HELP!! "Because I've Spent My Whole Life Studying, I Deserve More"

[¿Que?]

Recently, I got into it with a relative of mine who happens to be a doctor. She basically told me that since she spent so much time studying to be a doctor, she is entitled to a higher standard of living than someone who has no education. She says because she put so much time AND money into her education, then she deserves more. I felt completely disarmed by this statement, although I believe I was able to hold my own. Nonetheless, it shows the power of the "ruling ideas" when I get very self conscious and unsure about my views at having to refute this type of liberal petty-bourgeois ideology. How would you refute this statement?

[Velkas]

It is wrong to value one profession over others. All professions (that would exist in a socialist society) are equally important to society. True, doctors are very important, but where would we be without people keeping things sanitary? And where would we be without people building houses? And making food? Art/entertainment is also important, I think, but in a socialist society, it should be done in one's spare time.

Does that help at all?

[¿Que?]

It is wrong to value one profession over others. All professions (that would exist in a socialist society) are equally important to society. True, doctors are very important, but where would we be without people keeping things sanitary? And where would we be without people building houses? And making food? Art/entertainment is also important, I think, but in a socialist society, it should be done in one's spare time.

Does that help at all?
Sort of, but I think the person would say that the point is not how important to society their job was, but rather, how much they have sacrificed i.e. how much time and money invested, in order to reach that profession. It's not that her justification is that her job is more important, but that it takes more training and skill to reach that position, therefore, she deserves a bigger chunk of the pie, so to speak.

The other professions you mentioned don't really take nearly as much training and education as a doctor does. We're looking at about 8-9 years of school, full time. That's a lot of time and money spent. Of course, I mentioned that in a communist society education would be free, but that still leaves the whole issue of time spent studying and going to class unanswered.

[Kamerat]

I don't think you can refute that statement, it would be unfair for someone after a long education having to pay of a high student loan with only the same wage as someone who's started working after high-school/junior-high with no student loan. But the differences between wages in this capitalist society is out of proportions.

In a socialist society this would be solved, by getting payed/labor-credits during your education. Your not putting any money into your education and will therefor not be entitled to more money/labor-credits then someone who spent the same amount of time working.

In a communist society there would be an abundance of goods/products so there would be little point in making uneducated workers suffer by getting less goods/products then educated workers. Because there is enough for everyone. Educated workers will also be entitled to the same amount of goods/products as anyone else, during their education.

[Jimmie Higgins]

How is there a correlation between education and wages? For most doctors and nurses, their pay has remained steady over the past few decades while the number of patients they must see has increased. So essentially for the same specialization and education, they now make less money per patient then they did less than a generation ago.

Teachers put in a lot of extra time and money for education and yet they often have starting salaries that are 20k or 30k a year. Cops on the other hand don't need a masters and here in Oakland, the city pays for your training and your starting pay (for a high school degree and some city-paid training) is 70k, not including the generous benefits.

This person is not living in reality if they think that wages are due to time or effort or ability.

[Velkas]

Note: this post was written before I saw the previous two posts.

I'm not quite sure.
I know that it's wrong to value one profession over another, but I can't think of any specific counter-argument...
Anyone else have any ideas? I'm interested in seeing how others reply.

[red cat]

Sort of, but I think the person would say that the point is not how important to society their job was, but rather, how much they have sacrificed i.e. how much time and money invested, in order to reach that profession. It's not that her justification is that her job is more important, but that it takes more training and skill to reach that position, therefore, she deserves a bigger chunk of the pie, so to speak.

The other professions you mentioned don't really take nearly as much training and education as a doctor does. We're looking at about 8-9 years of school, full time. That's a lot of time and money spent. Of course, I mentioned that in a communist society education would be free, but that still leaves the whole issue of time spent studying and going to class unanswered.

But only a few students can afford the training necessary to become doctors. How is a worker responsible for the fact that he had no money in the first place?

In a communist society the contradictions between physical and mental labour will be resolved. You will probably not get a person then who is not involved in both.

[ev]

I'd point out that she's had the opportunities and right set of circumstances to become a doctor, although it has required effort on her part, people who don't have the opportunities she has had often end up in shitty jobs working harder for less $$$.

What about hard working, low income workers, are they going to get a "bigger chunk of the pie" for having busted their asses off for the past 8-9 years? so that society could function properly? no, they are not, and a majority of them have no further career prospects to show for their hard work. So how is this fair?

If these people were given the choice between the two, i'm sure they'd opt to study for 8-9 years to get a very attractive salary (especially considering what you can make in private practice) but the fact is, these people do not have a choice - they weren't provided the same opportunities and didn't start closer to the finish line

[Velkas]

In a socialist society this would be solved, by getting payed/labor-credits during your education. Your not putting any money into your education and will therefor not be entitled to more money/labor-credits then someone who spent the same amount of time working.Or, in a gift economy, the problem would be automatically solved because a person studying to be a doctor would be accepted as a member of the community, and would thus have access to the resources of society.

[The Feral Underclass]

Recently, I got into it with a relative of mine who happens to be a doctor. She basically told me that since she spent so much time studying to be a doctor, she is entitled to a higher standard of living than someone who has no education. She says because she put so much time AND money into her education, then she deserves more. I felt completely disarmed by this statement, although I believe I was able to hold my own. Nonetheless, it shows the power of the "ruling ideas" when I get very self conscious and unsure about my views at having to refute this type of liberal petty-bourgeois ideology. How would you refute this statement?

Well, firstly she should count herself very lucky that she can afford that kind of education. There are a great deal of people who have "no education" who'd love to become doctors. Secondly, and more importantly is the idea that becoming a doctor should be about providing a social service, not to get a "higher standard of living". If the true reason she is becoming a doctor is so she can be better off than poor people, then there isn't a great deal you can really say to that, other than the you think the attitude is wrong. The reason you think it's wrong is because you believe in a socialised society, where the emphasis to provide social services is based on doing good for your community and where communities operate based on that principle.

While her education to become a doctor is more technical and difficult than learning how to clean a sewer, for example, both of these jobs are equally valuable as they are both necessary social services. Ultimately, the reward should be about ensuring society and those who live in it do so safely and healthily, and that these responsibilities are for everyone, not just for en elite few who can afford it.

The bottom line is: She doesn't deserve more and her attitude towards what her job means should change to one of social service, rather than personal gain.

[Velkas]

I'd point out that she's had the opportunities and right set of circumstances to become a doctor, although it has required effort on her part, people who don't have the opportunities she has had often end up in shitty jobs working harder for less $$$.

What about hard working, low income workers, are they going to get a "bigger chunk of the pie" for having busted their asses off for the past 8-9 years? so that society could function properly? no, they are not, and a majority of them have no further career prospects to show for their hard work. So how is this fair?

If these people were given the choice between the two, i'm sure they'd opt to study for 8-9 years to get a very attractive salary (especially considering what you can make in private practice) but the fact is, these people do not have a choice - they weren't provided the same opportunities and didn't start under favourable circumstances.That is a very good point. In some ways, studying to become a doctor for a decade is preferable to working in a job without training. I think the problem with how we were looking at this was that we were looking at the 8-9 years of studying to become a doctor, and preparing them to the lack of studying to become, say, a janitor. However, if you compare the actual time spent being a janitor with the time studying to be a doctor, you can see that they are essentially equal, as are the values of the profession. So it all evens out in the end, I guess...

[¿Que?]

I appreciate everyone's responses. I should clarify some things though. This person actually considers themselves a socialist, although as is evidenced from their views, they are more liberal than socialist. But I kept joking with her that she was socialist, as I read somewhere that in the transition to communism (socialism) there would still be remnants of the capitalist system (like wages). Obviously, she didn't get the irony.

But, the difficult part is that our argument actually revolved around a discussion of what a fair society would be, not necessarily the way it is now. So she agrees for instance that CEO's are not necessary and that they basically rob their workers. She also agrees that workers don't get paid enough to make a living wage. The thing is, she still thinks she deserves more than someone without education assuming an ideal society.

I really like this answer, though:


In a communist society there would be an abundance of goods/products so there would be little point in making uneducated workers suffer by getting less goods/products then educated workers. Because there is enough for everyone. Educated workers will also be entitled to the same amount of goods/products as anyone else, during their education.
I think she totally misses the point of communism. She considers herself a socialist, but not communist, because she associates communism with the USSR, China, etc. But more to the point, she fails to see how in a society of abundance, the idea of having "more" is entirely rediculous, as there is enough to go around for everyone, probably a few times over.

Of course, I think her argument would be that this is totally unrealistic. But hey, "some may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one."

[ev]

That is a very good point. In some ways, studying to become a doctor for a decade is preferable to working in a job without training. I think the problem with how we were looking at this was that we were looking at the 8-9 years of studying to become a doctor, and preparing them to the lack of studying to become, say, a janitor. However, if you compare the actual time spent being a janitor with the time studying to be a doctor, you can see that they are essentially equal, as are the values of the profession. So it all evens out in the end, I guess...

not really, in the end the doctor is better off, has more opportunties and makes more money, whilst as usual, the worker gets fucked over stucked working a dead-end job with no/very limited opportunities.

Huraah for capitalism!

[Velkas]

Yes, but in a socialist society, they would be equally well off, because money would be no concern, and both jobs are valued by society.

[flobdob]

The question shouldn't be why she should be privileged - it should be, why is it that she can take herself "out of it" for years, whilst other people do all the work to let her live and survive, and how she can come out thinking the world owes her something, and not the other way around. If it takes around 7 years (for instance) to become a fully fledged doctor, that's 7 years of other people having to produce food for her, provide accomodation to her, give her the necessary level of comfort and electricity, the list is endless. If this were a case of getting loans from a bank, she'd be a net debtor. Those years were years spent with other people doing everything for her; it's her turn to recognise she is indebted to them, and owes them her service. It's not the other way around.

[Kenco Smooth]

Yeah this is a pretty common argument that comes up when debating communism with people (might even be covered in one of the stickies, not sure I haven't checked through them all yet).

flobdob shows a very good point but it's also worth pointing out to her that if she had been working all that time would she expect to earn a doctors wage by the the time her studying would have ended? She will say no to this and probably draw up the old argument that doctors are more importent to society (easily refutable) or that her work is harder than physical labour (again easily refutable).

Now if she expected a return on her money put into the university system then I could understand but that is a criticism of the current higher education system and not of communism (I truly hope to one day see free higher education to be available to all but that does seem as far away as any revolution sadly).

And from the sounds of it she's not a socialist, rather she uses the term incorrectly as so many people do to describe a vague sense of liberal-leftism/centralism or support for modern social democracy.

[chegitz guevara]

The price of a commodity, such as labor-power, is determined by the amount of socially necessary labor-power expended in creating it. Even in a socialist society, the labor-power of a doctor would be worth more than an unskilled worker. Only when the market is abolished, when distribution on the basis of need is able to be realized, will doctors get the same material benefits as an unskilled worker. I imagine everyone will still treat them better, though.

[FSL]

I can't believe no one cited the critique of the gotha programme yet.


Anyway, before an abundance of wealth is achieved (and that's communism) doctors could/should be payed more than say nurses and good doctors could/should be payed more than the not so good/productive ones. At least, that's what Marx considered possible.
Shockingly, I agree.

One needs to consider that value, or the part of the product that goes to workers, is consumed in order to keep the current workers alive and raise their next generation. Someone who is educated not only has devoted more labor power in getting that education than someone who didn't but has also received more "investments" in the form of school facilities, teachers, books etc. In other words a greater amount of value -in the form of dead labor- contributed in the forming of his labor power. It's only reasonable they'd expect to be payed accordingly to what they're able to produce.

Now, as said, as the economy improves and more* and more people can get university education, the divisions between mental and manual or productive and less productive labor will have less importance, when, at the same time, there will be an increased capacity to satisfy everyone's needs.



*This is relative and we could be beyond that point already. Today in many places we have a "problem" of an overabundance of college graduates. It could be possible to have hospitals filled with doctors who'd also take up nurse duties and wipe the place up every now and then. Instead we raise tuition fees and drive people away from school. And leave any spare doctors unemployed.

[Red Commissar]

Your relative seems to be one of those who became doctors for six figure salaries, rather than to help people.

[¿Que?]

Your relative seems to be one of those who became doctors for six figure salaries, rather than to help people.
Well, I wouldn't go so far. Maybe a bit too proud of her accomplishment, though.

[chegitz guevara]

I can't believe no one cited the critique of the gotha programme yet.

I did, but not openly.

[The Red Next Door]

As a doctor, she should not be having this kind of taught in her head, the reasons she want to become a doctor is to help others, and if she thinks that studying for long hours is hard, wait until she becomes an actual doctor. Is she gonna say the same thing to the people that she suppose to take care of? If so, then she have no place in being a doctor. If she thinks the whole world is suppose to kiss her ass, There are enough people already in the world, especially in the human service department, who thinks that the world have to kiss their asses. Tell her to not go into human services, if she gonna have that type of self absorbed attitude.

[lulks]

while she is working to succeed in her education, other people are doing a job that they had since graduating high school, so she hasn't done any more work in total. the only legitimate argument she could make is that she doesn't get paid for her education. that's why people should receive compensation for education, rather than having to pay.

[FSL]

I did, but not openly.


Ah, yes you did, sorry missed it ;)

[Dimentio]

Recently, I got into it with a relative of mine who happens to be a doctor. She basically told me that since she spent so much time studying to be a doctor, she is entitled to a higher standard of living than someone who has no education. She says because she put so much time AND money into her education, then she deserves more. I felt completely disarmed by this statement, although I believe I was able to hold my own. Nonetheless, it shows the power of the "ruling ideas" when I get very self conscious and unsure about my views at having to refute this type of liberal petty-bourgeois ideology. How would you refute this statement?

So persons who cannot afford to go to higher education and are forced to have two jobs to sustain themselves have no right to a decent standard of life?

[<Insert Username Here>]

This is exactly why we purged intellectuals (stupidly) in the CCCP.

[A.R.Amistad]

Recently, I got into it with a relative of mine who happens to be a doctor. She basically told me that since she spent so much time studying to be a doctor, she is entitled to a higher standard of living than someone who has no education. She says because she put so much time AND money into her education, then she deserves more. I felt completely disarmed by this statement, although I believe I was able to hold my own. Nonetheless, it shows the power of the "ruling ideas" when I get very self conscious and unsure about my views at having to refute this type of liberal petty-bourgeois ideology. How would you refute this statement?


Your relative seems to be one of those who became doctors for six figure salaries, rather than to help people.

An individualist argument needs to be met with an individualist answer. I think that it would be important to ask your relative "why is it that you entered the field of medicine? Why did you decide to study so hard in medical school?" If she did, as Gramsci said, go into medicine to earn more money instead of to contribute something to society, there is probably something else that they would have much rather done instead, but it just wasn't as lucrative. Lets assume that they only wanted to be a doctor for the money. Ask them what they had wanted to be when they were younger? For example, did your relative dream of being a musician, an artist, a fireman, a hot dog stand operator? It is very probable that your relative, like most workers and petty-bourgeois, toyed with these dreams and ideas when they were younger, but gave up those dreams when they got older, became more aware of how society functions and decided to devote their energy to something that would be more likely to satisfy them in the dog-eat-dog world of capitalism. But in imagine if the barriers that capital creates were no longer there? It sounds like she considers medical school to have been a necessary burden in her life, as if it was something that drained her from doing what she really wanted to do. Lets say she wanted to be a muscisian, a much more romantic seeming job than a doctor. Under capitalism, there is little to offer for muscicians and it is widely known that capitalism has turned the music industry into a shark infested tarn of scoundrels and cheaters. Its when your father comes in to the garage while your rocking out on your Fender and he says "what are you going to do with your life?! You can't spend your life being a bum-musician!" Thats the sad reality under capitalism, but under socialism a musician would not be a bum, and musicians would have control over the music industry, not bourgeois CEO's with robotic mentalities about art. Being a good musician involves a lot of practice, a lot of studying and a lot of hard work. But for someone who is really commited, if they actually enjoyed and wanted to be a musician, they would have no problem studying. In fact, they would consider it a passion in their life. And the same thing could be said about people who actually want to be doctors, because there certainly are people passionate about being doctors and consider it a passion. If your relative is passionte about being a doctor, the reward would be acheiving the goal of their passion, not financial rewarding. It is a myth that money is the only thing that drives people to be great in their passions: more often than not it is a hinderer of their passions. In a socialist and eventually a communist society, everyone would be free to pursue their passions to the fullest extent (so long as that passion isn't exploiting people). So I'd ask your relative to think back to a passion they might have given up, and ask them how they would feel if they lived in a society where they could pursue their true passion. And if being a doctor has always been your relatives passion, ask her if she feels she has acheived that passion, and if she has, is it satisfying? If not, then they obviously should find a different passion, because when someone is engaging in something they are passionate about, they enjoy the labor and the work that goes into it because it gives their life meaning.

[scarletghoul]

Studying is a luxury. Those who spend their lives working deserve more. Also

As a doctor, she should not be having this kind of taught in her head, the reasons she want to become a doctor is to help others, and if she thinks that studying for long hours is hard, wait until she becomes an actual doctor. Is she gonna say the same thing to the people that she suppose to take care of? If so, then she have no place in being a doctor. If she thinks the whole world is suppose to kiss her ass, There are enough people already in the world, especially in the human service department, who thinks like the world have to kiss their asses. Tell her to not go into human services, if she gonna have that type of self absorbed attitude.
This, exactly.

[A.R.Amistad]

Studying is a luxury

Studying is working my friend, proletariat doesn't just mean working at the local textile plnt, it means selling your labor. Under socialism, people would study and labor free from coercion to do so.

[chegitz guevara]

Too many comrades in this thread are approaching the question as liberals, rather than as Marxists. Her labor-power is worth more because more socially-necessary labor-power was expended creating it. Regardless of privilege or anything else, labor-power is a commodity, subject to the same rules as every other commodity.

[CartCollector]

Regardless of privilege or anything else, labor-power is a commodity, subject to the same rules as every other commodity.
So paying all labor-power the same wage is as foolish as charging the same amount for all goods? Also, if labor-power is a commodity, and socialism will abolish commodity production, does that mean socialism will abolish labor-power?

[The Ben G]

I think that no job is more important than the other. They all have importance.

[chegitz guevara]

So paying all labor-power the same wage is as foolish as charging the same amount for all goods?

Exactly.


Also, if labor-power is a commodity, and socialism will abolish commodity production, does that mean socialism will abolish labor-power?

Abolishing commodity production doesn't mean abolishing production altogether. A commodity is a thing that is made solely for the purpose of being sold. Under socialism, commodity production will still exist. Under communism/anarchism, commodity production will cease to exist, but we'll still be making everything we need and want. The same is true of labor-power.

[chegitz guevara]

I think that no job is more important than the other. They all have importance.

Really, you think burger flipping at McDonalds is as important as saving lives?

[<Insert Username Here>]

Really, you think burger flipping at McDonalds is as important as saving lives?

The mistake people make when they make the "all jobs are as important" statement is the proportional worth of those jobs.

My personal view on it-

1.) Pay everyone an equal base wage
2.) Calculate the proportional value to society of jobs
3.) Pay bonuses proportional to personal achievement and worth

If you cap inherhitance, theres no reason why we shouldn't let our hardest working workers and our doctors who struggled through med school to help us have some extra spending money for luxuries, after everyone is fed, watered and content. After all- they earned it.

[black magick hustla]

honestly i wouldnt mind doctors having smaller salaries. then people who actually cared about other people would actually study that

[A.R.Amistad]

Too many comrades in this thread are approaching the question as liberals, rather than as Marxists. Her labor-power is worth more because more socially-necessary labor-power was expended creating it. Regardless of privilege or anything else, labor-power is a commodity, subject to the same rules as every other commodity.

I agree, the most important thing is that she (the doctor) sells her labor, does not reap profit or own capital and therefore has class interests with the working class and against the bourgeoisie. But I've been in these situations before, and the moment you mention "society" to these hyper-individualist liberals they shut down completely because they find it offensive that they would be categorized in such a "conformist" thing as society! (the fight to be constantly different and ironic to everything around you must really be draining on a person) Thats why I said "An individualist argument needs to be met with an individualist answer." Its always sad and disappointing when people are immature and unsure of themselves enough to use emotional appeal as a way to gain some legitimacy, but one has to be able to deal with it nonetheless. Someone who uses phrases like "well I..." or "I should...." and "I've been....." etc. etc. think that they re breaking some great social mold and are defying the theoretical foundations of every philosopher aand social thinker in history. They're not, they just like to flatter themselves as being more unique than they really are. Thats why I answered with an individualistic arument. If pure self-interested blathering is the only language they can understand, then I might as well present my ideas in a lingo they'll be able to listen to.

[Dr Mindbender]

Recently, I got into it with a relative of mine who happens to be a doctor. She basically told me that since she spent so much time studying to be a doctor, she is entitled to a higher standard of living than someone who has no education. She says because she put so much time AND money into her education, then she deserves more.

I actually agree with her, she probably does deserve more. But moreover everyone deserves the opportunity to study to the same extent that she has done.

[Dr Mindbender]

honestly i wouldnt mind doctors having smaller salaries.

Aye then they all leave their own countries to larger economies that pay more, stroke of genius.

If we're talking about who should be in queue to recieve paycuts then doctors should be somewhere in line well before professional sportspeople, politicians and actors.

A better idea would be to actually challenge the material and social conditioning that sustains the rationale as to why people recieve less pay than doctors.

[<Insert Username Here>]

Aye then they all leave their own countries to larger economies that pay more, stroke of genius.


Pahh, be easier just to make it very clear that any physician trying to skip the border into the bourgeoise world to make a fast buck is going to get a nice bullet in the back. This is exactly why I'm a authoritarian.

[danyboy27]

Pahh, be easier just to make it very clear that any physician trying to skip the border into the bourgeoise world to make a fast buck is going to get a nice bullet in the back. This is exactly why I'm a authoritarian.

and we could see with the berlin wall how great it worked:rolleyes:

[JoyDivision]

Recently, I got into it with a relative of mine who happens to be a doctor. She basically told me that since she spent so much time studying to be a doctor, she is entitled to a higher standard of living than someone who has no education. She says because she put so much time AND money into her education, then she deserves more. I felt completely disarmed by this statement, although I believe I was able to hold my own. Nonetheless, it shows the power of the "ruling ideas" when I get very self conscious and unsure about my views at having to refute this type of liberal petty-bourgeois ideology. How would you refute this statement?

Umm, college and medical school are a fucking privilege, and they allowed you to experience and learn things that other people didn't. Those same other people were forced by their circumstances or whatever into actually working hard while you fucked about at Uni.

You chose to make a trade, you gave up hard labor for frolics, knowledge, and a meaningful job, and the very fact that you were in a position to make that trade is also a privilege most don't have.

How that entitles you to have even more than others is something only you can know, as you have already had your fill.

Sweet psychosis.

[<Insert Username Here>]

and we could see with the berlin wall how great it worked:rolleyes:

Yeah the odd one gets out but don't forget that was a wall, and Britain is an Island.

[Robocommie]

Really, you think burger flipping at McDonalds is as important as saving lives?

It sounds really terrible and anti-egalitarian, but the fact is, certain professions demand skill sets, know-how and education that most people do not have.

The fact of the matter is, placing a higher value on the skills and knowledge necessary to be a doctor or an engineer or a physicist, than the skills required to be a janitor or a cook and so forth is just practical. Society is always going to have less people who are capable of being doctors than we will have people capable of doing construction work or agriculture.

I don't think that means that workers aren't entitled to a comfortable standard of living, of course they are, I just don't think it's necessarily non-socialist to pay doctors and engineers more, under a socialist system, since they contribute more, in the form of the commodity their skills represents.

[Robocommie]

Pahh, be easier just to make it very clear that any physician trying to skip the border into the bourgeoise world to make a fast buck is going to get a nice bullet in the back. This is exactly why I'm a authoritarian.

Yeah, and certainly we see how well it works when we try to change society through intimidation. People sure become enthusiastic about the revolution, and never resent it.

[Robocommie]

I actually agree with her, she probably does deserve more. But moreover everyone deserves the opportunity to study to the same extent that she has done.

This is the crucial issue. If there is no equality of opportunity - if everyone cannot have access to free education, and have equal opportunity to make use of that free education, then rewarding the well educated for their vital skills is merely more bourgeoisie privilege.

[which doctor]

I didn't read any of this thread besides the original post, but I think the sentiment expressed in the first post, which is quite common I might add, is a good reason to push for students in higher education to not only get free tuition, but also a stipend. Essentially, people will get paid to go to school. Of course this would also probably correspond to decrease in salaries for doctors, but I think it would go a long way in getting rid of the false distinction that a doctor's labor power is more valuable than say, a garbage man's.

[CartCollector]

Yeah the odd one gets out but don't forget that was a wall, and Britain is an Island.Cuba's an island too, you can see how well that policy's worked for them.

[chegitz guevara]

Cuba's an island too, you can see how well that policy's worked for them.

It keeps Americans from crossing the border and using all that socialist health care.