Unicef Confirms 0% Child Malnutrition in Cuba

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

S-Murph

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well it didnt "collape" because it didnt work. It collapsed because certain elements of it didnt work. The political system, for example, was not accountable. There was great inequality in both wealth and power in the USSR.

But as i say, central planning worked to a considerable degree. As with Cuba, the Soviet Union, even more so, achieved much in education, technology and healthcare. I think you will find that many, if not most who lived in the USSR and Eastern Europe would prefer "Communism" back. Its the case in East germany and Russia at least.

I think synd did a great job defending the gains of the USSR in another thread, far better than I could.

Leftists defend their whitewashed, utopian image of Cuba because it is one of the last refuges for their wishful thinking.

Im a leftist (a radical one) and I dont. Im defending the merits of aspects of the system.

Better than ... where, exactly? North Korea?

How about the US allies:

Saudi Arabia.

Eh, maybe Uzbekistan.

Post Allende Chile?

Pre Castro Cuba?

Its irrelevant anyway to this thread.

No, they are not "researched ... by reputable organizations." They are produced by the Cuban government, and re-published by credulous leftists as "fact."

All of them? would you like to wager on that?

I dont think any statistics, reputable or otherwise, would suit your ideological faith anyway.

Allende destroyed the Chilean economy; by the time of the coup, it had an enormous trade deficit and hyperinflation of 600 percent. So much for his Marxist "reforms."

Marxist?. Interesting that you think so.

It would be very simplistic to say the failures were solely attributed to Allendes economic programme. As opposed to other factors oustide his control.

If you believe that Chavez is "democratically elected," you will believe anything.

Personally I dont think much of 'representative democracy' no. Wherever it takes place.

Soldie

S-Murph, for someone who was keen to emphasise that the topic is about the alleged success of Cuba's healthcare system, you're throwing in an awful lot of non sequiturs.

Like aurelius79, you seem to have a lot of faith in the claims made by the Cuban government -- namely that Cuba enjoys world class healthcare and education systems. Given the Cuban regime's history of repression, such claims should be placed under immense scrutiny. Within the framework of the Cuban system, there is no legitimate way for anyone to speak out against the government, as there is no democracy, no internet, and no press freedom. Further, given the theoretically and empirically observable shortcomings of communist economics, any claims that countries practicing said economics have excellent anything are highly suspect, and that is why that aspect of the discussion is relevant.

Have you got any real evidence to support your claims regarding Cuba's education and healthcare systems? Or to support you claim that central-planning "work to a considerable degree"?

S-Murph

Soldie wrote: »

Like aurelius79, you seem to have a lot of faith in the claims made by the Cuban government -- namely that Cuba enjoys world class healthcare and education systems.

No its not just 'faith' in government statistics, but rather a belief in the explanations given as to how such statistics were achieved.

For example, emphasis on primary healthcare. Doctors are paid less and so the system can support such a vast network of primary healthcare, and primary healthcare is less expensive to facilitate compared to other stages. (ironically, the low pay of doctors was 'slagged' off earlier in this thread)

If excellent primary care is implemented, it takes a massive burdon off other stages which are more expensive to operate.

It is through an emphasis on primary healthcare, that many of the claimed statistics were acheived. I believe it makes sense, but not just that, very much acheivable.

Thats why the statistics are not taken "with a grain of salt", but seriously, by major and reputable organiations around the world.

Further, given the theoretically and empirically observable shortcomings of communist economics, any claims that countries practicing said economics have excellent anything are highly suspect, and that is why that aspect of the discussion is relevant.

Why is it suspect to claim that rationally allocating resources to solve social problems, or indeed develop new technologies, might be excellent?

Have you got any real evidence to support your claims regarding Cuba's education and healthcare systems? Or to support you claim that central-planning "work to a considerable degree"?

The statistics and explanation is there. What evidence do you need.

S-Murph

Just for example.

Show me the lies and propaganda here...

http://www.medicc.org/publications/medicc_review/1004/pages/headlines_in_cuban_health13.html


Show me the conspirators here. Show me the fabrication. All lies I suppose, coming from a society which directs resources rationally.

Did someone say rationally :eek: Heretics!!

aurelius79

Soldie wrote: »

Have you got any real evidence to support your claims regarding Cuba's education and healthcare systems? Or to support you claim that central-planning "work to a considerable degree"?

I thought I was done with this ridiculous argument but my name keeps coming up for some reason.

Let's get one thing straight. UNICEF is not a Cuban backed propaganda mill. On UNICEF's report on child nutrition in Cuba, they cite Demographic and Health Surveys, Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys, and the World Health Organization as sources for information.

The next person who claims that all this data is somehow just communist propaganda better have some damn good evidence to back up that claim.

Eliot Rosewater

aurelius79 wrote: »

The next person who claims that all this data is somehow just communist propaganda better have some damn good evidence to back up that claim.

Whats the point? Every bit of evidence weve thrown your way so far has been routinely ignored. Your attitude towards evidence can be summed up by this: you described Reporters Without Borders as "just another media organization" who you "couldn't care less about," which indicated that you never even bothered going onto their website or their Wikipedia entry, two sources which would have dismissed your misguided opinion towards them immediately. You dont care one bit about evidence, so stop pretending to the contrary.

Now S-Murph has described the allocation of resources in Cuba as "rational." Need anymore be said?

S-Murph

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Whats the point? Every bit of evidence weve thrown your way so far has been routinely ignored. Your attitude towards evidence can be summed up by this: you described Reporters Without Borders as "just another media organization" who you "couldn't care less about," which indicated that you never even bothered going onto their website or their Wikipedia entry, two sources which would have dismissed your misguided opinion towards them immediately. You dont care one bit about evidence, so stop pretending to the contrary.

Now S-Murph has described the allocation of resources in Cuba as "rational." Need anymore be said?

Sorry I dont get your substanceless dig at what i said.

Could you post a link to that reporters without borders article/'evidence' as I cant find it.

Eliot Rosewater

S-Murph wrote: »

Sorry I dont get your substanceless dig at what i said.

Not a dig; merely a summary of what your last post said:

S-Murph wrote: »

coming from a society [Cuba] which directs resources rationally.

S-Murph wrote: »

Could you post a link to that reporters without borders article/'evidence' as I cant find it.

The source is the World Press Freedom Index, which is published annually by Reporters Without Borders. Cuba is ranked 170th in the world; 6th last. The nearest Caribbean country as far as I can gather is the Dominican Republic, which is 72 places higher (not being well versed in Geography I am open to correction on this point).

http://www.rsf.org/en-classement1003-2009.html

aurelius79

There's 10 in the series. Why don't you have a look at what everyday life is like for these poor, oppressed people.

S-Murph

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Not a dig; merely a summary of what your last post said:

And why did you need to repeat it?

The source is the World Press Freedom Index, which is published annually by Reporters Without Borders. Cuba is ranked 170th in the world; 6th last. The nearest Caribbean country as far as I can gather is the Dominican Republic, which is 72 places higher (not being well versed in Geography I am open to correction on this point).

http://www.rsf.org/en-classement1003-2009.html

Thanks.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

aurelius79 wrote: »

Let's get one thing straight. UNICEF is not a Cuban backed propaganda mill. On UNICEF's report on child nutrition in Cuba, they cite Demographic and Health Surveys, Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys, and the World Health Organization as sources for information.

Nobody has said anything about Unicef being a "Cuban backed propaganda mill", only that the statistics used come from the Cuban government itself. You seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that Cuba is a repressive communist dictatorship. The Cuban regime is known for impressive feats such as the rounding up of thousands of homosexuals for "re-education", the shutting down of all opposition media, the torture, imprisonment and execution of tens of thousands of dissidents. It's illegal even to openly criticise the government. Despite all this, you seem to think that everytime a Unicef statistician comes knocking they simply roll out the red carpet and give him unrestricted access to the country. I genuinely find it disgusting that leftist apologists blithely ignore all of this on ideological grounds. I hate to break it to you, but all of the statistics presented in the links you listed are merely regurgitations from Oficina National de Estadísticas -- the Cuban national statistics office.

Two things:

• Check out Miami-based Cuban emigrant George Utset's website to see if the abundant information presented is even remotely reconcilable with your claim that Cuba has "excellent" healthcare.
• Do some cursory research into historical Cuban statistics and note that Cuba actually has a higher infant mortality rate now than before the revolution.

Soldie

S-Murph wrote: »

Show me the conspirators here. Show me the fabrication. All lies I suppose, coming from a society which directs resources rationally.

Did someone say rationally :eek: Heretics!!

This seems inconsistent with the fact that Cuba has massive food shortages. Can you tell us more about how the Cubans allocate resources "rationally" without a price mechanism?

S-Murph

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, what I meant by "those who lived in the USSR" are those surveys which show the 60+ age bracket desiring a return. Admittedly, its mostly old people who favour the likes of the Communist Party of Russia. But hey, what would they know about the system which was in place.

Here's a nice Cuban statistic for you: In the 2008 Cuban "elections," Raul Castro won 99.4 percent of the votes cast in his district. I have it on good authority that this figure is completely true and accurate.

I believe you. Its a pitty it couldnt be tested by the WHO like a vaccine though.

Under Allende, Chile's trade balance went from a $78 million surplus to a $438 million deficit in the space of two and a half years. Inflation soared to 600 percent shortly before Allende was ousted in the military coup. Can you explain how these extraordinary reversals are not attributable to Allende's economic programme?

Im not an economist and I dont profess to be.

But "The falls in exports were mostly due to a fall in the price of copper. Chile was at the mercy of international fluctuations in the value of its single most important export. As with almost half of developing countries, more than 50 per cent of Chile's export receipts were from a single primary commodity [Hoogvelt, 1997]. Adverse fluctuation in the international price of copper negatively affected the Chilean economy throughout 1971-2. The price of copper fell from a peak of $66 per ton in 1970 to only $48-9 in 1971 and 1972 [Nove, 1986]. In addition to the hyperinflation, the fall in the value of copper and lack of economic aid would further depress the economy." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile_under_Allende

Take from wiki what you will. There are numerous other contributing factors mentioned on there which have nothing to do with Allendes economic programme and everything to do with pissing off the USA and wealthy Chileans.

Given the number of dictators you've referenced admiringly in recent posts, I guessed as much.

Well that would be odd of me being an anarchist/libertarian socialist. How far did that admiration go, remind me.

S-Murph

Soldie wrote: »

This seems inconsistent with the fact that Cuba has massive food shortages. Can you tell us more about how the Cubans allocate resources "rationally" without a price mechanism?

Its a centrally planned economy isnt it - ie, resources rationally directed.

Or are you claiming its a market economy now?

My view is that its both. Besides, maybe you could explain how food shortages mean an economy is not rationally planned?

S-Murph

Soldie wrote: »

Check out Miami-based Cuban emigrant George Utset's website to see if the abundant information presented is even remotely reconcilable with your claim that Cuba has "excellent" healthcare.

Hmmmm.

Unicef or some tacky website run by a guy with a vendatta against Cuba. Hard.

I mean, come on. That website isnt any more an objective source of information than the Cuban state.

Soldie

S-Murph wrote: »

Its a centrally planned economy isnt it - ie, resources rationally directed.

History actually shows us that in centrally planned economies the resources are allocated irrationally. Where do you suppose the Cuban government get their perfect information from in order to rationally plan out the entire economy? Unicef?

Besides, maybe you could explain how food shortages mean an economy is not rationally planned?

Cuban imports most of its food while large tracts of its own land go unfarmed. Is this rational?

Soldie

S-Murph wrote: »

Hmmmm.

Unicef or some tacky website run by a guy with a vendatta against Cuba. Hard.

I mean, come on. That website isnt any more an objective source of information than the Cuban state.

Again you cling to Unicef even though you've been informed that their information comes from the Cuban government.

I'm inclined to think that activist George Utset cares quite dearly about his home country -- why else would he go to the time and effort to try to educate people about the "real" Cuba?

Are you suggesting that the information on his website is false?

S-Murph

Soldie wrote: »

History actually shows us that in centrally planned economies the resources are allocated irrationally.

You misunderstand the context in which the word rational is used.

Where do you suppose the Cuban government get their perfect information from in order to rationally plan out the entire economy? Unicef?

They dont have perfect information, thats a significant problem, and one of the main failings with centrally planned economies.

Cuban imports most of its food while large tracts of its own land go unfarmed. Is this rational?

Again, you misunderstand how the word rational is being used.

To rationally plan something does not necessarilly mean that the act of doing so should result in a positive outcome. Rationally planning something means that the act is calculated to have an outcome. With centrally planned economies, this calculation is on a large scale.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

S-Murph

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I cant explain that. Maybe there is a rationale behind it, maybe its overlooked. As with above, you misunderstand the context in which I use the term rational planning.

Now, back to the issue of health care. Here is an article published last year in the Miami Herald, about Professor Katherine Hirschfeld, author of an academic study entitled Health, Politics and Revolution in Cuba since 1898.



Now, the first-hand experience and academic research of Dr. Hirschfeld would seem to challenge both the Cuban government's (and, by extension, your) account of the quality of the island's health care. Would you assume, therefore, that Dr. Hirschfeld is lying?

[/QUOTE]

I wont assume she is lying. I am however aware that there are others with alternate accounts, Doctors who do not appear to be coerced into doing so.

I will go on the information thats available to me, and which I believe has some objectivity and an explanation behind it.

And there is plenty of information which meets that which is favourable to Cuba.

aurelius79

Soldie wrote: »

Cuban imports most of its food while large tracts of its own land go unfarmed. Is this rational?

Actually, large tracts of land in Cuba are used to grow sugarcane and tobacco. These are known as cash crops. Cuba was doing fairly well until the global price of sugar dropped through the floor. And what about the tobacco industry? Thankfully people still want their hand-rolled Cuban cigars.

Anyone remember Mallow and the last sugar refinery in Ireland? What if Ireland produced nothing but sugar, wool, and salmon? I wonder how our country would have dealt with something like that.

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2006/05/15/story3389.asp

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

S-Murph

Soldie wrote: »

Again you cling to Unicef even though you've been informed that their information comes from the Cuban government.

I'm inclined to think that activist George Utset cares quite dearly about his home country -- why else would he go to the time and effort to try to educate people about the "real" Cuba?

Are you suggesting that the information on his website is false?

Im not claiming its false, but I dont know the guy or his motives.

As I have said, there are alternate accounts too which are equally, if not more valid.

Iv given this link as an example: - http://www.medicc.org/publications/medicc_review/1004/pages/headlines_in_cuban_health13.html

Now are you suggesting that if I contact - John Robbins, an immunologist with the U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the University of Havana, the Finlay Institute, the Tropical Medicine Institute, the National Center for Bioreagents and the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Canadian scientists at the University of Ottawa, the World Health Organization (who test the vaccine in question) and Vicente Vérez Bencomo - that that will confirm that the claims made in this particular article are just fabrications?

What a length to go to.

southsiderosie

S-Murph wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance. Whats a "strong" economy?

For whom does the "strong" economy benefit?



Look, dont be trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes.

Cuba is a third world country. Yeah, people try leave, particularly when a first world country promising the "Amarican dream" is a short distance across the channel. Tell us something we dont know.

Its nothing exclusive to Cuba.



The people of Brazil, an economically "strong" country as you call it, know all about a "two tiered" economy. 20% of people living in its capital live in shanty towns/favela while there exists many wealth people.

As Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson showed in their research, inequality contributes greatly to many, if not most, social problems.



Maybe so.

But so what?

We are talking about the Cuban Health care system, not the regime.



As opposed to where, "economically strong" Brazil where there exists no inequality?

What are you getting at?



And so what like?

Economic apartheid must exist every place in the world. I certainly wouldnt be allowed sit around in a tourist hotel here in Dublin for long without paying, I can tell you that.

Im not trying to pass that off as revelatory though.



Really? What percentage of immigrants are 'successful'?

If you go back and read the thread, a previous poster argued that Cuba had one of the strongest economies in the region. If you measure an economy by growth, employment, and GDP, that is a ridiculous statement. A strong economy is NOT the same thing as having good social outcomes, such as high literacy and good public health. I agree that the social statistics for Brazil are dire, in terms of poverty, urban violence, and inequality. But using standard economic measures, Brazil is a global powerhouse - and over the last 10 years, the middle class has slowly but surely begun to emerge in a country with one of the highest rates of inequality in the world.

As for Cuba being a third-world country that everyone wants to leave, of course it is. Just because people get free education and cultural programs doesn't mean their country isn't a ****ty place to live. What makes Cuba different from its other poor neighbors (besides their constant banging the drum of their social programs) is that the governments of Nicaragua, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic don't actively PREVENT their citizens from leaving - in fact, one might argue that many of these countries (El Salvador in particular) structures its economy around the remittances generated from out-migration. Cuba is probably the ONLY government in the region that DOESN'T want a significant percentage of their population to leave in order to work in the US. "Sure we all can't live on a small island" applies pretty well to the attitude of governments in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Dominica...

You can't talk about health care without talking about the regime, or the ****show of an economy that they have bequeathed on their citizens. After almost 50 years of dictatorship, Cuba has a literate population and basic health care (great health care if you are a foreigner or a party official)...and an economy so warped that engineers are working as taxi drivers to get access to dollars, teachers make more money as prostitutes, and the youngest, most productive workers in the country jump at the chance to leave whenever it presents itself.

Finally, this thread would be a lot better if defenders of the Castro regime would at least acknowledge that the social outcomes that they tout (which I think are questionable, but even assuming that they are true) have not come without a cost. That cost is readily apparent in the stories of those who have left and those who have been left behind. When people look at photos of balseros and dismiss them as a "family outing", or make light of the very real social and economic restrictions put on Cubans in favor of the tourist economy, they are being disingenuous at best, and willfully ignorant at worst.

S-Murph

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But sure listen, everything is deniable if we want it to be.

"After just a few months of research ... it became increasingly obvious that many Cubans did not appear to have a very positive view of the health care system themselves. A number of people complained to me informally that their doctors were unhelpful, that the best clinics and hospitals only served political elites and that scarce medical supplies were often stolen from hospitals and sold on the black market. Further criticisms were leveled at the politicization of medical care, the unreliability of health data and the overall atmosphere of secrecy surrounding the prevalence of certain infectious diseases such as HIV and tuberculosis. Anecdotes of medical malpractice and bureaucratic mismanagement seemed common. The Cuban health care system, as described by Cubans in informal speech, seemed quite different from the Cuban health care system as described by North American social scientists and public health researchers."

Reading that, I will go as far as to say that I would very much believe what is said above.

Nothing above, however, takes away from, say, the acheivements of the primary healthcare system in preventing diseases found commonly in other third world countries. Sure, the doctor might be "unhelpful". Sure, the medicines might be sold on black markets. Sure, the healthcare might be politicized, as alluded to earlier.

But so what, what does that prove, other than those particular problems.

I am pointing you to qualitative ethnographic research conducted by a U.S.-based academic who holds a Ph.D. in medical anthropology. But you believe that the information that "has some objectivity ... behind it" is the information issued by the Castro propaganda machine?

[/QUOTE]

See above.

S-Murph

southsiderosie wrote: »

If you go back and read the thread, a previous poster argued that Cuba had one of the strongest economies in the region. If you measure an economy by growth, employment, and GDP, that is a ridiculous statement. A strong economy is NOT the same thing as having good social outcomes, such as high literacy and good public health. I agree that the social statistics for Brazil are dire, in terms of poverty, urban violence, and inequality. But using standard economic measures, Brazil is a global powerhouse - and over the last 10 years, the middle class has slowly but surely begun to emerge in a country with one of the highest rates of inequality in the world.

You cant use standard economic measures as some sort of bechmark for progress, particularly when trying to view things outside a capitalist framework.

Now that we are aware of things like global warming, what commonly comes under 'growth' is not aways desirable. That will be a hard lesson when learned. Cuba, as has been mentioned, and from what has been published, is an example of a very sustainable economy - unlike Brazil.

As for Cuba being a third-world country that everyone wants to leave, of course it is. Just because people get free education and cultural programs doesn't mean their country isn't a ****ty place to live. What makes Cuba different from its other poor neighbors (besides their constant banging the drum of their social programs) is that the governments of Nicaragua, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic don't actively PREVENT their citizens from leaving - in fact, one might argue that many of these countries (El Salvador in particular) structures its economy around the remittances generated from out-migration. Cuba is probably the ONLY government in the region that DOESN'T want a significant percentage of their population to leave in order to work in the US. "Sure we all can't live on a small island" applies pretty well to the attitude of governments in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Dominica...

Im sure most Mexicans would love to leave for the USA. Do you know why they dont?

What you are saying is quite selective. Yeah, Cuba might not let 'its' people leave. Right, so what. But just because other third world countries do dosnt mean they can.

You can't talk about health care without talking about the regime, or the ****show of an economy that they have bequeathed on their citizens. After almost 50 years of dictatorship, Cuba has a literate population and basic health care (great health care if you are a foreigner or a party official)...and an economy so warped that engineers are working as taxi drivers to get access to dollars, teachers make more money as prostitutes, and the youngest, most productive workers in the country jump at the chance to leave whenever it presents itself.

Oh let me not start with the social and economic problems in the "richest country on the plantet", or indeed here.

I mean, if you have an ivory tower, talk. But you dont. Cuba, in so many respects fairs so better off than many of the latin american countries. Powerhouses as you call them. Shams more like.

Finally, this thread would be a lot better if defenders of the Castro regime would at least acknowledge that the social outcomes that they tout (which I think are questionable, but even assuming that they are true) have not come without a cost. That cost is readily apparent in the stories of those who have left and those who have been left behind. When people look at photos of balseros and dismiss them as a "family outing", or make light of the very real social and economic restrictions put on Cubans in favor of the tourist economy, they are being disingenuous at best, and willfully ignorant at worst.

Im not defending the Castro regime, im defending the methods of economic allocation in relation to healthcare.

aurelius79

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Communism is a political ideology, socialism is an economic structure. You shouldn't confuse the two. Cuba has a socialist economy, actually a mixed socialist economy because private enterprise is actually allowed but it's highly taxed.

But you're seriously telling us that after 50 years of communism, Cubans are subsisting on imported rice and beans so that their resources can be devoted to producing hand-rolled Cuban cigars for the export market?

State central planning at its finest.

Who said Cubans subsist on rice and beans? Here's an excellent article regarding Cuba's current urban agricultural revolution.

"Laura Enriquez, a sociologist at the University of California-Berkeley, who has written extensively on the subject of Latin American agriculture, said: "What happened in Cuba was remarkable. It was remarkable that they decided to prioritize food production. Other countries in the region took the neo-liberal option and exported 'what they were good at' and imported food. The Cubans went for food security and part of that was prioritizing small farmers."

http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/280951_focus13.html

See, the thing of it is, I don't think you view modern day Cuba any different than it was viewed fifteen or twenty years ago. A lot has changed since the 90s. Maybe if you drop your preconceived notions and see the world as it is, then maybe you'd come to understand what's being said.

I'll freely admit that there was a violent, popular uprising in Cuba in 1959. I also admit that there were people killed and imprisoned during and after this armed struggle. I admit that Fidel Castro may have gone a bit mad after invasion attempts, numerous assassination attempts, witnessing the assassination of his good friend Ernesto Guevara, etc.