Well, it is a glimmer of hope that the boy has conceded that the capitalistic model produces a more productive economic society. He fires back forcefully, though, while retreating to areas supposedly of more interest to liberals anyway...health care and education.
As to world health care ratings, a lot has to do with who sets the parameters and the weighting of those parameters. For example, the World Health Organization (with an appropriate acronym), rates the U.S. health care system (among their 8 parameters) as faring very poorly in "distribution of response", while rating the U.S. #1 in "Response", but poor in "fairness". Colombia, for example, ranks above the U.S. (22 vs. 37) in WHO's rating system, largely due to its #1 rating in "fairness"...everyone gets the same cost and the same level of lousy health care! Even Roger Moore isn't flying down to Colombia for his health care (and I don't think that gastric bypass surgery he had in Cuba worked so well either).
Secondly, the grad student is right that the data shows that the U.S. rates down toward the middle of the pack in developed nations in life expectancy. But it is only 1.2 years below second place, and this is explained by gun violence. The U.S. has 4 times the average homicide rate of these countries, and almost 70% is related to guns. Homicide and suicide rates in the U.S. are about equal to the rest of the developed world when we remove gun murders and suicides. For the record...although a conservative...I am for the removal of handguns from the general public. That one act would, over time improve our health and society.
A similar situation arises in infant mortality. The leading causes in the U.S. are malformations, underweight premature births and SIDS. But a look under the surface shows that this disparity is almost entirely the result of drug and alcohol abuse, as well as extreme weight and nutrition issues by the mother. These are lifestyle issues, not the result of poor health care, or even the access to it.
As for the Cuba embargo? I have two questions for my liberal adversaries.
1) If the U.S. is not the greatest economic engine in the world, and their socialist economic system works well, why isn't Cuba just fine trading with all those socialist nations? Why are they impoverished just because they can't trade with us? They have Russia, France, Hugo Chavez, etc., etc.
2) What American president could have removed the Cuban embargo 30 years ago, but didn't, and then, while speaking in Cuba, criticized other presidents for the embargo?
Why are the lifestyle issues (and their contributions to SIDs) in the U.S. so different than other countries?
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to reconcile The Old Man's first paragraph with what I actually said in my two replies to the 'Capitalism' topic.
ReplyDeleteI never disputed that capitalism is a productive system. I simply made two points: that the U.S. has never adhered to a pure capitalist system; and that we might learn something about policies of public healthcare, education, and the middle class from the 'fading' European countries that consistently outrank the U.S. in these areas.
Take these points for what they are worth, but they have no logical connection to the shortcomings of Cuba and [Michael] Moore, and now Colombia, Jimmy Carter, Russia, and Hugo Chavez. These are simply The Old Man's ancient foes, presently manifest by his own imagination, much as a Vietnam vet may have a flashback and suddenly find himself surrounded by Charlie.