Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«If our spirituality can only survive in the best of conditions then it is a very weak spirituality.»

Isn't this a daredevil attitude?
What if our spirituality is indeed weak, as it often is?

You wrote that this thread is not a competition, and I agree, but is spirituality a competition, a show-off on whose faith will be preserved and not extinguished under the harshest conditions? I think not! I think we should pray for the best of conditions and be thankful for the grace of having our prayers answered. There is no sense in being ashamed for riding first-class and having a gentle, peaceful journey.

See also Luke 4:9-12

«Instead, it seems at least a few religions came to add assistance to the poor, the burdened, suppressed, and oppressed populations of the world throughout history»

Of course. If we do find ourselves in this unfortunate, chaotic and so imbalanced world then we ought to help others. Material help is very good, spiritual help is even better, so I agree with everything except the word "Instead".

Dear NNS,

With respect mate, getting picky about exact numbers does not take away from the central point I made, that the privatisation of the Chinese health system dramatically slowed the rate of decline in infant mortality and for a while even caused higher per capita death figures.

And the fact that he US is probably the wealthiest country in the world compared to Cuba who has been under severe blockade for decade after decade yet is able to produce a lower infant mortality rate than the US speaks directly to the approach both have taken.

For you to say; “Cuba will have to consider if a socialist healthcare will be better or if they won't be able to sustain it.” completely misses the point that they have been able to sustain it, especially in the face of brutal blockading.

Universal health cover is one of the great leaps forward in the betterment of the lives of so many and a substantial contributor to “making the world a better place”. Yet you remain equivocal, why is that? Is your ideology that pervasive that you are choosing to ignore this self evident truth of its impact?

Been pondering this question:

I've got a few ideas but I'm only going to give you one at the moment.
It's a good one though.

- Number 1 -

Bring truth back to media.
How am I going to do it?
I want to give journalists a kind of a truth-rating or feedback rating.

That when they lie or mislead in their articles (which are recorded in an archive) they will be given a score that reflects their ability to inform the public with facts, not narrative and conjecture.

I'll bring back truth, ethics and arguments that hold merit;
To a lazy media gone rogue;
- Who forgotten their first job is to report facts.

Because we can't fix anything in an environment that values narrative and conjecture over facts.

- We must fix this -

To SteeleRedux.

I checked the numbers myself because the details matter. Too often one hyped up opinion claimed fact turns up to be over fed hype and just fake news. It's a good idea on issues that have popular support or popular distaste to double check the facts. I would have thought you've have liked to hear that some report China's infant mortality rate as better then your report did. However the offset from around 6 per 1000 to 13 per 1000 is a big enough jump to question the data based on conflicting accounts.

Your point on socialism is only focused on universal healthcare. However my point on socialism is that when it fails it fails in a big disastrous way. Look again at Venezuela's history of mismanaging it's resources while a socialist ideological dictator greatly harmed the only real resource that the country had to make it rich enough to support all of the socialist endeavors. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/16/how-venezuela-struck-it-poor-oil-energy-chavez/

My point it in the OP on socialism was to think carefully on any suggestion before trying to implement it. There can be disastrous results. As for universal healthcare. That is one cause in socialist ideologies. But it has success occurring in as a stand alone measure in democratic countries, not just socialist countries. As for why I am on the fence on the matter of universal healthcare? Because it's expensive. It would need to be planned carefully before trying it out. There is no other reason needed.

Regarding Cuba. Here's what I found on why certain countries have been sanctioned by the US. If it's the US's wealth though and they say to not be part of a country's economy how is that different then a single person or a small group deciding to boycott a business? Just as it's up to Cuba on how they will do their own healthcare (as well as the rest of their economy), it's up to the US on how it decides to manage it's own affairs as well.

https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0410/countries-sanctioned-by-the-u.s.---and-why.aspx

(Continued)

(Continued)

If your suggestion is for universal healthcare, great. My challenge to that suggestion is on how to manage healthcare's skyrocketing costs, either before or after getting to a universal healthcare system. So that it can be stable enough to not tank the economy that is holding it up.

That challenge to universal healthcare doesn't have to be answered by you SteelRedux. But it should be there for any country that is considering universal healthcare.

To Armchair Critic.

I like that idea a lot. It would require a massive whistle blower movement though that can get caught up in finger pointing on mudding up the reliability of news agencies and whistleblowers as well. But even with that, reliable news is worth the fight.