US/Cuba Look to Normalize Relations

@oralloy,

I understand what you are saying more than you might suppose, Oralloy.

But the question of "single payer" is not really where I am at on this thing.

I simply think that in a country with as much wealth as we have...and considering that huge chunks of that wealth are a direct result of (reasonable) exploitation of natural resources...

...NO ONE in this country ought to need for healthcare.

Proper healthcare probably ends up being less expensive than the kind of thing that regularly happens now. (Although I have my own reservations about that!)

Whether it is single payer (extended and modified Medicare/Medicaid) or something allowing the private sector to be more involved...I would like to see EVERY person in this country with adequate coverage. (Frankly, I want to see EVERY person with the opportunity to get a college education also.)

The Republicans are not doing it...and the proposals have always come from the left...with nothing but opposition coming from the right.

Hey, if the people on the right or the moderates think the left is out of line on this...they should come up with viable proposals that will get the job done. (Romney did!)

But bottom line...I think we have already turned the corner on this problem...and the system that eventually moves us into the 21st century on a par with the other industrialize world...will have Obamacare as its skeleton.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

By the way, Oralloy...to be honest about it...the "single payer system" has always caused me to have my eyes cloud over. I probably do not know the intricacies of the notion anywhere near as well as I ought to...but as I said, the nature of the system is not as important to me as getting something in place that works.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

By the way, Oralloy...to be honest about it...the "single payer system" has always caused me to have my eyes cloud over. I probably do not know the intricacies of the notion anywhere near as well as I ought to...but as I said, the nature of the system is not as important to me as getting something in place that works.

Old fashioned insurance:
People pay a monthly bill to an insurance company. This money is then used to pay for medical treatments while providing a profit to the insurance company.

UK system:
Hospitals are government-owned buildings. Doctors and nurses are government employees who work for a government paycheck. Hospitals provide their medical care for free.

The US system of hospitals for military veterans is similar to this structure.

Single Payer system:
Hospitals are private institutions, not owned by the government. Doctors and nurses charge money for their services. The government pays all medical bills out of funds raised from tax revenue.

The US Medicare system for people over 65 is similar to this structure (not that "Medicare Advantage" stuff, but rather traditional Medicare).

German system:
A government marketplace where people select from a variety of competing plans. These plans operate like a typical insurance policy in that everyone pays a monthly bill and this money is then used to pay for medical treatment, but the plans are all tightly-regulated and not-for profit.

The Obamacare exchanges are something like the German system. However, the plans on the Obamacare exchanges are for-profit, and not so regulated.

1 Reply

There is problem with A2K nowadays.
Every single political thread, no matter the subjevt, becomes a debate about Obamacare.

1 Reply

@fbaezer,

Delighted to hear that's the only problem.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Whether it is single payer (extended and modified Medicare/Medicaid) or something allowing the private sector to be more involved...I would like to see EVERY person in this country with adequate coverage

Change this to "every person that wants it" and I will agree.
However, I fail to see why people that dont choose to participate in the Obamacare system should be fined, like they are now.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Excellent tutorial, Oralloy. Thanks.

I guess I had the idea down better than I thought...because the (extended) Medicare/Medicaid thought was the one that came immediately to my mind.

I suspect that is the way things will go...BUT...controls to keep costs down will have to be handled, and that is where the wheels may go off the track.

There are several things happening in my own medical care that indicates to me that the system (Medicare) is being gamed (office visits to obtain test results rather than a simple phone call)...in order for doctors to make what they consider an appropriate amount of money. I am astounded by hospital costs. I recently had to have a pacemaker battery changed...and I am dreading looking at the tab on that.

I do not see those kinds of things going away...so efforts to control costs may be the big bugaboo. I don't have the answers...and I hope that people with the know-how...eventually do work out something.

We need it...and MUST get it.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Whether it is single payer (extended and modified Medicare/Medicaid) or something allowing the private sector to be more involved...I would like to see EVERY person in this country with adequate coverage

Change this to "every person that wants it" and I will agree.
However, I fail to see why people that dont choose to participate in the Obamacare system should be fined, like they are now.

I don't think you have that completely correct, Mysteryman. I think acceptable coverage outside the system counts...and no assessment is made in that instance.

But everyone has to be covered...opting for no coverage cannot be an option.

We have that kind of thing here in NJ for automobile insurance. You have to have the insurance...no opting out and "self insuring."

It actually makes sense.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

We have that kind of thing here in NJ for automobile insurance. You have to have the insurance...no opting out and "self insuring."

Owning a car is a privilege and so putting up costly roadblocks to owning one is acceptable within reason, being alive as a citizen of the USA just happens to us, we have no control over that. as such all costs mandated by the collective should be paid out of the collectives account....taxes. SCOTUS got this one wrong.

As for this argument that medical care is an inalienable right that is clearly horse ****, as not even life itself is an inalienable right to us (see the death penalty).

0 Replies

Isn't this thread about Cuba?
HUFFPOLLSTER: Most Approve Of Reestablishing Relations With Cuba

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Of course we, most of the caribbean islands suck. We need a better destination on our cruise, and this is it. Our mammas did not raise dummies.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Our mammas did not raise dummies.

Oh, the irony . . . it almost hurts.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

I agree too if for no other reason than it would be better to be have some kind of communications with a country so close to ours and in which Russia seems to have an interest as well. Plus it wouldn't be bad to have another trading partner.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

There is a '40s Sci Fi set of novels called the Foundation Trilogy by Issac Asimov. Without laying all the background, war broke out between two close trading partners, but because of all of their close ties, the people and the politicians quickly lost their taste for war and peace was declared. The US will never have a full out war with China. The bonds between the two countries are too strong and growing stronger every day. It would be an economic disaster in both countries, mutual assured destruction without nuclear weapons. From the US side, that means we can rail against their human rights violations but we're not going to do anything about it. From their side, it means their people are going to be continuously exposed the western values on human rights and capitalism which over the long haul will hopefully shape their government into something that is better for its people. I think the same thing is true for Cuba. Europeans and Canadians have been leading this charge for years, but the US with its population and proximity has a much better chance to engage productively with Cuba. I see it as a win-win.

0 Replies

I have been wondering what the new congress can do to mess up the move to normalize relations with Cuba. Apparently they are going to use funding for other things such as Homeland Security to block it.

Quote:

Republicans have also discussed using the fight over the homeland security agency as a vehicle for challenging Obama's landmark move last month to normalize ties with Cuba.

source

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Congress can explicitly ban funding for an ambassador or an embassy. They can refuse to consider lifting the trade embargo. They can bury some anti-Cuba stuff in bills that the President otherwise favors. I'm not sure that is going to happen though. A lot of Congressmen are from states that stand to benefit from better relations with Cuba. Just about the entire business community is for improved relations as well. Cuba is yesterday's boogieman for most US citizens and doesn't generate the passion that can be whipped into votes. The Ryan faction of the party is not going to fight Obama on this unless they want to do it just to fight Obama.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Do you speak for "the entire business community"???? What is the basis for this remarkable awareness of your?

On the contrary, my impression is that Cuba, under its current government, offers very little that would interest American businesses. With a new government the situation might be much better, but right now Cuba is an economic basket case.

The Castro regime is fast approaching its inevitable collapse. It seems to me very unfortunate that we might find ourselves prolonging its existence, even for a short while, under these circumstances.

Cuba has no capital; little consumer buying power; produces little of economic value, and is a dangerous place to invest capital, given the lack of an independent judiciary and a system of laws that punishes capitalism. In short it can't buy any American products; has little of value to sell'; and is not a safe place for investment. It would be happy. however. to borrow money from us, though we would be fools to lend it.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

you don't think that Cuba could be a major ag producer?
Sugar is waaay down. They grow great lemons n oranges, coffee, tobacco, Id think that Fla orange growers would feel the biggest hit because theyd have to rely on valencias and other juice oranges rather than more markeatable stuff like navels

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I wouldn't lend Cuba a dime.
But I would sell them goods and services, pre-paid, without having to triangulate with Canada or foreign banks, as some US companies do now. And i would do it over the carpet.
As for direct investment, for political precaution, as an American I wouldn't go alone, but in joint ventures with capitalists from other countries who have made business with Cuba.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

you don't think that Cuba could be a major ag producer?
Sugar is waaay down. They grow great lemons n oranges, coffee, tobacco, Id think that Fla orange growers would feel the biggest hit because theyd have to rely on valencias and other juice oranges rather than more markeatable stuff like navels

I believe Cuba could become a major producer of many things after the authoritarian fanatics who run it are displaced. Unfortunately, they are still there, and still in charge. Moreover the Castros have shown themselves to be very proficient in extracting the wealth of their various patrons (The USSR from Kruschev to Gorbachov , and currently Venezuela).

I believe Cuba will remain a basket case until its "revolution" is decisively rejected and overthrown by its people. Moreover, the lingering disorientation and after effects of a generation of authoritarian socialism, that persisted at fairly high levels among the East Germans for a couple of decades, makes me think this process might take even longer in Cuba.

Until that occurs, there's little point in our opening doors for or to them. Cuba already has unlimited economic relations with most other countries, but, in fact, has very lttle trade with any of them. The only advantage we might have in the eyes of the current Cuban regime is the potential for some misguided delusion under which we might be induced to finance their misrule for some added years. Given the many stupidities of our current administration we might just do that. That's why I'm opposed to any opening to Cuba now.

Out message to the Cuban people sould be that to be treated with respect, they must be a free and independent people. Right now they are neither. Overthrow your oppressors and we will treat you accordingly.

1 Reply

US/Cuba Look to Normalize Relations

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know