All I did was do a google search. I am not an expert on Cuba (though I've read a bunch of books on it). The revolution definitely undermined health standards in the first stages, because a whole raft of doctors forgot their Hippocratic oaths and left the country. Walt is right that perhaps 1965 is a better starting point.
Again, I see no reason to set up a competition between India and Cuba. If any comparison is to be made, it would be between Mexico or some other Latin American country and Cuba. When I visited Cuba in the late 1970s, it sure looked like the poor were doing better than in Mexico (where I've also been, before and since). FWIW, I am not excited by Cuban "socialism." It's mostly a matter of a country doing pretty well under constant harassment by the Big Uncle. That harassment must be stopped, especially since it's been intensified by the Clinton and Bush administrations. On 5/17/06, Walt Byars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would contest the figure Jim Devine's article gave. Life expectancy was 60 years at birth in 1959 in cuba. According to Theo Macdonald, all of the faculty of Cuba's onem edical school left after the revolution. There was also the embargo. It is also probably harder to have increases, the higher your base that you start with. > Jim Devine wrote: > >> > What were life expectancies in Cuba in 1959? >> >> "Cuban achievements in health care since 1959 were a consequence of >> the full commitment to health care by the state, the planned economy, >> and mass participation. In 1959 the infant mortality rate was 60/1000 >> live births and life expectancy was 65.1 years. > > So Cuban life expectancy has improved from 65 to 75-80 years in 45 years. > Life expectancy in India has improved from 35 to 65 years during > 1950-2000. Countries in East and South East Asia have performed better > than India. > > Ulhas >
-- Jim Devine / "the world still seems stuck in greed-lock, ruled by fossilized fools fueled by fossil fuels." -- Swami Beyondananda
