Ronn said:
> At 13:04 28-01-01 +1300, Bob wrote:
> >If the other examples are incorrect, please direct me to some proof. I
> >should have mentioned that Cuba provides free health care for all its
> >people. How is it that a socialist dictatorship in the third world can
> >achieve that when the richest country in the world can not?
> That does not tell the whole story, though. Canadians also have
> government-guaranteed health care, and many of them, when faced with a
> six-month or greater wait for open-heart or other life-saving surgery,
come
> across the border to be treated in the U.S. That can't be compared
> directly to Cuba, since Cubans don't have the same freedom to come to the
> U.S. and return at will. Assuming, however, that travel was unrestricted
> and you needed something like a brain tumor removed or a liver transplant,
> do you think you would choose to go to Cuba or the U.S.?
I understand what you are saying and agree because you are asking *me* what
*I* would do and I am not poor and am just as greedy or self concerned as
most. The poor homeless or unemployed in Canada do not cross the border to
the US and be given open heart surgery.
But the original point was that whilst the US is first world and Cuba third
in terms of wealth, there are some aspects that make Cuba first world and US
third in terms of social factors such as execution of juveniles and
availability of health care. If a nation is regarded as a large family, then
Cuba provides doctors for all its children. In the US, if the child does
not, or does not have the ability or opportunity to, help with the household
chores, then they do not get given a band aid when they cut their finger.
But, as John has advised, the injured or sick US child is more likely to
have a television and can watch and listen to GW Bush talk about
compassionate conservatism as he/she bleeds to death(:>(
Bob.
