Bad Cuban medicine

Lawrence Solomon
National Post
January 18, 2003

The shelves in the neighbourhood pharmacy, like those in the other neighbourhood pharmacies I had seen in Havana, were half empty and full of dust, the small selection of medicines on display arranged in lonely rows of old-fashioned little bottles. Customers were as scarce as the medicines.

One bottle on a shelf contained a fungicide, another aloe ointment. A third countered diarrhea. The odds of finding a specific medicine to treat a particular malady were vanishingly small. “What is this bottle for?” I asked the woman behind the counter. “Memory,” she said. “It’s good for memory and for circulation.”

“Do you have Aspirin,” I asked, wondering if average Cubans could obtain the world’s most familiar pharmaceutical staple. The answer was no. Her pharmacy only stocked drugs manufactured in Cuba and available for purchase in pesos, the currency used by Cuba’s poor. “For Aspirin, you must go there,” she said, pointing to a nearby hotel that housed a pharmacy for customers able to pay in dollars.

The “dollar pharmacy” did indeed have aspirin, along with other pain killers, cough medicines, syringes, Band-Aids, Alka-Seltzer and all the other common medicinal products familiar to Westerners. Its shelves were piled high – literally to the ceiling – with some 500 items, including tampons, disposable diapers, and other drug store items that were more conveniences than necessities. Pesos – the national currency and all that most poor have access to – bought nothing in this government-run establishment. The dollar pharmacy only welcomed dollars, and those who carried them.

Earlier in the day, a Cuban had stopped me on the street, pulled out his asthmatic child’s puffer, and asked for help in getting it refilled. He could not get the drug, he explained, but I, as a tourist, could. Begging for medicines is common in Havana – next to begging for money to feed children, it is the most common plea – because the government won’t use its scarce foreign exchange to import basic drugs that the populace needs. Doctors won’t even prescribe drugs for the poor that aren’t available in the local pharmacies – the state frowns upon that – but many will write the name of the drug that’s needed on a scrap of paper.

“This is what you need,” the doctors will tell desperate patients, in effect sending them out into the streets on a mission of what can amount to life or death for themselves or their children. Cubans with access to dollars – typically those in the tourist industry who receive tips in dollars – can obtain the drugs they need. Others have relatives in the United States who can ship them. The rest – middle class Cubans included – must resort to begging, the black market or, increasingly, to prostitution.

Cuba is renowned for having a universal health-care system and, in fact, doctors are plentiful and doctor visits are free. But without access to antibiotics, insulin, heart drugs and other life-saving medicines, doctors cannot perform their duties. Too often, for lack of medicine, doctors have no choice but to amputate limbs, or to put patients through painful therapies without painkillers. In one celebrated case, Dr. Hilda Molina, the founder of Havana’s International Center for Neurological Restoration, returned the medals that Fidel Castro had awarded her for her work and resigned in protest, outraged that Cubans were denied critical care in order to treat foreigners.

Byron (not his real name) is a 30-year-old doctor in Cuba, a former medical student from Africa who came to Cuba on a Commonwealth country scholarship. Because he speaks fluent English and French, and understands three other European languages, the government assigns him to treating tourists whom, he confirms, lack for nothing in Cuba. The tourist hospitals are excellent, the quality of care delivered to a high standard, as high as any you will find in any Western country, he says. The hospital pharmacies provide whatever drugs tourists require.

Care for top government officials and those in the military is also excellent. “They also lack for nothing,” Byron said. But after providing for the needs of tourists and the top government officials, the health system has little left for the general public. I asked Byron about a man I had seen sitting on the pavement, wrapping raw lesions on his foot with filthy rags. The care with which he was tending his gaping holes made an impression on me, and made me wonder why he lacked proper care.

Byron identified the man’s malady – a disease that slaves had brought to Cuba from Africa 400 years ago – as one easily treated, but not with the medicines available in the peso pharmacies.

“The government doesn’t give a shit about the poor,” he stated matter-of-factly. “The poor have no medicines, no painkillers, no nothing.”

Before Castro seized power in his 1959 Revolution, Cuba had one of the world’s best medical systems, its ratio of one physician per 960 patients ranked 10th by the World Health Organization (England, in contrast, had one physician per 1,200 people, Mexico one physician per 2,400 people). Cuba had Latin America’s lowest infant mortality rate, comparable to Canada’s and better than France’s, Japan’s and Italy’s. Its population was well fed, with a per capita food consumption that was the third highest in Latin America.

Today, Cuba ranks last in Latin American per capita food consumption – cereals and especially meat and milk consumption are down dramatically – but it has not lost its medical capabilities. Instead, Cuba has reoriented its medical system to the task of earning foreign exchange. To do this, Cuba pioneered “health tourism” through agencies such as Servimed, which markets medical services abroad. Cuba is “the ideal destination for your health,” it boasts, frankly admitting to being “a tourist subsystem.”

With an annual growth rate of 20% in health tourism, Servimed has done well in its task of marrying health and tourism. Many Italians now couple their annual vacations to Cuba with their annual dental work, while others come for cut-rate knee replacements or eye surgery. But perhaps Cuba’s most popular medical service, and the one it heavily promotes to tourists abroad, is cosmetic surgery. Cuban doctors have become expert at breast implants, tummy tucks, liposuction and nose jobs, giving some doctors international reputations while letting them serve the Revolution as one of the country’s best earners of foreign exchange.

It’s a “win” for the elite doctors and a “win” for privileged patients, who benefit from what has become the world’s most extreme two-tiered medical system. It’s also a “win” for the Cuban elite, from Castro on down, whom Byron describes as participating in a fitness culture. “When I treat tourists of 75 years of age, I am treating fit people with many healthy years ahead of them,” he said. This is also the case with members of the Cuban elite. “Castro is fit, the others at the top in government, at age 75, are fit. They take care of themselves.

“But an ordinary Cuban of 63 or 64 years is already feeble, an old man.” For the poor, beaten down by the system and denied basic medical care, the medical system is all “lose.”

Related articles by Lawrence Solomon :

Castro’s dupes
Fidel Batista!
Cuba’s cruel joke
Triumph of freedom

Posted in Culture, Regulation | Leave a comment

IRC report reveals public opinion on important auto insurance issues

Insurance Research Council: A division of American Institute (CPCU)  & Insurance Institute of America

January 17, 2003

MALVERN, Pa. A report just released by the Insurance Research Council (IRC) examines public opinion on several important issues related to auto insurance: insurance rates for the youngest and oldest drivers, the use of automatic data recorders in private passenger vehicles, and perceptions of the accuracy of state motor vehicle records (MVRs) of traffic convictions. The report is the fourth and final one in IRC’s 2002 Public Attitude Monitor series. It first examines public attitudes regarding the fairness of charging higher insurance rates to the youngest and oldest drivers—groups that, per mile driven, tend to have more accidents than other age groups. Most of the people surveyed support the idea of charging higher rates to drivers in the very youngest and oldest age categories. The strongest support was for higher rates for teen drivers: seven in ten respondents (71 percent) agree it is fair to charge higher rates to drivers under the age of twenty-one, while 36 percent suggest this is very fair. More than half of respondents (55 percent) agree it is fair to charge higher rates to the oldest drivers (seventy-five years and older), with 23 percent agreeing it is very fair. The report also explores attitudes regarding the use of automatic data recorders in private passenger vehicles. These devices record information about the operation of the vehicle that can be useful in investigating the details of an auto accident. The study found that while only 36 percent of those surveyed had heard about the use of automatic data recorders in private passenger vehicles, fewer than half of respondents favored using data from “black boxes” to investigate or determine fault in accidents. Fewer than one-quarter of respondents favored having a mileage data recorder installed in their insured vehicle to allow their insurance company to verify the number of miles actually driven. The third issue the report explores is the public’s perception of the accuracy of motor vehicle records (MVRs) with respect to traffic convictions. Most people surveyed perceive state motor vehicle records of traffic convictions to be completely or very accurate. Respondents who appeared to have the greatest confidence in the accuracy of these records included younger adults, more highly educated respondents, people residing in upper-income households, and respondents in the northern Midwest region. The results contained in this report, Public Attitude Monitor 2002, Issue 4, are based on results from two separate surveys. Information on respondents’ views of rates for older and younger drivers and automatic data recorders was collected in a study by RoperASW in June 2002. This survey consisted of face-to-face interviews conducted in the homes of 1,995 respondents eighteen years of age or older. Data on respondents’ views on the accuracy of motor vehicle records were gathered in a study conducted by NFO WorldGroup in January 2002 as part of a larger survey of households participating in a consumer panel study. Results are based on 38,368 valid responses. For more detailed information on the study’s methodology and findings, contact Elizabeth A. Sprinkel, senior vice president, by phone at (610) 644-2212, ext. 7568; by fax at (610) 640-5388; or by e-mail at irc@cpcuiia.org. Or visit IRC’s Web site at http://www.ircweb.org. Copies of the study are available at $10 each in the U.S. ($20 elsewhere) postpaid from the Insurance Research Council, 718 Providence Rd., Malvern, Pa.19355-0725. Phone: (610) 644-2212, ext. 7569. Fax: (610) 640-5388.

NOTE TO EDITORS: The Insurance Research Council is a division of the American Institute for CPCU and the Insurance Institute of America. The Institutes are independent, nonprofit organizations dedicated to providing educational programs, professional certification, and research for the property-casualty insurance business. The IRC provides timely and reliable research to all parties involved in public policy issues affecting insurance companies and their customers. The IRC does not lobby or advocate legislative positions. Leading property-casualty organizations support the IRC.

Posted in Automobile | Leave a comment

Cuba’s cruel joke

Lawrence Solomon
National Post
January 11, 2003

“Can I have your bones?” the old woman asked my eight-year-old daughter, pointing to the gnawed remains of the chicken leg that had been her lunch. Seeing that my daughter was perplexed, the old woman displayed a box of chicken bones that she had collected from other customers at the lunch counter of the department store, a respectable establishment frequented by locals in Old Havana’s main shopping street. My daughter provided the bones after the lunch counter staff gave its consent – the old woman was evidently a regular at the lunch counter, and this was how she earned her supper.

Welcome to Cuba, 44 years into the Revolution that was to industrialize the economy, eradicate hunger and eliminate the gap between rich and poor in this island nation, previously the most prosperous in the Caribbean. Today, the once-muscular Cuban economy is in tatters and its much lauded social safety net a cruel joke. The poor, in reality, are bled to support the lifestyles of the government elite, which lives in luxury – the driveways of the Havana honchos sport Mercedes – while its populace goes hungry.

Some Cubans outside government – increasingly those who obtain patronage positions in the tourist industry, where they receive tips and other payments in U.S. dollars – manage comfortable, if meagre, existences. With dollars, they can shop in the many “dollar” shops, where they can obtain some of the consumer goods, medicines and dairy products that most Cubans, prior to the Revolution, could readily obtain.

The great majority of Cubans, however, are left to fend for themselves in a pitiless system. Most must “do business” to survive, as Cubans put it, because most cannot subsist on the typical wages – the equivalent of about 50 cents a day – that the government sets for them. The old woman at the lunch counter begged for food; other Cubans beg for old clothes or for medicine, or sell peanuts on street corners. Young men sell cigars and other goods in the burgeoning black market; young women sell their bodies in the burgeoning sex trade.

Without dollars, life is grim. People line up at dimly lit government distribution centres, ration books in hand – libretas, the government calls them – for their monthly allocation. The books, which were established in 1962 to “guarantee the equitable distribution of food without privileges for a few,” entitle Cubans to 2.5 kilograms of rice, 1 kilogram of fish, 1/2 kilogram of beans, 14 eggs and sundry other basics at subsidized prices. Through the libreta, each Cuban also gets one bread roll a day. Every two months, a Cuban is entitled to one bar of hand soap and one bar of laundry soap. Fresh fruits and vegetables come infrequently; meat might come once or twice a year. Until the mid-1990s, children under seven were entitled to fresh milk, but fresh milk, like butter, cheese and other dairy products, is now off the shelves. Before the revolution, two litres of fresh milk cost 15 U.S. cents, well within the means of the poor.

Cuba, a country with a coffee culture, produces fine beans in its Oriente province, but not for average Cubans. The good stuff is sold to tourists and exported to earn dollars, or reserved for the Cuban elite, while the government imports cheaper beans, grinds them, mixes them with ground chickpeas, and doles out 28 grams per month – less than one ounce – to Cuban citizens. The government also exports high quality Cuban rice for dollars while importing a low-grade rice from Vietnam for its citizens. It exports 90% of its fresh fruits, directing much of the rest to tourists and others who can pay in dollars.

Nowhere in the world does the Almighty Buck more separate the haves from the have-nots. The Cuban government has adopted the U.S. dollar as an official currency that co-exists along with the peso and cleverly keeps the poor in their place. The multinationals operating in the country – Cuba now courts them to earn dollars – are forbidden to pay their Cuban workers directly in dollars. Instead, they must turn over the workers’ wages to a government agency which pockets most of the money and gives the workers a pittance in pesos. Cuba’s communists have perfected the Double Currency Standard, and the double standard: One currency for the rich, another for the poor, and the rich determine the means of exchange.

Cuba’s poor are also squeezed in the other necessities of life. Even in central Havana, people commonly carry water by bucket from standpipes in the street to their homes, and then lift the buckets by rope to the higher floors, because their buildings’ broken water pipes go unrepaired. Those lucky enough to have working water pipes can get water at the tap – but only at certain times. In one dense urban neighbourhood that I visited, the water flowed from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., during which time families scrambled to fill pots and pans inside their homes for drinking water, and former oil drums outside their homes for washing. About the time that the water came on, the electricity went off – it, too, is rationed by daily blackouts.

In buildings where one or two families might have once lived, today live many. The inner courtyards of Cuba’s residences have become miniature shanty towns, cinder block housing units or other improvisations piled on top of one another. The units – often two small rooms totalling 200 square feet – can house an extended family of seven, 10 or even 12. The rooms are often windowless or near-windowless, the ceilings low and oppressive. Among these buildings packed with people lie many identical buildings, but appropriated for government use. In the space that might house 50 or 100 people will sit one government functionary, bored and idle at a desk, the premises otherwise near-empty.

“For the first time in the history of our country, both the state and the government left aside the rich side and joined the poor side,” Fidel Castro proclaimed after assuming power in 1959. Forty-four years after the Revolution, the poor side are talking of another revolution, in which the government will do much, much more for its people by doing much, much less.

Related articles by Lawrence Solomon :

Castro’s dupes
Fidel Batista!
Triumph of freedom

Posted in Culture, Regulation | Leave a comment

Triumph of freedom

Lawrence Solomon
National Post
January 4, 2003

Conservatives dismayed by the increasing size of government can take heart. Large size is not tantamount to a loss of freedom. At no point since Europeans first colonized this continent have governments been less powerful, less oppressive, and less intrusive in our economic and personal lives. At the same time that conservatives should rejoice at the taming of governments, socialists alarmed by the growing trend to privatization can also take solace: The governments that have evolved are becoming more munificent and beneficent than even early utopians would have dared dream.

To examine a fundamental freedom cherished by our societies is to discover an awesome progress in freedom and democracy. A century ago, half the population – women – did not have the right to vote. Neither did Indians in much of Canada or blacks in much of the United States. Today, suffrage is universal and voting controversies have moved to the periphery of society, revolving around the voting rights of incarcerated people, or the greater weight given rural versus urban voters.

In the last century, economic discrimination against minorities was so blatant that quotas kept Jews out of prominent universities and industries kept Jews out of their upper echelons altogether. Today, universities and employers still discriminate, but not to exclude members of a too-successful minority from becoming captains of industry. Instead, their aim is well meaning – to promote members of poorly performing minorities to middle management or even blue collar jobs – and their quotas are driven less by government power than by the courts and the public’s predilection for political correctness.

In the last century, influenced by socialists like George Bernard Shaw and monopolists like John D. Rockefeller, 31 U.S. states and three Canadian provinces embraced eugenics. Social engineers liked eugenics for its potential to rid the continent of “undesirables.” Tommy Douglas, who would later become Saskatchewan’s premier, expressed this bigotry well when he proposed that native Indians, homosexuals and people of “low moral standards” be sterilized so as not to perpetrate social problems. Today, the debate over eugenics is at the margins, with the public pondering the morality of designer babies instead of practising forced sterilizations.

Government in the past was stern and authoritarian, interventionist to a degree that would be unimaginable today. In the 19th century, taxes were typically based on personal property: The tax man tallied up the value of personal possessions – cutlery, jewellery, carriages – as well as real estate. Well into the last century, sexual activity was heavily policed and alcohol consumption was strictly regulated when not banned altogether. Toronto in 1900 did not allow children to play in public parks or on public streets: Boys as young as 11 caught playing with a rubber ball on a quiet side street were charged by the police and sentenced in court to fines or jail. Today, the state does not destroy an unmarried woman or a gay man whose lifestyle offends official norms, and the debate over intoxicants has moved to cost-benefit analyses of running needle exchange programs for heroine addicts.

Some argue that the state may have relinquished its powers in social spheres, but that it has become more dominant over our economic life. Not so. For one thing, regulations over the social sphere control the economic: Prohibitions on alcohol affected the restaurant and entertainment industries as well as distillers; government enforcement of religious rules not only banned shopping on Sundays, but also the operation of public transit vehicles.

But even where governments weren’t enforcing religious or social dictates, the state kept a dictatorial grip over the economy. The modern state has transformed itself from economic tyrant to economic liberator, as the United States, the very symbol of free markets, itself demonstrates.

For most of its history, and especially for the 100 years prior to the Great Depression, the United States was proudly protectionist. Abraham Lincoln ran for president in 1860 as a protectionist, his campaign posters proclaiming “Protection To American Industry.” In 1890, Congress passed the McKinley Act, a starkly protectionist tariff bill named after William McKinley, later a Republican president of the United States. His rejection of free markets, and embrace of protectionism, were ardent and unambiguous: “Under free trade, the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man.”

With righteous fervour, the U.S. government enforced punishing tariffs throughout its economy. Lenses for eyeglasses attracted a tariff rate of 50%, ceramic roofing tiles 60%, toys 70%, jewellery 80%, handmade lace 90%. Before Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his free-market Democrats discredited protectionism, the average U.S. tariff exceeded 50%.

FDR liberated trade by centralizing federal trade power at the expense of Congress, which had set tariffs to please narrow interests. From FDR on, Congress delegated its authority over tariffs to the president, and tariffs have fallen relentlessly – to 35% in 1935, 16% in 1947, 12% in 1957, 8% in 1968 and 5% in 1995. A strong central government has promoted free trade, ushering in a period of globalization and consumer choice to the immense benefit of its citizenry.

Free markets have also flourished within countries. A century ago and more, governments in Canada and the United States financed the continent’s infrastructure – not only the great railways but also roads, canals and other infrastructure. Governments dominated the economy, deciding the pace at which the continent would develop and which areas would be settled when. Governments controlled virtually all the land, and the use to which astounding amounts of capital would be employed. In comparison, governments today are inconsequential bystanders to the real economy.

Conservatives, pointing to the state’s increasing tax take, argue that governments are becoming too powerful. But the level of taxation is a poor measure of government power. Communist countries, with often negligible taxes, exerted near total economic control. Canada and the United States dictated the development of the continent through government land grants and government guarantees, not taxes. The U.S. government’s once-prohibitive tariffs generated relatively little government revenue because the tariffs were set so high would-be exporters to the United States pursued business elsewhere.

Despite today’s tax levels, free enterprise continues its conquest over government regulation. Even when government is at its most interventionist, its goal, typically, is to promote competition by correcting imperfections in the marketplace. Almost never does it seek the nationalization or renationalization of industry. In effect, governments now agree with free traders that the goal is to make competition work. The battlegound today – between free trade and fair trade – is a far cry from the old distinction, between free trade and protectionism or even socialism.

Yes, at times the protectionists win a battle, setting back the forces for freedom. But over any period of time – the last century, the last 50 years, the last 25 years or the last decade – the freedom fighters have had the upper hand. In the sweep of time, democracy and the freedoms that accompany it have incontestably been in a roaring bull market.

Related articles by Lawrence Solomon :

Castro’s dupes
Fidel Batista!
Bad Cuban medicine
Cuba’s cruel joke

Posted in Culture, Nation states, Regulation | Leave a comment

Nova Scotia Coalition Against No-Fault Insurance

www.nscoalition.ca  
January 1st 2003

Responsibility

  • No-fault insurance penalizes responsible drivers and rewards bad drivers. Taking responsibility out of the system has been shown to increase accidents and fatalities in jurisdictions where it has been tried. Some would argue that it is unfair to penalize someone who causes an accident as a result of a momentary lapse of attention. However, most accidents are foreseeable and avoidable. Driving a vehicle is as dangerous as handling a loaded weapon and the highest attention and care ought to be demanded of drivers. The no-fault system does not hold drivers accountable for their actions.
  • A number of U.S. researchers, including Professor George Priest of Yale Law School, have concluded that no-fault states in the U.S. have seen a negative change in the mix of drivers on the road due to the adverse incentives of no-fault.
  • This would mirror the Canadian experience. In March, 1978, the province of Quebec introduced a pure no-fault auto insurance system. Professor Gaudry, at the request of Quebec government, conducted a study of the Quebec no-fault system and concluded that it had led to an 11% increase in accidents resulting in property damage only, a 26.3% increase in accidents resulting in personal injuries and a 6.8% increase in fatalities.
  • In 1988, Professor Rose Anne Devlin presented an even more detailed study to the University of Toronto, finding that Quebec’s no-fault scheme had by that time led to a fatality increase of 9.62%.
  • In examining the Australian experience, R. McEwin wrote in the Proceedings of the International Insurance Society that: “the abolition of the common law tort of negligent action was associated with a sixteen per cent increase in the number of road fatalities per head of population. The results should concern those who discount the role a negligent liability rule plays in promoting safety.”
  • By imposing liability for dangerous and careless driving, negligence law seeks to eliminate or at least reduce the frequency of accidents. In a positive sense, the law seeks to educate and promote responsible values and conduct. As Mr. Justice Linden wrote in his text Canadian Tort Law (4th Edition, 1988) at p. 87: “Such laudable values as individual responsibility, concern for one’s fellow human beings, and respect for the dignity of the individual are embedded in the principles of negligence law.”
Posted in Automobile | Leave a comment