had actually tried to make the country better then chances are many people would not be as poor as they are now. All he really did was increase the amount of impoverished individuals. At least with a payer system they would actually be able to afford these things rather than depend on the charity of other countries, particularly the United States which gives Cuba the vast majority of their medical supplies since the 2000's.

Hard to do those things when your Country has been economically shackled by the majority of Western powers, may have had more to play with.
Last I heard, Cuba has a much better Healthcare system than the US in terms of coverage.
Obamacare may of bridged that gap some what, but it's still backwards to carry on the "for profit" model.

[Prodromos]

We stand alone in a lot of things, and I'm thankful for that. Take a close look at that map, if that means you are somehow "better" then please, stay that way.

It's almost as if they are unaware of American exceptionalism.

[ABH2]

So really every excuse made for Cuba and socialism in general these days can be reduced to either:
1. SCANDINAVIA
2. They would have succeeded, too, if not for you meddling capitalists (who refuse to trade with us)!

I mean, it's not too much different than in the Cold War, only the left still deluded themselves the Soviet Union was a success back then.

Last I heard, Cuba has a much better Healthcare system than the US in terms of coverage.

And health 'coverage' is the exact same thing as receiving healthcare. I mean, what sort of country let's millions of its own citizens die in the streets so doctors can make profits?

Obamacare may of bridged that gap some what, but it's still backwards to carry on the "for profit" model.

And we all know that the profit motive, along with the rest of what neoliberal scum believe, was debunked in 1929! BAH!

I mean, what are they even teaching people in economics anymore? Oh, right. Public schools and all that...

I prefer socialized medicine even in a poor country. Worst service possible for someone who has nothing is preferable to no service possible. With enough money and connections you are not limited to medicine in your country anyway, you're mobile because cash is King.

Everything I've seen you argue about economics would stunt the growth of any developing nation and leave it mired in poverty as well as devoid of human freedom. In fact, it is the sort of nonsense that Western and Western educated technocrats have been telling the third world for most of the twentieth century. Which is why they so often fail to develop.

[StarDreamer]

Cuba sucked because Castro was a brutal dictator. Universal heathcare is a good thing, it doesn't need to be flawless or perfect. If rich want even better heathcare than that provided to the rest then I am sure they have the money to pay for it. However universal heathcare is never good enough to excuse brutal dictatorship.

Would people please stop dragging Scandinavia or The Nordic countries into this, last I heard they weren't dictatorships so why would they be comparable to the hellhole that is Cuba?

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Hard to do those things when your Country has been economically shackled by the majority of Western powers, may have had more to play with.
Last I heard, Cuba has a much better Healthcare system than the US in terms of coverage.
Obamacare may of bridged that gap some what, but it's still backwards to carry on the "for profit" model.

Cuba has and always will be dominated by the United States economically. Fidel Castro tried to hide from that fact and look what good it did him. But he also succumbed to ideology and even went so far as to ban capitalism and trade so he also destroyed his own domestic market. Everything recently has been their pathetic attempt at resurrecting the economy and will do nothing for them in long run because foreign investors don't want to be damaged by their regulations and flabby currency.

In theory Cuba's health care system gives everyone coverage. In actuality it barely covers anything because of scarcity. Both in their economy and health care system they are a charity case. Constantly taking handouts from the United States, whatever international organizations feel pity for them and their hilarious but horribly stupid Venezuelan comrade Maduro. The blockade on its own could not have done this much damage to Cuba, hence much of the blame would have to go to Fidel Castro himself. I mean do you know what Cuba would do for a few million USD right about now? If we asked them to burn the Convertible Peso and take free USD from us they would probably do it.

Even if we allowed them to kick start their economy again that would just make them another regime that doesn't suffer from scarcity and has free reign to do as it pleases. Just another People's Republic of China or Saudi Arabia etc etc.

[Causeless]

Even if one wanted to accept both of the premises needed for your argument, those being that:
1. Access to healthcare is an inalienable right

Frankly, I find it almost sickening that some people consider access to free healthcare to not be a human right - let alone just access to "healthcare" alone, as you put it. I've always considered it such an deeply assumed right that I was immensely surprised when I realized that the U.S doesn't provide free healthcare. It's the sort of thing that, to me, was completely incomprehensible for a first-world country.

As a civilized country the U.S sits alone on this, and for good reason.

So really every excuse made for Cuba and socialism in general these days can be reduced to either:
1. SCANDINAVIA

You realize that stating an argument doesn't refute it, right?

Scandinavia, although not being socialist, does at least show examples of how socialist methods can work successfully in a country. The U.K and a large portion of Europe act as good examples for this too given we've all got free healthcare.

2. They would have succeeded, too, if not for you meddling capitalists (who refuse to trade with us)!

If you use this argument, the reverse applies too.

Perhaps assuming that Cuba would be a huge success without the embargo would be illogical, but it's equally as illogical then to assume that they would fail regardless - to show off Cuba as being a quintessential example of a 'failed' communist country. I use the word 'fail' here, which is slightly exaggerated when you consider the immense pressure that Cuba was under that it's a damn miracle they didn't collapse.

Your argument is effectively just applying another fallacy to an already fallacious argument. Certainly, nobody can really say with certainty which of Cuba's issues were born of the embargo, and to jump to the embargo as an excuse for everything is nothing but a scapegoat. However, to then jump to the conclusion that all of Cuba's problems were therefore born of the integral concept of socialism itself; that is a far greater logical leap to make! These extraordinary circumstances mean pointing to Cuba in any way as a classical study of a socialist country is perhaps one of the worst examples possible.

Ultimately, the U.S saw a need to impose an embargo, and we know that the U.S goals in the embargo were to hurt Cuba. It's a lesser assumption to make that the embargo at least partially succeeded in it's goals, i.e the entire reason it exists, than to assume that the embargo did nothing and instead that a mere whisper of the word 'socialism' is akin to a curse upon a country...

I mean, what sort of country let's millions of its own citizens die in the streets so doctors can make profits?

The U.S.A?

Oh, come on. It wasn't even as if you walked right into that one, you constructed the entire joke for us