Comments on the Myth of the World-Class Cuban Medical System

Michael Moore in Sicko, Jimmy Carter, Obama, and CNN, PBS, and ABC News reporters have all praised the Cuban medical system as one of the best in the world.  Most recently, Representative Keith Ellison, also Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee, has made the same claim. An article by Humberto Fontova addresses these evaluations of the Cuban Medical System with some interesting observations.

In summary of the most interesting of these:

• According to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, more than 75% of doctors with Cuban medical degrees cannot pass the U.S. licensing exam given by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates
• Most Cuba-certified cannot pass the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates exam for certification as physician assistants
• In 1958 before Cuba became a Communist regime, Cuba ranked 13th in the world in infant mortality.  Now, it is 43rd in the world, based on massive fraud in its reporting of infant mortality.  41.5% of pregnancies are ended with abortions, because any indication of a troubled birth results in an abortion, in order to keep the infant mortality rate low.  In addition, Cuban "doctors" are pressured to report the deaths of children younger than 1 year old as that of a child older than 1 year old.
• As in all Communist nations, the finer medical facilities so often pictured in propaganda reporting are not available to most people.

With all the calls for single-payer, a means of avoiding saying government-controlled, medical systems, we should remember every instance of incompetence or downright malignancy in examples of government-controlled medical systems.

Fake News Practiced by All the Media

Is a reduction of federal government spending for a few days by 13% really a government shutdown? Of course not, though that was all that happened the last time Congress did not agree on a new budget authorization in time.  Especially not when government spending is at least four times that of a legitimate government abiding by the principle that its proper function is only to protect every American individual's right to life, liberty, self-ownership, property, freedom of conscience, freedom of association, freedom of speech and press, the freedom of self-defense, the right to the ownership of one's own labor and the fruits it produces, the freedom to trade and to contract, and the pursuit of one's own happiness -- all while free from others, including the government, initiating the use of force against the individual.

Yet once again, such a trivial prospective reduction in government spending on the 100th day of the Trump administration is being called a government shutdown.  Fox News, CNN, ABC, and NBC are all guilty of this alarmist, Yellow journalism.  It is a lie that promotes interest in their broadcasts. They clearly believe they are promoting their own self-interest with a lie.  Americans should be angry about this misrepresentation of the facts by our Fake News media.

Examining the 11 September Washington Post/ABC Poll

The Washington Post/ABC presidential poll of 11 September 2012 says that Obama leads Romney by 50% to 44% among registered voters and by 49% to 48% among likely voters.  This is not really the correct result of this poll.  In their poll, the respondents broke down by party affiliation as follows:

Democrats, 33%
Republican, 23%
Independent, 37%
Other, 4%
Don't Know, 3%

So the poll result among registered voters is that for which Democrat affiliation exceeds Republican affiliation by 10%!  According to a Rasmussen Report of polling in August 2012, the breakdown by party affiliation is actually:

Democrats, 33.3%
Republican, 37.6%
Other, 29.2%

The Republicans have a 4.3% advantage in party affiliation, not the 10% disadvantage of the WP/ABC poll.  Consequently, the poll claim that Obama leads Romney by 50% to 44% among registered voters is nonsense.  Let us assume that we can at least use the poll results for the percentage of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who will vote for either Obama or Romney and recalculate the results with a proper weighting by party affiliation.  The poll says that:

Democrats will vote 91% for Obama and 5% for Romney.
Republicans will vote 6% for Obama and 89% for Romney.
Independents will vote 46% for Obama and 48% for Romney.

Now, I have a suspicion that just as the poll over-samples both Democrats and Independents, it also over-samples middle roader Republicans, given the higher vote percentage among Democrats for Obama than Romney gets among Republicans.  But, let us use these percentages anyway and combine them with the Rasmussen party affiliation results.  In addition, let us assume that among the Rasmussen others, about 4% are going to vote for the Libertarian, Green, Socialist Workers, or whatever other micro-party candidates are running.  I am taking the Independents to be 25.1% of the voters.  The registered voter result is then:

Obama:  (0.91)(33.3%) + (0.06)(37.6%) + (0.46)(25.1%) = 44.1%

Romney:   (0.05)(33.3%) + (0.89)(37.6%) + (0.48)(25.1%) = 47.2%

Thus by declared party affiliation, Romney leads Obama by 47.2% to 44.1%.  This is a Romney advantage of 3.1%.  When the WP/ABC poll made likely voter corrections, the big change was due to their assumption that Romney's advantage among Independent voters would increase from 2% to 11%.  Applying their expected likely voter percentages to the party affiliation percentages of Rasmussen, one gets the likely voter result:

Obama:    (0.94)(33.3%) + (0.06)(37.6%) + (0.43)(25.1%) = 44.4%

Romney:   (0.05)(33.3%) + (0.91)(37.6%) + (0.54)(25.1%) = 49.4%

So the likely voter advantage for Romney over Obama is 5.0%!  Now, I am not highly confident in the adjustments the WP/ABC poll makes for likely voters, but the Romney advantage in registered voter results of 3.1% will likely grow at the polls due to the likely higher turn-out of Republicans and those Independents favoring Romney.

Of course, if Romney does win the popular vote by 5%, it is extremely unlikely that he will not also win the electoral vote.

Sarah of Wasilla

Sarah of Wasilla leaped into the contiguous United States, a heroine in shining armor, and energized the Republican Party, the conservatives of that party, John McCain, many white women, many blue-collar Americans, and my friend Robert Bidinotto. Clearly many are either smitten or admirers, or both.

Robert Bidinotto has been doing a thorough job of documenting the socialists' attempts to smear and discredit our American heroine, Sarah of Wasilla, at the Bidinotto Blog. Most recently, he has uncovered how Charles Gibson of ABC in his interview with Sarah of Wasilla very selectively edited her responses to his questions to make her look as unprepared and generally uncertain as possible. Often, the most substantive part of her response was edited out! This interview is a travesty of objective journalism and as clearly as is possible shows that the Mainstream Media (MSM) is in Barack Hussein Obama's harem.

I highly recommend that you visit his blog and get a more accurate view of our American heroine.