The World Socialist Web Site reports
Under the previous policy, Cubans who made it to dry land in US territory were permitted to enter the country and take advantage of the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, which allowed Cubans to claim permanent US residency after one year in the country. Cubans who were interdicted at sea by the US Coast Guard, on the other hand, were returned to Cuba.
[...] On January 12, President Barack Obama announced that, effective immediately, the US government would end the so-called "Wet Foot, Dry Foot" policy, as well as the Cuban Medical Professional Parole Program. In a joint statement detailing the changes in migration policy, the Cuban government agreed to accept Cuban nationals deported or returned by the US.
Through these programs, Cubans were extended preferential immigration status and a continued incentive to leave the country, which contributed to a "brain drain" of trained professionals and provided Washington and right-wing Cuban exiles the fodder for propaganda about state repression in Cuba fueling a constant stream of refugees.
Cuba has an abundance of well-trained medical personnel. Economist Dean Baker has pointed out that allowing the American Medical Association to construct artificial barriers to expanding USA's medical labor force is dumb and makes healthcare more expensive.
Also at The New York Times and Fox News.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @10:26PM
Dr. Baker didn't restrict his comments to Cuban doctors--or even to doctors.
He said -foreign- doctors; he also mentioned e.g. nurse practitioners who can provide MANY services at a lower cost than the current paradigm in the USA.
...and, as you note, Cuba has enough medicos to export a bunch.
We should take advantage of that as -one- tool to crowbar AMA's cartel.
Extrapolate for over 200 nations across the globe with medicos who would like to be in the USA.
.
...and have I mentioned how I HATE the way that charon fucks with hyperlinks? [googleusercontent.com]
Original Submission [soylentnews.org]
.
[1] An uppercase K stands for Lord Kelvin.
The k (for "kilo") is rather abnormal among the greater-than-unity SI unit prefixes [wikipedia.org] in being lowercase.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 25 2017, @10:29PM
Whoa AC good catch. In general theory, the doc is correct, its merely wrong to apply him to this particular story about Cubans.
(Score: 1) by charon on Wednesday January 25 2017, @10:56PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @12:41AM
...at least that which was directed at you.
The link (orig) paradigm was also broken after that was "improved".
The first place to have published the story would have logically been the (orig) under the "improved" method of that editor.
That was reversed by that ham-fisted editor.
...and if the PBS link was going to be used, that would make the (orig) thing quite redundant anyway.
Not impressed with that individual's efforts.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:44AM
charon is young, but s/he's heart is in the right place. charon will get better with more experience. I, for one, welcome our neophyte editor, and praise his/her choices!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:33AM
I noticed that he has missed a few opportunities to add a dept. line and in 1 instance didn't replace a suggested one that was deleted (considered unworthy?).
When something is appended to a summary, I'd like to see an [Ed: ] notation.
I previously explained why I form hyperlinks the way I do.
If not agreement, it seems that at least an understand has been achieved with that editor.
With the revelation that it was another editor who made the (unnecessary, ham-fisted) alterations this time, I'm largely at peace with and mostly admiring of the efforts of our rookie, charon.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by charon on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:21PM
I know you guys fancy yourselves editor proof, but the fact is you, OriginalOwner, and you, aristarchus, regularly submit articles that need heavy revision to make them less biased. Some on the editing team prefer not to use them because they are difficult to wrangle. Perhaps that is where I most show my "rookie" status because I have the energy to work with them.
While I may be new to Soylent News, I have been reading and writing for 40 years and I have a pretty good idea of how words work together. I have made a few missteps while adapting to the house style, but I have good reasons for everything I change. I have crossed swords with both of you in comments before, and no doubt will again. I am big enough to admit my errors when I see them, and have done so publicly. Errors do happen, but that is why policy is that every story have two editors review it before release. I wish to make it perfectly clear that my colleagues and I are not arbitrary or capricious when we edit.
The story without a subject line was about an arrest for murder. The primary editor has broad leeway in choosing a department line, and we usually tend towards jokes. Nothing seemed appropriate, certainly not a joke, so I left it blank as is common on serious stories. A previous story that I left without a subject line was this one about teenagers beating a man in Chicago [soylentnews.org]. Again: it is not arbitrary, it is not overlooked; it is directly related to the seriousness of the subject matter.
On this story, the expunged hyperlink was deleted because it selectively bolds certain words and phrases that are not bold in the original. That emphasis draws the eye, and can substantially change the meaning from its author's intent. During my edit, I determined it was not significant so I let it stand. My colleague decided it was significant. It's also important to note that I was not "overruled" because I am a "rookie." I discussed it with the other editor, and agreed with his decision. I see that he has already addressed this himself a bit further down.
All that said, I appreciate your support and your submissions. They are very often excellent stories that generate discussion.
Thank you, Charon
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday January 26 2017, @01:15PM
No. In *prose*, which is what that text is, the standard rendering for the abbrieviation of 1000 is the capital "K". These are not physical measurements, it is not a modifier to an SI unit, it's English text, and English dictionaries are the reference in that regard, not the NIST or the SI.
And I can't say I know any editors who wouldn't have removed the redundant google cache link with your markup scribbled all over it. For understanding, people should be reading entire paragraphs at a time, not just cherry-picking few-word highlights.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @02:55PM
People who have clicked on the link part of one of my link (orig) things one time know what to expect.
people should be reading entire paragraphs
That's one reason the (orig) is included.
...but assuming that everyone should do exactly as you do is really elitist.
Different people do things different ways.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:21PM
And that is why the editors fix the links!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:19PM
-------> The point
O
/|\ You
/ \
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by martyb on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:45PM
I'm the editor that made the changes; I didn't notice the (orig) link at first — that was my mistake and I'll own that.
I loaded both the makes healthcare more expensive [googleusercontent.com] and the (orig) [counterpunch.org] links (which appeared in the original submission [soylentnews.org]) in my browser.
In the original, I see no bold, italic, or emphasized text of any kind except a footnote stating "This column originally appeared on the PBS Newshour."
I then looked at the googleusercontent link and saw a great number of phrases "highlighted' with different background colors — none of which appeared in the original.
The highlighting modified the original; if you disagree with that, then there would be no objection to using the original source exactly as it was originally published.
If there is something in the original that you think warrants commentary or emphasis, quote it in the submission, and explain it in your submission.
I made a mistake when I first updated the story, but I stand by my decision to replace the link to the google-cache version with a link to the original story.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:39PM
You want to opine, do it in the comments. Policy by my understanding is to strip your snarky bullshit out of links.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.