Fidel Castro is dead at age 90

[dogukan]

My understanding of freedom begins and ends with the individual. Any other concept of rights is inherently contradictory and an excuse to suppress the individual. Freedoms are rights, and rights are derived from the non-aggression principle. This is important because the first principle of libertarianism has nothing at all to do with capitalism or markets. And if the 'periphery world' suffers from anything, it's from suppressing individuals. They have listened to the claptrap pushed by the shysters of the left too much for too long.

Like we discussed before, I have a huge problem with your "non-aggression principle"...because eveything humans do to create a social order, is in a way enforced. But lets not get into that now. The problem here is your un-shakeable belief in your methodology and its universal application at all times, everywhere with a limited understading.
The only major variable you identified here is "suppression of individual"...What is an individual? What does an inidividual want? Is the individual as a category a force that applies a certain, pre-defined pressure(i.e, in your case the desire for free exchange)? How can you be sure of what the "individual" sees as freedom or as source of happiness& being content?
The problem is, your analytical category of individual is also defined by your own a prioris. Which in the end turns your theory into a belief system with a confirmation bias.

Access to education, healthcare, and housing are freedoms that fit perfectly within the framework of libertarianism. What you are talking about isn't access to anything, but some sort of artificial guarantee to education, healthcare, and housing which must necessarily come at the expense of someone else and which limits the autonomy of all. Libertarians believe in freedom of association, and by extension, the freedom of contract. These rights are, by my estimation, naturally occurring phenomenon. Humans anywhere and everywhere engage in them when left to their own devices. They are not given, but can be infringed upon and limited.

Yeah, so in a way Fidel took power from people who were not doing it and gave power to masses to do what they can....albeit in his own limiting way as a supervisor.
And their literacy more than doubled in a decade, housing have increased immensely and people had a whole lot more access to better health(his economic ambitions however failed due to attempts at over-production of sugar, that was a classic mistake many Marxian influenced regimes did). All these provided, gave people a lot of freedom to go on about their own desires than having to work day and night to make money thats worth nothing while the elite gambling in casinos everywhere in your country and buying your ancestor's lands without asking you while the politicians in their pockets send armed forces to kill dissidents...

You are more utopian than the "communist" folk. There will never be a society where there is free-markets and a long-term sustainable system that does not create unequal power relations which on the long run will lead to oppression and exclusion of many people from access to "consumer society".
This way of thinking leads you to judge Fidel's regime from a very irrelevant position.

A free and prosperous society is a prerequisite to people having widespread access to good education and healthcare. Socialists, communists, Marxists etc. confuse effects for causes. Despite supposed improvements in education, it is noteworthy that Cuba has become no more prosperous or wealthy.

Even wealth is a relative concept sometimes.
Yea, Cuba did not become a prosperous country, but it did not do much worse than many countries in the world. It was also embergoed. Too much for a USA that believes in free-trade. They literally choked the small-island nation for decades and failed to bring it down. USA is more responsible of Cuba's poverty than Castro's regime who have made the country more accessible to larger segments of the society.
Look at Haiti. Thats a capitalist country. There is a reason markets don't suddenly start creating wealth out of nowhere. There is more to creating of prosperity than functioning of free markets.

And in order to survive, the Castro regime had to accept reforms predicated on the principles I espouse. One handouts from the Soviets dried up, they were compelled to accept market reforms based upon economic laws that you reject. The only reason it has been able to limp along the way it has, like the communists in China, is because they ultimately accepted that their own ideology conflicted with that awful liberal reality that you dismiss as a mere social construct.

Yeah they did. I am not exactly for ideologically obsesssed economic positions, whether it be obsessions with free-markets or "real socialism model". I am more for experimenting while creating an inclusive political mechanism at a decentralized level. Something Cuba is also trying to an extend recently afaik.
The "real socialism" model have failed. Nobody denies that.

What stuff is this, exactly? They have high literacy rates, but that isn't really 'stuff.' Of course, now that more people can read, the Cuban government has found it necessary to restrict what they are allowed to read. They have access to, on average, poor healthcare that comes with a number of strings attached, and in which the level of care is dependent upon obedience to the state.

I cannot comment on this without having researched it. It could be the case. But its no conspiracy that the western media have actively attacked and fabricated lies about Cuba.

Cuba is basically a perfect example of every moral hazard libertarians worn about when the subject of governmental power is discussed. Nothing provided to the people is free or even guaranteed, and anything provided has been used to empower the state.

I can agree with your critique to an extend. However I would not put the blame solely on existance of the powerful state as a mechanism that causes this. The same thing happens all over the world through different mechanisms as well. It has more to do with society, culture, institutions and many dynamics that could be unique to a case.
The reason state had become such a menace in most of these socialist regimes was real-politic. Something people like you always ignore. These people had a very decentralized system in mind where the state would abolish itself. In fact, Marxist theory had been dissing state as a tool of oppression since its founding. What their theory did not consider was the power projection of western imperialism and their ability to get involved in manipulating societies. Individuals become powerless when an American agent can take you out if they see you as a threat.
These regimes turned into paranoid police-states not just because they were big fans of it. It was also because they were dealing with a powerful force that wanted to actively take them out. American desire to keep violent dictators in power all over the world against these movements was a major reason things got into a life&death situation.
I'd like to remind you that Fidel, before Batista took over with American-backing was trying to get involved in politics democratically.
If he had continued on his path, he'd be one of the tens of thousands of people killed under Batista's regime.

I have done very little to no defending of American policies with regards to Cuba or Latin America as a whole. It is completely unnecessary when discussing the failures of Castro. Yet, it seems like a great deal of his support here and elsewhere is based on mere opposition to the US regardless of what consequences that has had for the Cuban people.

On the contrary, the conjuncture and zeitgeist is everything.
You cannot understand the path Castro took without America.

Also you like to demonize radical leftists, so you cannot see Fidel's political cause as a sincere one if it was "wrong" according to you. Dissing him to you is ideological, almost is existencial. You, at some point agreeing with something he did has more in stake for you..think about it. Libertarian ideology and its established values define your character. This is too personal for you. You cannot even accept the basic reality of the Cuban case...you just hate the dude for what he represents.
This libertarian dogmatism is quiet an interesting phenomena the way I see and reminds me a lot of Marxists. Reddit's anarcho-capitalist sub turned into a Trump-loving place for this reason.
That snobby attitude that "the rest of the world don't get the real deal that matters".

You don't have to take the word of a dogmatic American libertarian. I think any objective outsider would look at the fact that Cuba is an armed prison state that has to fight to keep its own people within its borders and quickly identify where the propaganda is primarily coming from.

I live under a neo-liberal regime which largely represents the interests of an interconnected network of corporate structures and its an armed prison state as well. Socialists are the first to go to jail here.
Many times I feel like you take a lot of things in the developed west as granted. You see things in a very linear way. You can either go the right way or the wrong way. Society is a lot more complicated than that.

No. It just aligned itself with the Soviet Union fully knowing the consequences of such a move. Castro had opportunities before the Bay of Pigs to avoid antagonizing the US, but he couldn't help himself. And before there was any embargo, he had already made a point to show that foreign investors weren't welcome. He attempted to have US oil corporations refine oil for the Soviets, and then stole their assets when they refused.

I don't know of this. But I am curious.
How did the American investors got their "assets" on Cuba?
Castro was not a "Marxist" early on. He was more of a nationalist who hated American imperialism. His "Marxist" identity came later on as he aligned with the USSR. But I doN't think he did that out of nowhere. Americas was a playground for American interests. I doubt US would be friendly to a dude who was against the interests and world-view of the of the American elite...he wanted to do something for Cubans. And conjuncture as well as the objective reality of where he was(a colony, a periphery economy with extremely poor population in a very unequal system) pushed him into a radical-left perspective on things.

The real myth of the embargo is that people would have rushed to invest and trade with a nation operating this way. Which is, again, one of the reasons I oppose the very notion of any such embargo. It provides these poor excuses for the failures of socialism which reoccur everywhere.

But, see, there's no actual principle upon which socialists/communists/Marxists or anyone who doesn't believe in freedom of association can oppose the embargo. The argument being presented is utterly childish. Businesses would have rushed to invest and trade in Cuba when the regime was severely restricting not only who they could trade and do business with, but a threat to steal any hard assets they could get their hands on? It's nonsensical. Trade of the sort the embargo cut off is only possible with a guarantee of things which would have undermined the core tenants of Castro's regime.

They don't have to invest. Cuba had more to prove to the world if it was not embargoed. Embergo is a way of breaking the will of the people and showing the world that you cannot "survive" outside the system.
Cubans, if not embergoed could have created their own country in a more independent way. Instead, it had to turn into a barely surviving small, poor island nation.
I am not arguing that FDI would have made Cuba an amazing place nor it would have flown under that regime. But nobody here denies the benefits of trade including the Marxists. The self-sufficieny ideology was a product of cold war anti-imperialism mixed with nationalism.
The thing is, Cubans would have been able to get a much more fair deal on global trade if they were left alone and decide their own trade rather than being enforced what the big boss across the sea needs.
It became a subject of American cold-war ideological ego. Be like us, or fail. You cannot prove anything else around here.

[dogukan]

Feudal serfs also had representatives to plead their lord for less raping and taxes.

On a more serious note, if the government decides something that the locals don't like, what can they do?

Can they protest? No.
Can they elect a different government? No.

So yeah....that's why these systems only work in theory, because reality is a .

Yea, so I live in a representative democracy and I can also protest when the government trying to secure public land for an "investor" and get beaten/jailed and change nothing in the end.

This isn't about the theory of the system. Cuba can have a functioning representative system without the party-politics in representative democracies.

Whether that was the case or not is not something I can get into without researching. It just depends on the conjuncture.

Representative democracies do not mean you are guaranteed to be represented and heard. It can equally be power enforcing of the dominant side.

[fkizz]

Also, as long as we are praising brutal Latin American dictators...

Actually it's a good question why praising characters who repress their population is 100% ok as long as they represent any form of leftwing ideology, but if one wants to go to Pinochet (also repressive) but improved economic situation in Chile, then you are a "horrible monster".

Really raises a lot of questions. I mean in both cases there is some very strong authoritarian repression going on, but one is politically correct to praise, the other is not. In Pinochet case very repressive character but Chile got a fairly decent economy going as one of his legacies, for south american standards at least.

Well that said not a big fan of Castro or his ideology, but have to respect his ability in avoiding getting killed by professionals in said businesss and living to old age. How many CIA assassination attempts did he survive? How did he even manage that?

[swabian]

@dogukan: You sure have a firm belief in your words. I give you that.

[ABH2]

Actually it's a good question why praising characters who repress their population is 100% ok as long as they represent any form of leftwing ideology, but if one wants to go to Pinochet (also repressive) but improved economic situation in Chile, then you are a "horrible monster".

Really raises a lot of questions. I mean in both cases there is some very strong authoritarian repression going on, but one is politically correct to praise, the other is not.

I've been trying to figure out why its ok to call oneself a socialist, Marxist, or communist for a very long time despite the massive death tolls caused by those regimes in the 20th century. If I were to label myself a Nazi, anyone would rightfully be able to call me a piece of . But somehow, its still considered acceptable in polite society to label myself a communist. The best I can gather is that, despite these people very often (if not always) defending the brutality of the Castro's whenever the subject comes up, they will then in some other conversation or sometimes even within the same conversation play the "no true Scotsmen" game. It's never the ideology that is at fault, but individual actors.

But it's just an obvious double standard, as we know. The ideology of socialism/communism inevitably leads to those things and trends towards the bad actors getting the power.

The only major variable you identified here is "suppression of individual"...What is an individual? What does an inidividual want? Is the individual as a category a force that applies a certain, pre-defined pressure(i.e, in your case the desire for free exchange)? How can you be sure of what the "individual" sees as freedom or as source of happiness& being content?

I don't know what any various individual wants. That's the beauty of libertarianism - I don't have to know, and they are free to determine what they want for themselves. As I've told you before, nothing stops any group of radical-feminist commie sympathizers from getting together and starting a commune. The only 'freedom' they lack is the ability force anyone else to participate in said commune, or to force others to pay for their commune. Which really aren't freedoms, obviously, but mere attempts to restrict the freedoms of others.

The issue with your critique of my worldview is that words have specific meanings. And no amount of mental gymnastics can cover for the logical leap it takes to get from the self-defense needed to protect natural rights to aggression.

Libertarianism can accommodate any voluntary arrangement that any group of individuals can dream up. It doesn't guarantee the success of any arrangement. It doesn't guarantee outcomes, though. Where as Marxists, despite their best attempt to muddle the conversation, tend to start from conclusions and work backwards to justify them. I do not, as a libertarian, have to make any qualitative judgement for any other individual.

And their literacy more than doubled in a decade

What good is it to be able to read if you aren't allowed to exercise it as you see fit, and it isn't helping you economically? The poor peasant farmer in Cuba has little need to read, and will find precious little available to him as a source of entertainment or enrichment outside whatever Castro's regime has decided will further their indoctrination. Some individual Cubans are undoubtedly happy with their lot in life. Some are happy to be able to read anything. Some are likely not happy. Of those who are happy, some portion would not be if they were fully aware of alternatives or given access to alternative sources of information. Regardless of whether they are or are not happy, they are not allowed to change their situation.

Yeah, so in a way Fidel took power from people who were not doing it and gave power to masses to do what they can....albeit in his own limiting way as a supervisor.

It's a funny definition of power you have where the absence of it means they are really in charge and all. If after half a century the only thing you can say for your revolution is that it has provided local doctors and taught people how to read, it's a failure. That is not empowering them. They remain under the thumbs of a detached ruling class that has gained its position not based on merit or actual ability, but through loyalty to the state and political connections.

I do not have to defend the Batista regime to point out that Castro's has stunted the growth of Cuba and kept its people mired in poverty.

All these provided, gave people a lot of freedom to go on about their own desires

What desires are these? What leisure activities do Cubans have access to? I mean, ones that are legally allowed by the government and not restricted in some way? It's a government so backwards it is still attempting to ban certain kinds of music. If some theocracy did that, the left would be howling about it. But when socialists do it? Utter silence. What's twisted is pretending that Cubans have the freedom to enjoy whatever time off they have. What if some Cuban wants to work more to improve their lot in life? How free are they to do that, especially if they don't have the favor of government?

There will never be a society where there is free-markets and a long-term sustainable system that does not create unequal power relations which on the long run will lead to oppression and exclusion of many people from access to "consumer society".

I am unaware of Americans who are excluded from "consumer society," personally, outside the destitute and homeless. As already covered, those people exist everywhere, and most of those in America are not in that position because of a lack of social safety net at all. It isn't because we just haven't redistributed enough wealth. There are hordes of poor people who just lined up at the crack of down yesterday to participate in that consumer society.

At the least as a libertarian, I don't have to pretend that the very basic laws of economics are nothing more than social constructs or capitalist propaganda. Speaking of which...

his economic ambitions however failed due to attempts at over-production of sugar, that was a classic mistake many Marxian influenced regimes did).

I'm just going to accept the premise at the moment, that his economic policies failed for such a simple reason as the one above. Explain to me why they failed. I mean, if scarcity and supply and demand are just social constructs or things that can be waived away, then what is the rational explanation for how overproduction of sugar caused this failure?

More to the point, if we are going to get utilitarian here, you just made a pretty nice argument for not centralizing economic planning to any government. One of the benefits of my crazy utopian vision is that all the eggs are never in one basket.

Whether that was the case or not is not something I can get into without researching. It just depends on the conjuncture.

You have this funny way of talking like you are an expert on Cuba in one part of your post, and then claiming ignorance of Cuba in others.

Even wealth is a relative concept sometimes.

And if we are speaking of Cuba, I can go ahead and cite studies indicating that Cubans would likely be wealthier if there was no revolution than they are today. It's counterfactual and model based, so it can never be factual. But I consider it more weighty than pointing to generalized statements about supposedly free healthcare or education provided.

They don't have to invest. Cuba had more to prove to the world if it was not embargoed. Embergo is a way of breaking the will of the people and showing the world that you cannot "survive" outside the system.
Cubans, if not embergoed could have created their own country in a more independent way. Instead, it had to turn into a barely surviving small, poor island nation.

So what exactly are they going to trade with the Cubans? How are they doing to do it without 'investing' in it? There's this notion that without the embargo, people would be doing something in Cuba that would make Cuba wealthier, but there's an unwilling to actually point out specifically what they'd be doing or how it would increase wealth overall. What I have been trying to get at is that its impossible to articulate such an argument without falling back on classical economics rejected by, to be generous, most Marxists. Who is going to want to trade with a regime that fixes the price of its currency, operates with price control, doesn't recognize private property, could arrest your employees in country at any moment, confiscate assets within the country on a whim. etc.

This is not an environment conductive to economic growth. And capitalist pigs aren't stupid. They aren't going to enter into an unequal power arrangement with a crazy and delusional Cuban government that mismanages everything it touches.

So we can look at one thing smug Western leftists like to point to that Cuba could sell to the outside world. Cigars! I mean, everyone has heard of Cuban cigars! They've seen them on TV and everything. But here's the reality. Much of Cuba's cigar manufacturing was taken over by the government after the revolution. Many of the most talented makers of said cigars fled the country and were already making Cuban cigars from foreign locations. The actual brands that remain in Cuba, being mostly government run or operated under severe restrictions/shortages of required resources, have poor quality control. Over time, there has been an erosion of the necessary skills needed to make the Cuban cigars the island used to be famed for.

How long does anyone think it will before consumers catch on that 'Cuban cigars' are nothing more than a novelty for the most part, and that they can get cheaper and higher quality products elsewhere?

And is the Castro regime going to let some foreigner buy up Cuban brands and take over manufacturing? Is anyone going to want to do that given the risk involved? Without the guarantees afforded by the rule of law and private property?

Cuba is a risky and bad investment for a lot of reasons without serious reform. It was even riskier 40 years ago than it is today.

[Love Mountain]

Big MRI is screwing us! Or...price controls lead to rationing. Personally, if I'm sick, I want the doctor to run whatever test they feel they have to do determine the cause. I don't want some bureaucrat bean counter at the NHS making the call.

Private insurance will always be available and you are welcome to sign up for it. In fact, Most Universal Health Care systems have a private component in it that do a better job. In Australia for example, roughly half of the population uses private insurance because it produces better outcomes, even if it is more expensive. Universal healthcare doesn't make private insurance illegal, it simply increases bargaining power of the taxpayer and of the insurers themselves. So sure, if you want the doctor making the call you will always have that option.

Besides, my main beef isn't with the insurance industry, it's with the healthcare industry, with Big Pharma and medical device manufacturers being on top of that list.

Pay attention to the fashionable liberals who mourn him, they are the enemy

I don't think you actually know what "liberal" means.

[ABH2]

So sure, if you want the doctor making the call you will always have that option.

Of course, I actually won't because you can't institute price controls that only impact part of the market. And without said price controls, single-payer/nationalized healthcare doesn't work. It's certainly not going to stop rising healthcare costs.

But pointing to Australia is a good time to point out that despite the claims of the critics of America's healthcare, there is in fact an incredible amount of diversity in the rest of the 'civilized' or 'developed' world. Yet, for some reason, American leftists agitate primarily for a nationalized system. I think for many that stems from ignorance more than anything. They simply don't know the particulars of what they are talking about, but only have talking points that they regurgitate endlessly.

Besides, my main beef isn't with the insurance industry, it's with the healthcare industry, with Big Pharma and medical device manufacturers being on top of that list.

Yes, and here's where I point out that despite your tirades about American pharmaceutical companies, they are responsible for half of the new drugs brought to market, and that what you advocate really ends up just subsidizing the practices you don't like about them. Somehow, whatever America does is more productive at spurring on innovation than what Europe is doing. But I doubt I'll hear an explanation for how that happens.

What's more, you have shown no willingness to consider things to bring down healthcare costs that don't involve more government intervention and control of the market. You cry market failure while pointing to this heavily regulated and distorted market (which is really the same with every market you brought up in past discussions).

[Love Mountain]

Of course, I actually won't because you can't institute price controls that only impact part of the market. And without said price controls, single-payer/nationalized healthcare doesn't work. It's certainly not going to stop rising healthcare costs.

You realize if you want an expensive MRI scan or specialized equipment you can always get it right? Universal healthcare doesn't prevent you from getting those, it simply sets a baseline. As of now many people have neither the baseline nor the money to afford expensive treatments. So I'm not sure what you're whining about. If you're rich you always have options and always will, but do tell me about the evils of price controls that don't make EpiPens cost 500$s.

But pointing to Australia is a good time to point out that despite the claims of the critics of America's healthcare, there is in fact an incredible amount of diversity in the rest of the 'civilized' or 'developed' world. Yet, for some reason, American leftists agitate primarily for a nationalized system. I think for many that stems from ignorance more than anything. They simply don't know the particulars of what they are talking about, but only have talking points that they regurgitate endlessly.

Because almost all healthcare systems in the developed world have universal health care systems, with/or without the private component to a varying degree. In Switzerland and Australia they do have an extensive private sector that offers better results for higher prices. So rather than whine about the mythical "leftists" maybe read a little bit more.

Yes, and here's where I point out that despite your tirades about American pharmaceutical companies, they are responsible for half of the new drugs brought to market, and that what you advocate really ends up just subsidizing the practices you don't like about them. Somehow, whatever America does is more productive at spurring on innovation than what Europe is doing. But I doubt I'll hear an explanation for how that happens.

They spend more on buybacks and dividends than on actual research, not to mention that their primary motivation is making money. They spend an extraordinary amount of money on marketing and "repackaging" drugs rather than create new ones. Why else do you think Big Pharma buys so many small labs? It's not because their own talent is more competitive, its because its cheaper to buy innovative under-paid labs than to grow them inhouse. Not that it's a bad thing, and not that we don't make a lot of new drugs, but a large part of "research" is socialized and the fact that it is, constitutes a large part of why we are so innovative in the healthcare industry.

What's more, you have shown no willingness to consider things to bring down healthcare costs that don't involve more government intervention and control of the market. You cry market failure while pointing to this heavily regulated and distorted market (which is really the same with every market you brought up in past discussions).

Because it is a market failure. I've never said that the Government had nothing to do with it, but the current status quo is horrendous, and for some reason it makes me a "Socialist" for pointing that out. But I guess we all need a slur word.

[Phier]

And Miami Parties..



Castro's government killed some 35000-141000 people as a directly (low vrs high estimates). Times like this is annoying being an atheist.

[Causeless]

Actually it's a good question why praising characters who repress their population is 100% ok as long as they represent any form of leftwing ideology, but if one wants to go to Pinochet (also repressive) but improved economic situation in Chile, then you are a "horrible monster".

Really raises a lot of questions. I mean in both cases there is some very strong authoritarian repression going on, but one is politically correct to praise, the other is not. In Pinochet case very repressive character but Chile got a fairly decent economy going as one of his legacies, for south american standards at least.

Well that said not a big fan of Castro or his ideology, but have to respect his ability in avoiding getting killed by professionals in said businesss and living to old age. How many CIA assassination attempts did he survive? How did he even manage that?

He survived over 600. The main reason he survived is because the CIA isn't as clever as they think they are.

[Phier]

He survived over 600. The main reason he survived is because the CIA isn't as clever as they think they are.

I too survived over 600 assassination attempts.

Do you see where the problem lies?

[Roma_Victrix]

Sigh. ABH2 still insists on mis-characterizing American healthcare. I too champion it's technical achievements, but America is the only country where we have 3-4 times the number of MRIs per million people than any other developed nation, yet pay 6-7 times more for them than any other developed nation. It's quite a conundrum. It's just an anecdotal statistic but it does well to illustrate the state of American healthcare.

Yeah, American healthcare and health insurance are totally warped. We could use a public option (i.e. a customer-funded government program that competes with private companies in the same market) at the least to force health insurance companies to play fairly and not form corporate cabals to collectively screw over their customers who pay good money each month, year after year, and sometimes get crap returns/help with bills or simply none at all for their medical conditions. That doesn't even begin to address the stupidly greedy and callous pharmaceutical industry and the constant rising cost of drugs. They're no longer affordable for many American families.

That being said, communism on the whole is a failed system that stifles economic progress, prosperity, creativity, innovation, etc. No one could argue the Soviets didn't contribute to the fields of science and technology given their leading space program that the US had to catch up with by landing a man on the moon, but their entire society was struggling to keep it together, to meet ridiculous quotas of production, to hide the fact that a black market beneath all of this was what greased the wheels of the economy and hence the state so it could even function. The US embargo on Cuba most certainly hampered their economic capabilities seeing how the US is the economic superpower, yet ABH2 is right that the root of the problem ultimately lies in Cuba's communist-controlled command economy. It's amazing they've held out for so long, even after the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union.

[ABH2]

Phier, weren't you the one before who posted all those pictures from Cuba's decrepit 'hospitals?' Or was that someone else? Good time to share them, if it was.

Yeah, American healthcare and health insurance are totally warped. We could use a public option (i.e. a customer-funded government program that competes with private companies in the same market)

Let me be clear - I am a pretty diehard libertarian. I also recognize political realities and that we live in a constitutional democracy where my principles are far from the norm. As such, I am more than willing to tolerate some form of a social safety net. I could live with some form of a public option. I do not, however, trust the progressive left in this country to construct anything close to a working system or to ever settle for a mere public option. I know these people quite well. I don't find I'm wrong in my predictions on them very often.

My 'public option,' if such a route was just the political reality, would achieve the mythical universal coverage (which I hold is merely a paper figure and relatively meaningless in reality), but attempt to limit wealth redistribution and governmental control to as little as possible. It is not my own preferred outcome. Frankly, I think you could drastically cut costs and increase coverage by just getting the government out of the way, and that is why its the argument I will continue to put forward.

You realize if you want an expensive MRI scan or specialized equipment you can always get it right? Universal healthcare doesn't prevent you from getting those, it simply sets a baseline. As of now many people have neither the baseline nor the money to afford expensive treatments. So I'm not sure what you're whining about. If you're rich you always have options and always will, but do tell me about the evils of price controls that don't make EpiPens cost 500$s.

The funny thing about the whole Epipen thing is Obama made the same argument to defend rising premiums under Obamacare as the evil corporation. The average consumer, per Obama, wasn't picking up most of the rising costs, anyway, so quit complaining.

You then decide to present a public option as just another choice subject to the market when it is not. Governments can subsidize and hide the costs of procedures from the consumers in ways that private entities cannot. Which sounds great to someone who isn't thinking about costs or who is paying for all of it, I'm sure. But to point out the Australia example, many consumers are paying for their healthcare in 2-3 ways. Those who have private insurance are already paying taxes for the public system as well as surcharges when they receive treatment. They are being taxed multiple times, and they aren't all rich (people earning over $88k - was initially just $50k). On top of that, they are penalized if they do not carry private insurance so it's not really just another option. The Australian government is hitting the same groups of consumers repeatedly to cover costs and to further subsidize the care of everyone else.

You are just taxing the same person repeatedly to get your way. But I already know you don't have a problem with that, regardless of any basic questions over the fairness. Otherwise, you are going to face shortages and wait times. Which is exactly what ends up happening in Australia and in other nationalized systems.

What does it mean to say I have access to healthcare when I'm forced to wait over a year for a procedure deemed 'elective' by some bureaucrats? Is that actually access?

If we are actually going to talk about healthcare costs and focus on pharmaceuticals (a small part of actual healthcare spending to the point where its really a red herring), then we are right back to square one where I point out how this process is going to limit innovation. So when we point out how American corporations produce half of all drugs that go to market worldwide, that is clearly disproportional. And it begs the question of how much more the rest of the world could do. It also should lead one to ask how its fair that the rest of the world gets access to these drugs which are only developed because of America's awful profit driven system. Your solution is undoubtedly more public spending to pick up any such loss. The follow-up to that is...why the hell isn't the rest of the world already doing this, if its so effective?

I mean, it's an endless game of shifting costs to others and pretending to have a free lunch. You call me an ideologue while ignoring any negative consequences to what you suggest. One only has to look at how you demonize the profits of pharmaceutical companies to see that you are not some pragmatist just looking for solutions that work. No cost-benefit analysis is being done here when discussing how we can make American pharmaceuticals more like Europe's. Europe, frankly, benefits a great deal from our for-profit system and in many ways is enjoy a free lunch at the expense of American consumers.

Because almost all healthcare systems in the developed world have universal health care systems, with/or without the private component to a varying degree. In Switzerland and Australia they do have an extensive private sector that offers better results for higher prices. So rather than whine about the mythical "leftists" maybe read a little bit more.

I'll just repeat:
What does it mean to say I have access to healthcare when I'm forced to wait over a year for a procedure deemed 'elective' by some bureaucrats? Is that actually access?

I'll then add - what does it mean to have access to healthcare if even lifesaving treatments are rejected because they are deemed too costly? Effectively, some bureaucrat is telling me what my life is worth.

That isn't access at all, besides on paper. But you didn't actually answer my question. You deflected by pretending I was talking about some made up version of the left, but...what I suggested there is exactly what you have said you want. You point to Australia above which continues to have private insurance (intentionally so). But that is NOT the system you have advocated for in previous posts.

They spend more on buybacks and dividends than on actual research, not to mention that their primary motivation is making money. They spend an extraordinary amount of money on marketing and "repackaging" drugs rather than create new ones. Why else do you think Big Pharma buys so many small labs? It's not because their own talent is more competitive, its because its cheaper to buy innovative under-paid labs than to grow them inhouse. Not that it's a bad thing, and not that we don't make a lot of new drugs, but a large part of "research" is socialized and the fact that it is, constitutes a large part of why we are so innovative in the healthcare industry.

We don't just make a lot of new drugs. We make a disproportionate amount of all new drugs, and you refuse to answer how that happens. Europe is pretty damn wealthy. So are other nations. They have these great, benevolent and wise governments. Why aren't they producing the same sort of results? This is a comparison question, but you refuse to do any comparing when it comes to this.

Because it is a market failure. I've never said that the Government had nothing to do with it, but the current status quo is horrendous, and for some reason it makes me a "Socialist" for pointing that out. But I guess we all need a slur word.

I never called you a socialist. But I do find the things you argue for to be incredibly authoritarian, and I find your claims to be center-right fairly ridiculous.

If someone is going to cry market failure in a market that is proven to be heavily regulated and controlled already by government, then the burden of proof is on them to justify more government involvement in said market. At least in my view. But I'd settle even if you were willing to discuss the different roles government and the private actors play in that 'failure.' Or even just define failure (less of an issue when the subject is healthcare - I know what results you want). But instead, you have made quite clear that you perceive these as pure failures of the private sector. That is a highly ideological position regardless of whether you want to recognize it as such or not.

I could offer free market ways to decrease prices and increase coverage all day, but it wouldn't matter much because what you want is some mythical 'universal' coverage that doesn't really exist even in the countries that claim to have it. American hospitals, meanwhile, continue to treat patients without health insurance as we speak, but that's always ignored.

If such large proportions of the population were unhappy with America's healthcare, one would expect that the Democrats wouldn't have suffered massive losses every time they've attempted to push for it whether it was Hillarycare, the inability to get a public option in the ACA because of defectors in their own party, or the massive electoral losses suffered post-ACA despite the Republicans being largely blamed for an economic disaster and a deeply unpopular war in Iraq. The GOP's time in 'exile' post-Bush was incredibly short, despite most progressives missing that reality. Hell, you can go back to Truman, as you pointed out! Most Americans don't want what's being sold to them here. They don't want a public option, they don't want a nationalized system, and they are pretty happy with what they currently have. The counter argument boils down to...everyone else is doing it. Something every parent has told their retarded child (note - this is not a personal insult, as a classical liberal/llbertarian, I personally view all children as basically very stupid, tiny versions of adults) is bad argument a couple hundred times. Apparently, it only sinks in for some of us.

So we get into these online discussions where the qualitative preferences of millions of Americans are ignored as foreigners and ideologues lecture about what a failure the healthcare they are perfectly happy with is. Americans are just too stupid to know what's best for themselves. That's what this argument boils down to (and one of the reasons I label the positions you adopt authoritarian).

[IronBrig4]

Honestly, I thought this guy would outlive Queen Elizabeth II. He outlasted every other contemporary world leader when he took over.

[Infidel144]

Phier, weren't you the one before who posted all those pictures from Cuba's decrepit 'hospitals?' Or was that someone else? Good time to share them, if it was.

Youcanfindsomehere:
https://panampost.com/belen-marty/20...urists-to-see/

[Stario]

Kudos to him for not folding to the muricans who tried desperately to do all they can to ensure Cuba remained poor (& communism as a result would've been seen not as having worked), with their international led embargo pressure and scaremongering. Well I suppose now that his dead Cuba will get overrun by McDonalds, In-and-Out, Burger King etc...life goes on...

[Prodromos]

This article is a great summary of Castro's life. It's a bit long, and while it doesn't extensively detail the oppression in Cuba, it still beats reading books, am I right?

Former Cuban President Fidel Castro dead at age 90 | Miami Herald

Since I know nobody will click it, these are some interesting parts:

But the guns pointed inward, too. He created a repressive state that rigidly controlled the arts, the press, the airwaves. An efficient secret police force was aided by neighborhood spies and pro-government mobs that attacked those who dared to call for democratic change. Cultural enemies were vulnerable, too; well into the 1970s, Castro was imprisoning gays and long-haired young people in work camps.

Castro bragged that he would free his island of economic dependence on the United States, and he did — but only by becoming even more dependent on another foreign power based nearly 6,000 miles away in Moscow. Cuba ran up billions of dollars in debt for weapons, oil, machinery, food and other supplies. And when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Cuba’s crippled economy imploded, bringing new hardships to a population that already had suffered decades under his mismanagement.


Hundreds of thousands fled the society Castro created. The exodus began early with the powerful and affluent and continued with former comrades who found themselves in opposition to his rule. Next to go were the middle class and professionals and, finally, just about anyone who had the courage to grab a boat or cobble together a raft for the perilous crossing of the Florida Straits.

“As you may well know,” Castro said during a 1993 speech, “my job is to talk.” His orations were legendary. Without a text, but with a crowd of supporters cheering him on in Havana’s Plaza de la Revolución, Castro could hold forth for hours. His record, in 1968, was a meandering discourse that lasted nearly 12 hours. On the day he officially stepped down from the Cuban presidency in 2008, a biologist in Havana told a Miami Herald reporter with obvious relief: “Now I can watch my Brazilian telenovelas without worrying that they’re going to be interrupted by a six-hour speech.”

Castro, then 21, joined in the street fighting, seizing a rifle at a police station that had been stormed by a mob. His activities in Bogotá prompted a cable to Washington from the U.S. Embassy in Havana on April 26, 1948, the first of what eventually would be hundreds of thousands of official U.S. documents pondering Castro’s intentions.
Observed an embassy staffer in Havana: “It must be concluded that, while no proof has been offered of his being a Communist, there is ample proof that he is a thoroughly undesirable character and a potential gangster.”

--------------

Someone mentioned the public option in health insurance. While that seems like a compromise, it is highly misguided. The public option is a trojan horse for government control of health care; there is no competition by private business with the government. Competition with your regulator isn't competition; it is regulation. This video from the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest gets the point across, quite entertainingly.



-------------

It really amazes me that leftists, including major politicians in the EU!, defend a murderous tyrant like Castro, while simultaneously decrying any hint of bigotry or discrimination in the West, by conservatives, as an evil that must disappear. Banning economic migrants is bigoted; massacring fleeing Cuban refugees is cool. Do leftists truly value peace, or is it that, as Karl Marx is believed to have said, "peace is the absence of opposition to socialism"?

There's always Hanlon's razor of course. I mean after pages of ABH2 debunking the embargo myth, people for some reason still spout that baseless nonsense.

[Surgeon]

Devoted his life to fighting capitalism, dies on a Black Friday?

At least in the end he became a good communist.

[Garbarsardar]

Sic semper tyrannis.

I somehow don't think this phrase was coined for someone dying in their bed from natural causes.

[Nikitn]

I too survived over 600 assassination attempts.

Do you see where the problem lies?

... He says after making this claim:

Castro's government killed some 35000-141000 people as a directly (low vrs high estimates).