Good Health, Comrades

Having noted last week that the US manages to squeak one position ahead of Cuba in international health rankings, Brian Beutler discerns the "hidden rationale for our mixed up Cuba policy," namely that "if we were to open up trade with Cuba, they would likely will surpass us on the WHO list of international health care systems, which would make both Michael Moore, universal health care, and communism look good."

No doubt true. That Cuba has managed to construct a middling health care system in the midst of a totally crapped-out economy serves as a reminder that while Communism is a very bad political and economic system, it does have certain benefits. Specifically, adopting Communism either eliminates outright or else eliminates the attractiveness of a huge swathe of the professions that smart, highly-educated people tend to undertake. This has the effect of making it much easier to recruit smart, highly educated people to be tenth grade English teachers or basic doctors and nurses. This is part of the reason why the USSR, for all its very many problems, managed to be really good at teaching little kids reading and basic math -- getting a job doing that is much more relatively attractive in a Communist system than in a liberal one, so you can get better personnel on the job. Of course, that relative attractiveness is achieved largely by making everything awful (note incredibly old car in the photo above), so it's not a strategy I'm inclined to endorse, but still, there it is.

Photo by Flickr user Dr. Poulette used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

The real reason that we maintain the embargo is that if it was lifted, Cuba would flood the market with classic cars, destroying the value of many treasured investments.

Posted by Njorl | June 28, 2007 9:53 AM

One might also note that it enables the government to maintain a tight information control apparatus which can be used to, oh, just for example, produce entirely bogus statistics about how awesome everything is. I'm not quite clear on why we take health statistics about Cuba seriously. I mean, it might be fine, and all the doctors saying it isn't fine are by definition people who disliked the regime enough to leave. But how do we actually know?

Posted by Jane Galt | June 28, 2007 10:05 AM

The profession of doctor in the Soviet Union was not a high status one. A high percentage of the doctors were women (and it was a sexist society), and the required training was low by western standards. Medical care was atrocious.

Posted by ostap | June 28, 2007 10:42 AM

I had one of those cars once. No young person can even imagine what a good car it was. Easily the equal of the Cit DS-21, the old Jag salon from the 50s, or any Mercedes I have owned.

I remember once driving up a hill in a snowstorm and thinking "Why can I drive up this hill when those Volvos and Mercedes have slid off the road?"

Still, considering the population pressure engendered by the bench seats of those old cars, it's probably a good thing that young people today can be satisfied by a job as a bicycle messenger and a shiny new iPod.

Memo to Jane Galt- I'm also old enough to remember when they said the same things about China- the statistics are all false, yada yada yada. And then suddenly it was all like "Why is everything we buy made in China? When did that happen?"

While we were sleeping, no doubt.

Posted by serial catowner | June 28, 2007 11:03 AM

You're really reaching there, Jane. Got any evidence that the statistics are false? Because everyone who actually knows anything about it - the WHO, the State Department, not you - seems to reckon they're pretty trustworthy.

Posted by ajay | June 28, 2007 11:04 AM

Is that a '50-'52 Styleline De Luxe Bel Air? Nice car.

Posted by shnooky | June 28, 2007 11:50 AM

One might also note that it enables the government to maintain a tight information control apparatus which can be used to, oh, just for example, produce entirely bogus statistics about how awesome everything is. I'm not quite clear on why we take health statistics about Cuba seriously. I mean, it might be fine, and all the doctors saying it isn't fine are by definition people who disliked the regime enough to leave. But how do we actually know?

God, blogger syndrome. Lookit- simply because you can conjure up a plausible idea about the world, that doesn't mean it's true. In the real world, we need evidence to prove or disprove empirical claims.

Here's a wild idea for you, "Jane"-- if Cuba was really in the business of inventing health statistics to make it look good, why on Earth would they make up statistics that show their system to be so mediocre?

Posted by Freddie | June 28, 2007 11:59 AM

Got any evidence that the statistics are false? Because everyone who actually knows anything about it - the WHO, the State Department, not you - seems to reckon they're pretty trustworthy.

Yes, because Communist dictatorships are well known for their forthrightness and transparency.

Infant mortality! Infant mortality!

Posted by Homer | June 28, 2007 12:24 PM

Wow, Homer, I'm glad you said "Infant Mortality!" and then, to drive th point home, said i t again. That cryptic statement clearly provides the missing evidence to complete Jane Galt's argument.

Posted by John | June 28, 2007 12:28 PM

I guess we should be proud that our extremely expensive, non-universal health care system is SLIGHTLY better than the universal system of an impoverished, broken, third-world Communist country that hasn't had traded with the US in five decades. Its just like the justification for Guantanamo and torture... the terrorists do it too.

Bizarre, the discourse in our nation.

Yes, because Communist dictatorships are well known for their forthrightness and transparency.

That's not proof the stats are false and you know it.

Posted by Joshua | June 28, 2007 12:30 PM

It seems to me that every story of more than 200 words about Cuba should have the standard boilerplate that one used to see in AP stories about South Africa. I looked it up on Nexis:

South Africa's apartheid system denies blacks a voice in government and relegates them to separate housing, schools and health care facilities. Whites also control the nation's economy.

Why isn't something like this paragraph included in every longish story about Cuba?

Cuba's regime is rigidly controlled by a nearly all-white elite. Despite their majority status, blacks and mixed-race individuals rarely play key roles in government or government-controlled businesses and civic organizations.

Posted by Chris | June 28, 2007 5:07 PM

a corollary of this point is how the U.S. had a much deeper pool of teachers when teaching was one of three or four viable professions for talented women.

Posted by greg marx | June 28, 2007 5:55 PM

If you notice, above the US in the photo on Beutler's post is Costa Rica. Costa Rica has an excellent healthcare system for its citizens, and frankly, inexpensive healthcare if you want to go there to retire.

Best of all, it accomplished this by doing away with its army (something many more Latin American countries should do) and directing the money to infrastructure and social programs.

Posted by Randy Paul | June 28, 2007 10:58 PM

Posted by ajay | June 28, 2007 11:04 AM:"Got any evidence that the statistics are false? Because everyone who actually knows anything about it - the WHO, the State Department, not you - seems to reckon they're pretty trustworthy."

The WHO is not allowed to challenge the statistics given them by members states. The State Department would be more convincing if they were allowed greater access. Look, every failed Communist state that has subsequently allowed access to its records has lied and lied massively. Look at the economic figures for any of them. I don't expect people to refuse to accept the Cuban figures, but given that it claims to get something like 99 percent of voters voting for the system, isn't it reasonable to be a little cautious?

Posted by Freddie | June 28, 2007 11:59 AM :"if Cuba was really in the business of inventing health statistics to make it look good, why on Earth would they make up statistics that show their system to be so mediocre?"

Last I checked they were not. Look at their economic growth figures over the last few decades. There are problems with their figures. Now perhaps their health care figures are high - China's certainly were. But their economic ones are almost certain to be rubbish - as China's were - and so it is reasonable to treat Cuba's with a little bit of caution don't you think?

Posted by HeiGou | June 29, 2007 5:53 AM

This may be the first time I've ever agreed with "Jane Galt", who I normally find to be an obnoxious propagandist, but she's got a point here. We can't prove Cuba's stats are false, but we have numerous examples of closed society Communist dictatorships who eventually turned out to be completely cooking the books. At the very least, a lot of caution is warranted.

Posted by mq | June 29, 2007 2:53 PM

Don't forget the patriarchy!

One of the important reasons for declines in American public education over last few generations has been the fact that intelligent women now have other career options than becoming public school teachers.

Posted by Brian | June 29, 2007 10:01 PM