Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dblack]

To suggest that someone may want to re-condition students or imprison them when they're only offering an idea for debate is, IMHO, a strawman. It goes along with the strategy of accusing someone of being a Fascist in lieu of an open discussion (a strategy ironically deployed by the Trotskyites to clog public debate).

I don't think it is a strawman. It's an earnest appeal to consider the ramifications of pursuing social reform via state mandates, rather simply working to persuade people to make the desired changes voluntarily. Making these ideas legal requirements means we're willing to use violent force against anyone who defies us. I think it's always worth questioning if such extremes are really necessary.

Fair enough. This is very interesting issue.

Louis Althusser, a French Marxist who was deeply critical of state power, believed that schools were part of the "Ideological State Apparatus" which served mainly to socialize individuals for their role inside the prevailing mode of exchange. He believed that the primary function of school in, say, a capitalist society was to create good capitalists. In this view schools become the primary locus of state power, and their job is to morally calibrate students to their function as workers, managers or owners, which mean that schools negatively reinforce those who, say, reject competitive individualism or tout the virtues of socialism.

Yep.

 

[gnarlylove]

My comments on ideology don't really conflict with yours. I think it's important to recognize that an ideology is one way of perceiving the world and how it ought to be but that this perception is little more than that. To consider it ultimate truth is a great way to inculcate authoritarianism and keep coercion over people. Michele Focault discussed Truth as Power and made many interesting observations. You might think I'm guilty of this by imposing nature programs but that's a little off the wall because if we neglect our natural habitat, how will we come to know how we depend on it? So our decisions will not reflect an interest for this obviously vital resource for sustenance.

As I understand you dblack, you stand for minimal government, mostly for crime reduction/corporate misbehavior as far as I know. Beyond that you see the rest of government as excessive by preventing freedom from being totally realized.

If this means you think you should be advocating for massive reductions in gov't today or in the near future, I'd think you'd be misguided. Listen to Chomsky defend the Welfare State bearing in mind he is an anarchist.

...I share that vision [dismantling state power]. But right now it runs directly counter to my goals: my immediate goals have been, and now very much are, to defend and even strengthen certain elements of state authority that are now under severe attack...

What's called the "welfare state" is essentially a recognition that every child has a right to have food, and to have health care and so on--and as I've been saying, those programs were set up in the nation-state system after a century of very hard struggle by the labor movement..." NB: Hundreds died in labor movements in the America in the late 1800s.

"And given the accelerating effort that's being made these days to roll back the victories for justice and human rights which have been won through long and often extremely bitter struggles in the West, in my opinion the immediate goal of even committed anarchist should be to defend some state institutions, while helping pry them open to more meaningful public participation and ultimately to dismantle them in a much more free society.

"There are practical problems of tomorrow on which people's lives very much depend, and while defending these kinds of programs is by no means the ultimate end we should be pursuing, in my view we still have to face the problems that are right on the horizon, and which seriously affect human lives. I don't think those things can simply be forgotten because they might not fit within some radical slogan that reflects a deeper vision of a future society. The deeper visions should be maintained...but dismantling the state system is a goal that's a lot farther away, and you want to deal first with what's at hand and nearby, I think. And in any realistic perspective the political system, with all its flaws, does have opportunities for participation by the general population which other existing institutions, such as corporations, don't have. In fact, that's exactly why the far right wants to weaken governmental structures--because if you can make sure that all the key decisions are in the hands of Microsoft and General Electric and Raytheon, then you don't have to worry anymore about the threat of popular involvement in policy-making.

So take something that's been happening in recent years: devolution--that is, removing authority from the federal government down to the state governments. Well, in some circumstances, that would be democratizing move which I would be in favor of--it would be a move away from central authority down to local authority. But that's in abstract circumstances that don't exist. Right now it'll happen because moving decision-making power down to the state level in fact means handing it over to private power. See, huge corporations can influence and dominate the federal government, but even middle-sized corporations can influence state governments and play one state's workforce off against another's by threatening to move production elsewhere unless they get better tax breaks and so on.

I have a hard time understanding your ideas on moving forward in the current state we are in. What do you think of devolution? Are you in favor of Microsoft making decisions? Do you think people are less part of the equation than ideology when it comes to government size?

In America we need to give those struggling a chance to be productive--and I believe that entails curtailing some of the extreme wealth being generated at the top .1%. It's a risk to freely educate people and give them food hoping they return the favor and then some but the risk pays off, just like it does in Denmark, Finland and some other countries that have high redistribution programs and robust welfare programs like free university.

 

[gnarlylove]

The only thing that did get my attention - but I don't think in the way that he intended - was his suggestion that we need to understand the purpose of our social institutions before we begin discussing specific values and policies.

Here's where I think it's relevant. Most every debate I see on these boards involves, as a subtext, fundamental disagreement on the purpose of government. But we almost never talk directly about that disagreement. We delve into relatively pointless debate about what sorts of government policies we ought to have for various specific issues, with out ever finding alignment on what the overall goal of those policies should be.

You are talking about news coverage, right? Most debates you see? Or are you talking USMB?

The purpose of government is essential to understanding how to employ it. But a government created back in 1776 may not be adequate for today. So while I agree our government is unconstitutional as it operates, I say at least some of these new "unconstitutional" features are important for social good. Especially given the change in power structures and dynamics and technologies there is good reason to consider a government designed in 1776 may need updating and may even have ill instructions for our present day. So even if we rebooted our government back to 1.0, I think we'd need to do a lot of Windows Updating before we could have the same quality of life unless somehow this also changed the people into moral, responsible citizens. Unlikely.

This is to say there has been change that needs accounting. Government must adapt just like people adapt. I remember you calling for return to the Constitution, which I find interesting most certainly. But given we need a national discussion on purpose of government, what do you see as the government perceived purpose today? How do you think the government views itself...

And how does their current purpose conflict with what you perceive should be their purpose? Keep in mind, if your idea is to end all welfare programs, you are going to harm a lot of people. I don't think this is acceptable definition of purposeful government. Do you? I hope you proffer a real world purposeful government that doesn't leave current millions stranded without food or heat, not one based in economic ideology of ending coercive government control.

 

[gnarlylove]

"Research has only recently been able to identify poverty as a causal factor (rather than merely correlational) in debilitating medical conditions that leave people sick, unable to work and unable to think - all factors that then perpetuate poverty, leaving the poor trapped in a vicious biological cycle."

"f you're a child born into a poor household, you're more likely to exhibit psychological symptoms than if you were born to a non-poor household - symptoms that are a direct result of being born poor."

"How do we know this? In 1993, a group of researchers started an eight-year longitudinal study of children in the Great Smoky Mountains, a range of peaks along the North Carolina-Tennessee border. One thousand four hundred twenty children were recruited - 25 percent Native American, 7.5 percent black and the rest white - and given psychiatric exams annually. Unsurprisingly, the children from poor families were found to have problems, about 60 percent more than their middle-class counterparts."

"The human brain has a finite amount of bandwidth. If one is forced to spend that worrying about poverty, it will necessarily have less capacity to spend on other tasks. Indeed, as other studies have shown, the poor often fail to take prescribed medications, fail to use preventative health care less and are less productive workers than their more-comfortable counterparts. "

Poverty

We need to stop damning the poor by blaming only them for their circumstances. Because growing up in poverty means one is growing up in scarcity unlike the middle class child who lives in abundance as normalcy (of food, of entertainment, of space, of attention from parents).

This clearly has an effect on children and it tends to harm them rather than help them as they grow older. So correcting this by preventing scarcity on behalf of society by the government is a big help and has paid off immensely in European countries like Denmark etc when done properly. I can attest to my parents having less capacity to do other basic tasks like take care of themselves (sleep enough, eat decent food etc) because they wake up worrying about debt or some future potential disaster or making the land taxes payment months in advance. And my parents have been working their whole lives, no slackers here. They are worse off as a result of income inequality in this stagnating economy while those at the top have seen unprecedented gains. So advocating for policies that continue damning the working class and poor while helping stupid greedy fucks who could use more money like they could a hole in the head feels like a direct attack on my family.

 

[dblack]

The only thing that did get my attention - but I don't think in the way that he intended - was his suggestion that we need to understand the purpose of our social institutions before we begin discussing specific values and policies.

Here's where I think it's relevant. Most every debate I see on these boards involves, as a subtext, fundamental disagreement on the purpose of government. But we almost never talk directly about that disagreement. We delve into relatively pointless debate about what sorts of government policies we ought to have for various specific issues, with out ever finding alignment on what the overall goal of those policies should be.

You are talking about news coverage, right? Most debates you see? Or are you talking USMB?

Both

what do you see as the government perceived purpose today? How do you think the government views itself. And how does their current purpose conflict with what you perceive should be their purpose?

Well, I don't think of government as a conscious entity, but I think most people today see it as an all purpose tool to force their will on others. I consider the purpose of government to be essentially the direct opposite: to prevent people from forcing their will others.

 

[RKMBrown]

"Research has only recently been able to identify poverty as a causal factor (rather than merely correlational) in debilitating medical conditions that leave people sick, unable to work and unable to think - all factors that then perpetuate poverty, leaving the poor trapped in a vicious biological cycle."

"f you're a child born into a poor household, you're more likely to exhibit psychological symptoms than if you were born to a non-poor household - symptoms that are a direct result of being born poor."

"How do we know this? In 1993, a group of researchers started an eight-year longitudinal study of children in the Great Smoky Mountains, a range of peaks along the North Carolina-Tennessee border. One thousand four hundred twenty children were recruited - 25 percent Native American, 7.5 percent black and the rest white - and given psychiatric exams annually. Unsurprisingly, the children from poor families were found to have problems, about 60 percent more than their middle-class counterparts."

"The human brain has a finite amount of bandwidth. If one is forced to spend that worrying about poverty, it will necessarily have less capacity to spend on other tasks. Indeed, as other studies have shown, the poor often fail to take prescribed medications, fail to use preventative health care less and are less productive workers than their more-comfortable counterparts. "

Poverty

We need to stop damning the poor by blaming only them for their circumstances. Because growing up in poverty means one is growing up in scarcity unlike the middle class child who lives in abundance as normalcy (of food, of entertainment, of space, of attention from parents).

This clearly has an effect on children and it tends to harm them rather than help them as they grow older. So correcting this by preventing scarcity on behalf of society by the government is a big help and has paid off immensely in European countries like Denmark etc when done properly. I can attest to my parents having less capacity to do other basic tasks like take care of themselves (sleep enough, eat decent food etc) because they wake up worrying about debt or some future potential disaster or making the land taxes payment months in advance. And my parents have been working their whole lives, no slackers here. They are worse off as a result of income inequality in this stagnating economy while those at the top have seen unprecedented gains. So advocating for policies that continue damning the working class and poor while helping stupid greedy fucks who could use more money like they could a hole in the head feels like a direct attack on my family.

Translation... people that whine about what other people are doing instead of getting off their fat lazy butts and working are generally worthless to society and get paid as such.

 

[gnarlylove]

dblack,I know you advocate for capitalism/free markets while also advocating for reduction in government, to ultimately no government with laissez faire capitalism. But as a dissenter of capitalism, either as its practiced today or in its ideal form tend to agree with Albert Meltzer who wrote:

"Commonsense shows that any capitalist society might dispense with a 'State' . . . but it could not dispense with organised government, or a privatised form of it, if there were people amassing money and others working to amass it for them. The philosophy of 'anarcho-capitalism' dreamed up by the 'libertarian' New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper. It is a lie . . . Patently unbridled capitalism . . . needs some force at its disposal to maintain class privileges, either from the State itself or from private armies. What they believe in is in fact a limited State -- that is, one in which the State has one function, to protect the ruling class, does not interfere with exploitation, and comes as cheap as possible for the ruling class. The idea also serves another purpose . . . a moral justification for bourgeois consciences in avoiding taxes without feeling guilty about it." [Anarchism: Arguments For and Against, p. 50]

So in other words, like this original thread argued, capitalism will continue to create inequality, whether free market or regulated. As long as there is private property, there will be organized government, though we may choose to call it by another name.

"So what is capitalism? Well, for starters, it’s an economic system marked by two features: private property and wage labor. The latter is a result of the former; who would work for a wage, i.e., generate surplus value for a boss, if they had access the means of production themselves? Private property is the source of the inequality necessary for capitalism to function. And how is this inequality enforced and preserved? By means of a coercive structure at the disposal of the owners: that is, the state.

"There’s no such thing as private property without a coercive structure to enforce it. There’s no mystical essence to property. It’s not a concept that exists in all cultures and time periods."[http://www.crimethinc.com/podcast/18/transcript18.html]

 

[bripat9643]

"The Cuban government operates a national health system and assumes fiscal and administrative responsibility for the health care of all its citizens.[1] There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run. The present Minister for Public Health is Roberto Morales Ojeda."

Health care in Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run.

Absolutely.

In Cuba itself, meanwhile, private medicine is readily available to paying foreigners and well-connected locals. The two best hospitals in Havana, Cira García and CIMEX, are run for profit. Both are far better than normal state hospitals, where patients are often obliged to bring their own sheets and food.

Cuban health care: Nip and tuck in | The Economist

LOL!

The Economist

"The poorer countries of the world continue to struggle with an enormous health burden from diseases that we have long had the capacity to eliminate.

"Similarly, the health systems of some countries, rich and poor alike, are fragmented and inefficient, leaving many population groups underserved and often without health care access entirely.

"Cuba represents an important alternative example where modest infrastructure investments combined with a well-developed public health strategy have generated health status measures comparable with those of industrialized countries.

"Areas of success include control of infectious diseases, reduction in infant mortality, establishment of a research and biotechnology industry, and progress in control of chronic diseases, among others.

"If the Cuban experience were generalized to other poor and middle-income countries human health would be transformed.

"Given current political alignments, however, the major public health advances in Cuba, and the underlying strategy that has guided its health gains, have been systematically ignored."

Health in Cuba

So you want to turn the rest of the world into a totalitarian police state?

 

[bripat9643]

There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run.

Absolutely.

In Cuba itself, meanwhile, private medicine is readily available to paying foreigners and well-connected locals. The two best hospitals in Havana, Cira García and CIMEX, are run for profit. Both are far better than normal state hospitals, where patients are often obliged to bring their own sheets and food.

Cuban health care: Nip and tuck in | The Economist

LOL!

The Economist

"The poorer countries of the world continue to struggle with an enormous health burden from diseases that we have long had the capacity to eliminate.

"Similarly, the health systems of some countries, rich and poor alike, are fragmented and inefficient, leaving many population groups underserved and often without health care access entirely.

"Cuba represents an important alternative example where modest infrastructure investments combined with a well-developed public health strategy have generated health status measures comparable with those of industrialized countries.

"Areas of success include control of infectious diseases, reduction in infant mortality, establishment of a research and biotechnology industry, and progress in control of chronic diseases, among others.

"If the Cuban experience were generalized to other poor and middle-income countries human health would be transformed.

"Given current political alignments, however, the major public health advances in Cuba, and the underlying strategy that has guided its health gains, have been systematically ignored."

Health in Cuba

Is the Economist telling lies about those hospitals in Cuba?

The economist is just gullible. Cuba lies and The Economist believes their lies because it's staffed by a bunch of gullible liberals.

 

[bripat9643]

dblack,I know you advocate for capitalism/free markets while also advocating for reduction in government, to ultimately no government with laissez faire capitalism. But as a dissenter of capitalism, either as its practiced today or in its ideal form tend to agree with Albert Meltzer who wrote:

"Commonsense shows that any capitalist society might dispense with a 'State'

A lot of people who disagree with that claim. I've advocated abolishing government altogether quite vociferously and persistently, and as a result I am viciously attacked by many of the "conservatives" and so-called "libertarians" in this forum.

. . . but it could not dispense with organised government, or a privatised form of it, if there were people amassing money and others working to amass it for them.

The term "privatized government" is an oxymoron. Government is the monopoly on the use of force. If it's privatized, then it's no longer a monopoly.

The philosophy of 'anarcho-capitalism' dreamed up by the 'libertarian' New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper. It is a lie . . . Patently unbridled capitalism . . . needs some force at its disposal to maintain class privileges, either from the State itself or from private armies. What they believe in is in fact a limited State -- that is, one in which the State has one function, to protect the ruling class, does not interfere with exploitation, and comes as cheap as possible for the ruling class.

The old form of so-called anarchism is the lie. You can't have socialism without force. If people are free to pursue their own plans, then how does the community make them follow the community plan? You can make people follow any plan without using force, and that means government.

You'll never find any supporter of capitalism claiming that it requires the maintenance of "class privilege." No capitalist believes there is anything resembling a class under capitalism. That's a Marxist notion. You don't need a government to maintain something that doesn't exist.

There is no "ruling class" under capitalism. The fact that some people earn more doesn't make them a "class" or allow them to "rule" over anyone.

The term "exploitation" is virtually meaningless. Basically all your author has said is that capitalism allows some people to earn more than others, and they might hire private security to protect what they've earned from thieves and looter. When put in such mundane terms, your author's claim hardly sounds as sinister or scary as he makes it sound.

The idea also serves another purpose . . . a moral justification for bourgeois consciences in avoiding taxes without feeling guilty about it." [Anarchism: Arguments For and Against, p. 50

You're truly naïve if you think anyone feels guilty about not paying taxes, let alone the rich.

So in other words, like this original thread argued, capitalism will continue to create inequality, whether free market or regulated. As long as there is private property, there will be organized government, though we may choose to call it by another name.

Capitalism doesn't create inequality. Life does that. All capitalism does is prevent the looters and useless parasites from taking what others have earned. All you're saying is that if we don't force everyone to toss what they have produced into some communal pile, then some will have more than others. Yeah, that's right, but so what? However, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. You haven't posted any valid reason why allowing people to keep what they have produced requires government.

"So what is capitalism? Well, for starters, it’s an economic system marked by two features: private property and wage labor. The latter is a result of the former; who would work for a wage, i.e., generate surplus value for a boss, if they had access the means of production themselves?

Socialism also uses wage labor, so it's hardly correct to claim that capitalism is "marked" wage labor. If you disagree, then explain how the socialist economy would work without paying wages to people who do the work?

Private property is the source of the inequality necessary for capitalism to function. And how is this inequality enforced and preserved? By means of a coercive structure at the disposal of the owners: that is, the state.

You mean allowing people to keep what they have produced is necessary for capitalism to function. That's true. No economic system could possible function if anyone was free to claim anything produced by others. Keeping your stuff only requires a means of protecting your stuff. There's nothing "coercive" about hiring security to keep thieves and marauders at bay. How is anyone being coerced by the presence of a gate to my property and a guard manning that gate?

"There’s no such thing as private property without a coercive structure to enforce it. There’s no mystical essence to property. It’s not a concept that exists in all cultures and time periods."[http://www.crimethinc.com/podcast/18/transcript18.html]

Sure there is. Private property existed for thousands of years before the state ever came into being. The state is the single greatest threat to private property, not it's benefactor.

 

[Contumacious]

Do you have an autographed picture of Hank Paulson under your bed?
Why don't you ask it how the "economic basket case" manages to pay for free education and health care for all its citizens?
Punk.

Paying for healthcare is easy, when only the Party members get it.

"The Cuban government operates a national health system and assumes fiscal and administrative responsibility for the health care of all its citizens.[1] There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run. The present Minister for Public Health is Roberto Morales Ojeda."

Health care in Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fucking paradise.

So explain the reason Cubans are willing to leave the socialist paradise on anything that floats?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[georgephillip]

There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run.

Absolutely.

In Cuba itself, meanwhile, private medicine is readily available to paying foreigners and well-connected locals. The two best hospitals in Havana, Cira García and CIMEX, are run for profit. Both are far better than normal state hospitals, where patients are often obliged to bring their own sheets and food.

Cuban health care: Nip and tuck in | The Economist

LOL!

The Economist

"The poorer countries of the world continue to struggle with an enormous health burden from diseases that we have long had the capacity to eliminate.

"Similarly, the health systems of some countries, rich and poor alike, are fragmented and inefficient, leaving many population groups underserved and often without health care access entirely.

"Cuba represents an important alternative example where modest infrastructure investments combined with a well-developed public health strategy have generated health status measures comparable with those of industrialized countries.

"Areas of success include control of infectious diseases, reduction in infant mortality, establishment of a research and biotechnology industry, and progress in control of chronic diseases, among others.

"If the Cuban experience were generalized to other poor and middle-income countries human health would be transformed.

"Given current political alignments, however, the major public health advances in Cuba, and the underlying strategy that has guided its health gains, have been systematically ignored."

Health in Cuba

Is the Economist telling lies about those hospitals in Cuba?

Could be...

"This health centre is located in Havana in Cuba and belongs to the Public Health national System of Cuba.

"Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.

"Medical treatments are provided and surgical procedures are performed in all medical disciplines at the centre.

"Facilities at the centre includes modern surgery rooms, pre anaesthetic and post anaesthetic recovery rooms and 39 private rooms with two suites that have the best possible amenities for the comfort of patients.

"Services at the centre include health examinations, internal medicine, dental care and rehabilitation programmes."

Clinica Central Cira Garcia - Dentist in Havana - WhatClinic.com

 

[buckeye45_73]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

Do you have any proof of that statement?

"In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

Are you high? Compare the poor in the us and other capitalistic countries (europe).

And i guess the ussr was better? What system do you prefer?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Economist

"The poorer countries of the world continue to struggle with an enormous health burden from diseases that we have long had the capacity to eliminate.

"Similarly, the health systems of some countries, rich and poor alike, are fragmented and inefficient, leaving many population groups underserved and often without health care access entirely.

"Cuba represents an important alternative example where modest infrastructure investments combined with a well-developed public health strategy have generated health status measures comparable with those of industrialized countries.

"Areas of success include control of infectious diseases, reduction in infant mortality, establishment of a research and biotechnology industry, and progress in control of chronic diseases, among others.

"If the Cuban experience were generalized to other poor and middle-income countries human health would be transformed.

"Given current political alignments, however, the major public health advances in Cuba, and the underlying strategy that has guided its health gains, have been systematically ignored."

Health in Cuba

Is the Economist telling lies about those hospitals in Cuba?

Could be...

"This health centre is located in Havana in Cuba and belongs to the Public Health national System of Cuba.

"Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.

"Medical treatments are provided and surgical procedures are performed in all medical disciplines at the centre.

"Facilities at the centre includes modern surgery rooms, pre anaesthetic and post anaesthetic recovery rooms and 39 private rooms with two suites that have the best possible amenities for the comfort of patients.

"Services at the centre include health examinations, internal medicine, dental care and rehabilitation programmes."

Clinica Central Cira Garcia - Dentist in Havana - WhatClinic.com

"Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.

Anyone who pays hard currency is welcome.
That leaves out about 99.9% of Cubans.
So much for your free, workers paradise, eh comrade?

 

[RKMBrown]

Is the Economist telling lies about those hospitals in Cuba?

Could be...

"This health centre is located in Havana in Cuba and belongs to the Public Health national System of Cuba.

"Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.

"Medical treatments are provided and surgical procedures are performed in all medical disciplines at the centre.

"Facilities at the centre includes modern surgery rooms, pre anaesthetic and post anaesthetic recovery rooms and 39 private rooms with two suites that have the best possible amenities for the comfort of patients.

"Services at the centre include health examinations, internal medicine, dental care and rehabilitation programmes."

Clinica Central Cira Garcia - Dentist in Havana - WhatClinic.com

"Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.

Anyone who pays hard currency is welcome.
That leaves out about 99.9% of Cubans.
So much for your free, workers paradise, eh comrade?

All the Cubans I've ever known where hard working people that paid their bills. You're a retarded racist biggot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Could be...

"This health centre is located in Havana in Cuba and belongs to the Public Health national System of Cuba.

"Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.

"Medical treatments are provided and surgical procedures are performed in all medical disciplines at the centre.

"Facilities at the centre includes modern surgery rooms, pre anaesthetic and post anaesthetic recovery rooms and 39 private rooms with two suites that have the best possible amenities for the comfort of patients.

"Services at the centre include health examinations, internal medicine, dental care and rehabilitation programmes."

Clinica Central Cira Garcia - Dentist in Havana - WhatClinic.com

"Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.

Anyone who pays hard currency is welcome.
That leaves out about 99.9% of Cubans.
So much for your free, workers paradise, eh comrade?

All the Cubans I've ever known where hard working people that paid their bills. You're a retarded racist biggot.

Damn you're stupid.

It's not easy for the average Cuban to get hard currency, is it?

 

[georgephillip]

Is the Economist telling lies about those hospitals in Cuba?

Could be...

"This health centre is located in Havana in Cuba and belongs to the Public Health national System of Cuba.

"Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.

"Medical treatments are provided and surgical procedures are performed in all medical disciplines at the centre.

"Facilities at the centre includes modern surgery rooms, pre anaesthetic and post anaesthetic recovery rooms and 39 private rooms with two suites that have the best possible amenities for the comfort of patients.

"Services at the centre include health examinations, internal medicine, dental care and rehabilitation programmes."

Clinica Central Cira Garcia - Dentist in Havana - WhatClinic.com

"Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.

Anyone who pays hard currency is welcome.
That leaves out about 99.9% of Cubans.
So much for your free, workers paradise, eh comrade?

100% of Cubans still have free medical care and education, don't they, Bigot?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Could be...

"This health centre is located in Havana in Cuba and belongs to the Public Health national System of Cuba.

"Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.

"Medical treatments are provided and surgical procedures are performed in all medical disciplines at the centre.

"Facilities at the centre includes modern surgery rooms, pre anaesthetic and post anaesthetic recovery rooms and 39 private rooms with two suites that have the best possible amenities for the comfort of patients.

"Services at the centre include health examinations, internal medicine, dental care and rehabilitation programmes."

Clinica Central Cira Garcia - Dentist in Havana - WhatClinic.com

"Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.

Anyone who pays hard currency is welcome.
That leaves out about 99.9% of Cubans.
So much for your free, workers paradise, eh comrade?

100% of Cubans still have free medical care and education, don't they, Bigot?

wow they have free shit, yay for them. I'd rather have opportunity to make some money and get better healthcare

so you want to be dirt poor like a Cuban, go right ahead bro!

and again what economic system is better than the US, I'm waiting

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Could be...

"This health centre is located in Havana in Cuba and belongs to the Public Health national System of Cuba.

"Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.

"Medical treatments are provided and surgical procedures are performed in all medical disciplines at the centre.

"Facilities at the centre includes modern surgery rooms, pre anaesthetic and post anaesthetic recovery rooms and 39 private rooms with two suites that have the best possible amenities for the comfort of patients.

"Services at the centre include health examinations, internal medicine, dental care and rehabilitation programmes."

Clinica Central Cira Garcia - Dentist in Havana - WhatClinic.com

"Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.

Anyone who pays hard currency is welcome.
That leaves out about 99.9% of Cubans.
So much for your free, workers paradise, eh comrade?

100% of Cubans still have free medical care and education, don't they, Bigot?

I guess if the low quality care is free, you can have it. Idiot!

 

[Contumacious]

"Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.

Anyone who pays hard currency is welcome.
That leaves out about 99.9% of Cubans.
So much for your free, workers paradise, eh comrade?

100% of Cubans still have free medical care and education, don't they, Bigot?

wow they have free shit, yay for them. I'd rather have opportunity to make some money and get better healthcare

so you want to be dirt poor like a Cuban, go right ahead bro!

and again what economic system is better than the US, I'm waiting

No, he wants ALL Americans to be dirt poor like Cubans.

.