A lot of Medium posts are soft-paywalled nowadays: http://archive.today/pgjoQ
Reagan designated Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism, Obama removed it, Trump re-designated it, and Biden has done nothing but vote against UN resolutions calling for the end of the embargo, as recently as four months ago.
The United Nations General Assembly has passed a resolution every year since 1992 demanding the end of the US economic embargo on Cuba, with the US and Israel being the only nations to consistently vote against the resolutions.
US government would say that Cuban socialism is a failure like they haven't spent decades trying to force it to fail.
Why then don't they lift the sanctions and prove beyond doubt that socialism hurts the Cuban people? Maybe they fear a prosperous Cuba, a successful socialist country right on their doorstep that would make voting Americans take notice.
The US government has pretty much admitted that's the case, and has been the direct goal of constantly trying to tear down (and assassinate) Castro and have Cuba fail since the 1950s.
EDIT: I'm saying the US has been seething for decades because Cuba has managed to exist as a socialist country right next door, and that's bad for the capitalist propaganda that socialism bad
yeah but they can't have junkfood and plastic toys, it's literally totalitarianism.
I remember when Vice ran a documentary about some losers in Cuba trying to give themselves AIDS as a sign of protest against the government by bogging down the health system.
AIDS can be controlled nowadays with proper equipment and medication. I guess the point is to waste Cuban's medical resources
Even in North Corea (as say, if you are not against little Kim) is higher than in the EEUU, because in the EEUU if you got ill without money you are death.
Hey what is EEUU? I'm getting blanks on my search.
EDIT: It means amerika
Faux pas of a Spanish speaker, sorry, it certainly means Amerika (Estados Unidos, doble letters for the plurals, literally EEUU=US)
Ah ty, I'm learning spanish, is it supposed to be like the word "estadonidense"? i'm learning spanish from south america if that means anything in like word usage
"Estadounidense" is the demonym--so what you would call something from the US (the English equivalent would be American, possibly Yankee [although that has its own Spanish word, "yanqui"]). Other demonyms would be salvadoreño for Salvadorean, mexicano for Mexican, venezolano for Venezuelan, etc.
So, to answer your question: yes, the words are related; someone from los Estados Unidos (EEUU) would be estadounidense.
Edit to clarify:
Strictly speaking, the word "demonym" refers to people, but in the case of "estadounidense" it can refer to things and people. From English Wikipedia:
"Often, demonyms are the same as the adjectival form of the place, e.g. Egyptian, Japanese, or Greek. However, they are not necessarily the same, as exemplified by Spanish instead of Spaniard or British instead of Briton."
huh, thanks for sharing! i learned something!
i think demon every time i read demonym and i'll never not see it
Lots of people understandably jump to the idea of "free healthcare" when trying to understand this phenomenon. While that is somewhat correct, there is lot more that needs to be done to achieve what Cuba has in terms of public health. The mode and amount of payment by patients is just one aspect of it. They also have train doctors of the appropriate quality and in the adquate quantity. Then they have to invest in the infrastructure and products that the health system needs which they manage despite crippling sanctions. There are a ton of other things as well, like ensuring that the rural areas have access to clinics and doctors which is one of the biggest of the countless failings of the Indian medical system.
I guess that the point I am trying to make is that you need a government that gives a shit about the people and considers them people rather than expendable workhorses for the owning class. Cuba, emerging out of a people's revolution, had this checked off. I bring this up because I feel even if Bernie had won the nomination and presidency he would have been able to only make marginal improvements to the American condition with his promise of a single-payer healthcare system which tackles only one small aspect of a deeply rotten healthcare system that the USA has. If he was somehow able to make any noticeable improvement without getting assassinated, they would be rolled back by whatever administration followed his kinda like how UK's NSA is slowly being strangulated as we speak.
You cannot have "free as in free speech" healthcare when the reigns of power are held by a wealthy minority.
Exactly, any actual freedom or democracy is only possible when the means of production are publicly owned. Only then can resources and labour be directed in a way that benefits majority of the people. It's impossible to have any meaningful freedoms when a handful of oligarchs runs the economy.
One would argue that obesity is tipping the scales on the side of American deaths.
