Hey Colin;
I can't speak intelligently about Cuba's health care however, where would there DR.'s be without the education they receive in the USA.
I'm sure your people couldn't do without our universities.
Your people can't even teach guide dog training.
You had to come here to the USA. to get proper training.
When President Reagan was in office, your Prime Minister wouldn't cough or sneeze without consulting our greatest President.
So, tonight when you go qrt.
thank God that we are the policemen of the world!
73 de Anthony w2ajv
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 12, 2010, at 6:33 PM, colin McDonald <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> absolutely.
> Cuba has one of the best health care systems on earth for their general
> population.
> there might be allot of other things wrong with cuba, but their health care
> is second to none.
> I would venture to guess that the US is the only industrialized, first world
> country that doesn't have a national health care system by which all
> residents are treated to adequit and timely medical care without having to
> pay for it directly.
> Obviously taxes support a national health care system, but at least in other
> countries, you don't have to pay your taxes, and pay for medical care on top
> of that.
> The american way seems to be pay, pay, and pay some more, and still not
> receive adequit service or care.
> I would say that a country more interested in trillion dollar wars may not
> see a good healthcare system for their population as a priority.
> Canada didn't always have a healthcare system either, but the one we have
> now, though always problematic as any large national organization is, is
> adequit and timely as far as care goes on the front line.
> No one must pay out of pocket, or go into debt to stay healthy or to receive
> care for an illness. Or, stay sick because they can't pay.
> We pay our federal and provincial taxes, and that is enough to provide basic
> human needs for us.
> what is the point in having a government, if that government won't even
> assist the general population with basic human needs? sooers, running and
> clean water, land, safety and security, healthcare, education and
> employment.
> those are absolute basics, and implementation of programs to meet those
> needs doesn't fall under the definition of socialism.
> Any government who is put in charge of a society or population can be said
> to be socialist to one extent or another.
> Socialism seems to be a catch all phrase for anything americans don't like
> about federal programs. Throw up that red flag named socialism and everyone
> starts thinking about the soviet union, cuba, china, and the eastern block.
> social programs does not equal communism, two totally separate things.
> Capitalism and the "american way" can thrive and still do very well under a
> higher level of "socialist" style programs and services.
> You pay less as a citizen, and you have more opportunities for education and
> healthcare and employment. where is the negative here?
> 73
> Colin, V A6BKX
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Howard Kaufman" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 4:06 PM
> Subject: Re: This has nothing to do with ham radio
>
>
>> They said the same thing about President Trumann. Let's wait thirty years
>> and then judge.
>> The Health Care Reform act is a bad law, but it's a start to put us on a
>> par
>> with other industrialized nations. The problem is it doesn't reform the
>> system. Money is made by curing catastrophic illnesses, not by preventing
>> them. Where do you think the brightest minds in medicine go? Right to
>> specialization rather than to primary care.
>> America has the best health care in the world, that is if you have a
>> million
>> dollar illness like cancer. Your child has a higher statistical chance of
>> living to the age of five in Cuba than he or she does by being born in
>> America.
>> We fiddle while Rhome burns.
|
