« Al fin, coño! | Babalu Blog - Main Page | Cuban journalist tells her story »

Imagine Fidel Castro having to send to South Korea for an artificial anus! It's lucky for him too because if it had been made in fraternal North Korea it would have had a camera, a wire and a nuclear warhead.

That's pretty funny (about north korea)

Tellechea, you made my day. I think I will be laughing all the way to home tonight.

The debate about Cuban health care is filled with inaccurate information that sometimes it hard to get facts in. Many say that the "leftist media" celebrate the about how great Cuban health care, thus it must be the greatest on Earth. This is perhaps the leading fraudulent claim made against Cuba.

Let me state simple facts to get things rolling. Cuba belongs to the community of developing nations. That's why virtually all the commentary on Cuban health is based on comparisons with the DEVELOPING world. Not comparisons with industrialized nations, such as England, or Canada.

Look at ANY reference book with vital statistics and it shows that Cuba is the leader in Latin America/Caribbean with low child/adult mortality rates and high life expectancy. Yet, NONE of these numbers describes the true facts of poverty in Cuba. Vital statistics describe nation's efforts on health care, not poverty reduction.

According to World Health Organization numbers, Cuba has better vital statistics than Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, and Dominican Republic, to name a few.

Also, the lack of medical supplies and medicines is RAMPANT in the developing world, even capitalist nations. Yet, this issue belongs to economic issues, not health care issues alone.

I'll end with this horrific anecdote from a person living in Peru, which resembles the troubles found in Cuba.

"Let me stop to provide a quick explanation of how the system here works...when you are admitted to a hospital (or clinic, which is a step up), medicines are not provided for you by the drs/nurses. Instead, someone (family/friend/etc...) must check daily or stay with the patient so that any time a medicine is required they can go buy it...This is the case for everyone, not just poor Peruvians. When my wife was in the hospital for a week earlier this year I stayed in the room with her, and every morning and afternoon I would leave to buy her daily meds (which included things like syringes, IV tubing, saline, pretty much everything)."

The rest of the story can be found here:
http://forum.livinginperu.com/index.php?showtopic=85

Mambi Watch,

Perhaps it is because its been a long week, but I am having trouble following your argument. What is your basic premise? Are you saying that Cuba has a better health care system than Haiti or Peru? If so, how is that meaningful, as you see it?

Again, I am trying to guess what your basic point is. Can you clarify?

Mambi, maybe what you say aout Peru is true, but the Peruvians can go to any pharmacy to buy whatever they need using their OWN currency. In Castro's Cuba, you need to ask a foreigner to buy whatever it is that you need and many women have to prostitute themselves in order to get the medicines that they need for their children. And don't give me the BS that it is because of the embargo, because food and medicines are exempt from it, and you can get whatever you need if you are a foreigner living in Cuba.
If Peruvian were receiving their salaries in Soles but were forced to buy their medicines with dollars or euros, then you could make a comparison with the situation in Cuba.
Also, when Castro took over 48 years ago, memberships at most Cuban clinics cost just pennies per day, and you would receive excellent medical care. There were public hospitals where you could receive medical attention no matter what your economic status was. If that was 48 years aho, imagine what kind of healthcare Cubans would have been getting now if it was not for Castro and his gang taking over the island and managing it as their own farm.
Regarding the "statistics" that you mentioned, they are just bullshit, since they are provided by the Castro regime itself. What independent statistics have been available in Cuba since Castro took over?
In addition to all that, Peruvians and citizens of every other country in Latin America are free to choose their leaders and their own system of government. Cubans haven't been able to do that because according to castro a "revolution' was needed in order to bring equality and progress to Cuba.
Now, Cuba is just another Haiti and there are people who are still trying to apologize and justify what that criminal gangster has done.

The "Real" Cuba,

I don't want to go on tangents. You bring up plenty of issues that are not associated with my original argument. So I will clarify.

Take a look at what Val Prieto posted with exaggerated sarcasm:

"Cuba's healthcare is so beyond awesome, so beyond great and excellent and wondrous..."

This is a deliberate attempt to not address the facts about Cuban health care, especially those presented in the documentary Salud! (Which I haven't seen, and of which Prieto seems not to want to elaborate on.)

Anyway, as I said before, the claim that Cuban health care is "the best on earth" is false, yet repeated as a leftist apology for Fidel. This all false.

Cuban health care is among the best in the DEVELOPING world. Not on earth.

You say: "What independent statistics have been available in Cuba since Castro took over?"

The World Health Organization, and other health organizations have examined and re-examined Cuba's books on health, and they have stood up over time. For years its been found valid. Even the WHO states that Cuba has one of the most accountable systems in the Latin Region. But, you don't have to take my word for it, check the documentation yourself.

Gator asked how this is meaningful.

Its meaningful to the debate on Cuba's health care system, also to examining the health care systems of other countries in the developing world.

Former US surgeon general David Satcher said that we can examine this within the view that links poverty and minorities.

"It’s no accident that Cuba has a much lower infant mortality rate than we do, even though it has more poverty. I certainly don’t agree with a lot of things about Cuba, but you have to be impressed with what they’ve done with basic health care. The difference is commitment to access to care for everyone.We don’t have that commitment. One of the reasons the whole issue of universal care is so critical, especially to eliminating disparities, is that it’s the only way we’re going to deal with some of the generic health problems that disproportionately impact minorities."

Point being that criticism of Cuban health care should be shaped by this perspective, not false claims that Cuban health care is the "best in the world".

Mambi Watch, Cuba is a developing nation thanks to fidels friggin revolution. In 1959, he inherited a first world "developed" nation which he proceeded to destroy. So 48 years later he still hasn't caught up to the pre-revolution standard of living. Sorry we can't get excited about the fact that Cuba can cite (unverifiable) statistics anointing them leader of "developing" Latin America nations. Just like they have the "lowest" infant mortality rate...just don't factor in the highest abortion rate. You can't trust any information coming out of Cuba. All information is controlled by castro, Inc., and they are liars, theives and assassins.

Mambi Watch,

If I understand your argument, you are saying that Cuba compares favorably with "developing/third world" countries. Hence, it is unfair to say that castro has had a negative effect on Cuba's health care system. You compare Cuba's health care to developing/third world countries, find that Cuba is comparable, and based on this argue that Cuba isn't doing badly under the castro regime. The problem is that your analysis starts from the premise that Cuba was a developing nation in the 1950's. Hence the "developing nation" control group is the one to which Cuba must be compared. This is wrong.

Below, I copy statistics (from various sources including the WHO and United Nations) which show that before 1959 Cuba led most countries in the world in important indicia of quality of life, favorably comparing to most developed/first world countries. Hence, the real question is "why has Cuban fallen so far, despite almost five decades of "revolutionary sacrifice."

Data:

"In 1953, Cuba was 22nd among the world's nations in the number of doctors per capita, with 128.6 for each 100 thousand inhabitants."

"The mortality rate was 5.8 -third lowest in the world-, while the mortality rate of the United States was 9.5 and that of Canada 7.6."

"Towards the end of the 50s, the island had the lowest infant mortality rate of Latin America, with 3.76, followed by Argentina with 6.11, Venezuela with 6.56, and Uruguay with 7.30, as per data provided by the World Health Organization."

"Cuba was number 33 among 112 nations in the world as far as the level of daily reading, with 101 newspaper copies published per 1,000 inhabitants, which also contradicts the argument that the country was inhabited by a great number of illiterates."

"Even as far as so-called luxury items, in 1959 Cuba had one radio per each five inhabitants, one television set for each 28, one telephone for each 38, and one automobile for each 40 inhabitants, according to the Annual Statistical Report of the United Nations."

Below is additional data regarding health and education in Cuba prior to 1959. All the data above and below is taken from an article that appeared in "Contacto Magazine." I have included the original source, as identified in the article in the quoted segments.

"PUBLIC HEALTH: In 1958, Cuba had a population of six million, six hundred thirty one thousand inhabitants (6,630,921, to be exact). At that time, there were 35 thousand (35,000) hospital beds in the country, an average of one hospital bed per 190 inhabitants, a number which then exceeded the goal of developed countries, which was 200 inhabitants per hospital bed. In 1960, the United States had one hospital bed per 109 inhabitants.

Also in 1958, the Cuban nation had an average of one doctor per 980 inhabitants, a number that was surpassed in Latin America only by Argentina, with one doctor per 760 inhabitants, and Uruguay, with one per each 860. Cuba had one dentist per 2,978 inhabitants then. This data is found in the archives of the World Health Organization."

"LABOR RELATIONS: In 1958, an industrial worker in Cuba earned an average salary of the equivalent of $6 US dollars per each 8-hour work day, while an agricultural worker earned the equivalent of $3 US dollars. Cuba then ranked number eight (8) in the world as far as salaries paid to industrial workers, outperformed only by the following countries:

the United States ($16.80)

Canada ($11.73)

Sweden ($ 8.10)

Switzerland ($ 8.00)

New Zealand ($ 6.72)

Denmark ($ 6.46)

Norway ($ 6.10)

As far as salaries for agricultural workers, Cuba was number seven (7) in the world, outperformed only by the following countries:

Canada ($7.18)

the United States ($6.80)

New Zealand ($6.72)

Australia ($6.61)

Sweden ($5.47)

Norway ($4.38)

This data was published by the International Labor Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1960. In 1958, Cuba had a labor force of two million two hundred four thousand workers (2,204,000). The rate of unemployment at that time was 7.07%, the lowest in Latin America, as per data from the Cuban Labor Ministry."

"EDUCATION: That same year, Cuba had three government financed universities and three others that were privately run. There were twenty thousand (20,000) students enrolled in the government run universities.

There were 900 officially recognized private schools, including the three private universities. The total number of students enrolled at these institutions was over one hundred thousand (100,000).

The public school system employed twenty five thousand (25,000) teachers, and the private school system counted with 3,500.

In the middle of the 1950s, there were 1,206 rural school houses in Cuba, as well as a mobile library system which boasted a total of 179,738 books.

Also in 1958, Cuba had 114 institutions of higher education, below the university level; among them were technical institutes, polytechnic and professional schools, which were financed by the government. Just in 1958, these institutions graduated 38,428 students. In 1958, the island's illiteracy rate was 18%.

This data is found in the archives of Cuba's Ministry of Education."

"Cuba was the Latin American country with the highest budget for education in 1958, with 23% of the total budget earmarked for this expense. It was followed by Costa Rica (20%), and Guatemala and Chile, each with 16%. This data comes from America in Statistics, published by the Pan American Union."

So, please compare Cuba's current condition (in any field or by any measure) to the U.S., Australia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, New Zealand, or Canada, and then tell me just how well has the revolution served the Cuban people. Not very well at all. And, we haven't even started to discuss the loss of freedom, the executions, the drowned balseros, the widows and orphans, etc.

The best healthcare system in the world. So good, in fact, its Exalted Leader had to go to another country for abdominal surgery. Maybe he did so because all his gastrointestinal specialists were busy helping other patients--after all, stomach acid can wreak havoc on an empty stomach--and he didn't want to cut in front of the line, as it were.

(sarcasm off)

Mambi Watch,

Let's just take infant mortality. Any nation can automatically lower its infant mortality rate. All they have to do is count all premature babies who die as miscarriages, and have a policy of encouraging abortions for all minimally complicated pregnancies. Oh, yes---and you know that if the abortion is botched, the complication-prone woman is often left sterile, and not capable of having more complicated pregnancies, right? It's a numbers trick, not a triumph in care.

I am sure you have seen all the plush medical facilities the Cuban government has for cash-paying foreigners. This is probably because you actually believe regular Cubans get this level of health care. How much insulin and aspirin would one of those massage tables buy?

From the great Humberto Fontova:

For the record: in 1958 that “impoverished Caribbean island” had a higher standard of living than Ireland and Austria, almost double Spain and Japan’s per-capita income, more doctors and dentists per capita than Britain and lower infant mortality than France and Germany–the 13th lowest in the world, in fact. Today Cuba’s infant-mortality rate– despite the hemisphere’s highest abortion rate which skews this figure downward– is 24th from the top. So relative to the rest of the world, Cuba’s health care has worsened under Castro and a nation with a formerly massive influx of European immigrants needs machine guns, water cannons and Tiger sharks to keep it’s people from fleeing while half-starved Haitians a short 60 miles away turn up their nose at any thought of immigrating to Cuba. In 1958 eighty per cent of Cubans were literate and Cuba spent the most per capita on public education of any nation in Latin America.

During its war of independence near the turn of the century Cuba was utterly devastated, losing a quarter of it’s population. So Cuba’s achievements in national prosperity, health and education came practically from scratch and in only slightly more time than Castro’s stint in power.

Read more at:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/08/15/fidel-castro-is-still-dead/

It's sooo fucking amazing that all the statistics are available to be found pre caca-gastro to the present and certain individuals still keep coming out to glorify a useless/worthless dictatorship (thinking that he invented the wheel)When in reality he has been the one to destroy every system in the Island that he (caca-gastro) has touched.

Manuel:too funny about Korea(LMAOF)

Reading the posts above has been very enlightening, honestly. I find it astonishing that my original argument for a fair description of Cuban health care, instead of an exaggerated and false summary, has been interpreted as an argument that "it is unfair to say that Castro has had a negative effect on Cuba's health care system"(Little Gator quote).

This is very interesting and revealing. I NEVER mentioned Fidel Castro, effects or no effects by Castro, nor a historical analysis of Cuban health care since the the late 50's and early sixties. Nor have I sought to provoke any other tangential issues.

But somehow various other concerns have been brought up. This is very fascinating.

Allow me to clarify my argument even more clearly. Yet, at another time I hope we can find an appropriate forum where we can discuss these other matters.

In order to make accurate, and CURRENT, descriptions of any social systems, we make comparisons that are controlled for similarities in social parameters, such as demographics, economic levels, and so on.

The appropriate place for an assessment of Cuba's health care system is among similar social systems with similar parameters. Comparison of vital statistics and trends are then best analyzed and understood within this controlled view, and predictions can be made.

Yet, if one decides to make a socio-historical analysis of competing health care systems, then numerous factors arise that require great efforts for fair analysis.

I would like to make specific points about the data presented by Little Gator, but I think this debate would be appropriate in another kind of forum.

Compare present-day Cuban health care within a fair model. That model includes developing nations in the latin region, and their specific health indicators.

Mambi Watch,

Sorry if I misunderstood your original post. As I stated above, it was difficult (at least for me) to understand what precisely you were proposing. I thought you original post was, for whatever reason, very vague.

So, if I now understand you correctly, you contend that Cuba's CURRENT situation is on a par with Guatemala or Haiti, and therefor the current Cuban health system should be evaluated by comparing it Guatemala or Haiti's. What would be the benefit of doing that? What would that tend to prove or disprove? What do you believe we would learn from such a comparison?

Mambo:

Let me explain this to you in the simplest terms because all who have endeavored to engage you on a higher plane have failed to move your intractible intellect.

In 1958, Cuba was at the very top of every index of social achievement in Latin America, and Haiti and Guatemala were at the very bottom.

Flash to 2007. Haiti and Guatemala are still at the very bottom, but now Cuba has joined them.

Get it now?

Manuel, here's what I hope is a good metaphor.

Let's say healthcare systems are professional baseball teams.

Before Castro, Cuba's healthcare system was a middle-of-the-pack major league team.

Now, Cuba's healthcare system is a topnotch... Single-A minor league team.

I hope this makes it crystal clear for those who are still a little confused. :-)

The recent series of failed intestinal operations performed in Cuba by Castro's crack team of personal physicians, no doubt the island's "best and brightest," has a pre-revolutionary prequel in another intestinal operation which Castro underwent in Cuba more than 60 years ago at age 20.

It is clear that I cannot build up the suspense here, because, obviously, Castro survived that operation. The procedure was an appendectomy, which back then, at the dawn of antibiotics, was still a risky procedure. Nonetheless, Castro survived to kill another another day. There was no onset of peritonitis as a consequence of the operation. No second or third operation was necessary to correct the effects of the first. A foreign physician was not consulted. Medicine and equipment was not imported from abroad specifically for this operation. And no artificial anus from South Korea was required. It was a standard procedure performed by competent doctors in a modern Cuban hospital in 1946.

And it didn't cost Castro a dime because top-notch health care in pre-Castro Cuba was widely available and essentially cost-free.

There were hundreds of mutual aid societies in Cuba that provided full health care benefits to their members and their immediate families, including hospitalization, for an annual fee of $2.00.

Fidel Castro himself belonged to such a mutual aid society (El Club de los Gallegos). Although his father was a wealthy landowner, Fidel's appendicitis operation in 1946 was underwritten by the Gallegos' Club. Fidel paid (or his father paid, since Fidel never worked in his life)) just $2.00, just like the poorest man in Cuba would have.

If you could not afford $2.00 to obtain health insurance, there were also charity hospitals in pre-revolutionary Cuba staffed by the country's best physicians, who made it a point of honor to donate their services to such institutions. No one who needed medical treatment was ever denied it in pre-Castro Cuba.

According to the United Nations Statistical Yearbook, the mortality rate per 1000 persons in Cuba in 1958 was the lowest in the Western Hemisphere (5.8). The comparable rate for the U.S. was 9.4 and for Canada 8.1. The countries with the highest mortality rates were Colombia (12.8); Ecuador (15.2); Brazil (20.6); and Guatemala (21.3). Figures were not available for Haiti.

Today is the 157th anniversary of the birth of the Apostle José Martí. May this be the last year that it is commemorated under the aegis of tyranny. And may his spirit, which once united all Cubans, unite us again in the cause of freedom.

According to the UN, in 1960 Chile's infant mortality rate was 118 deaths every 1,000 births. As of 2003 it was 8. South Korea was a Third World country in 1960 with an infant mortality rate of 90 deaths per 1,000 births; as of 2003 this had been reduced to 5. So both countries managed to significantly improve the health of their citizens without becoming totalitarian "socialist" dictatorships (and Chile suffered under a right-wing "fascist" dictator for 30 years, go figure). The belief that Cuban healthcare is so unbelievably amazing is pure propaganda.

Mambi watch needs to read this article in today's Miami Herald on how Cuba makes all those statistics that he keeps mentioning here:
"Infant mortality rate in Cuba raises eyebrows"
Some doctors say they were told to use any means possible to keep the infant mortality rate low. Jesús Monzón, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Pinar del Río until he left in 1995, says pregnant mothers were required to appear monthly for sonograms and other tests to make certain the fetus was healthy.

''If there was any malformation in the fetus, they would interrupt the pregnancy,'' said Monzón, now a lab technician at Mercy Hospital in Miami. A heart murmur or other serious problems required an abortion. This was ''automatic,'' he said. If the mother objected, a team from the hospital would persuade her an abortion was necessary.

Other sources also say abortion is a tool used to keep infant mortality low, including Andy Gomez at the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami, and Carmelo Mesa-Lago, a retired University of Pittsburgh economics professor who has spent decades studying Cuba.

Recent Cuba abortion data is not available, but a study by the Pan American Health Organization from 1998 states Cuba had 70 abortions per 100 deliveries in 1992 and 59.4 in 1996, far higher than the 34 to 38 abortions per 100 live births reported during that time in the United States.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/16563907.htm

“Compare present-day Cuban health care within a fair model. That model includes developing nations in the latin region, and their specific health indicators.”

Boloney! Progress in healthcare has to be based on a fuller picture. Social PROGRESS not Social REGRESSION! You can’t give Cuba accolades on how great their “healthcare” system is today without doing a comparable on Cuba’s healthcare system in 1959. Societies always move FORWARD… That’s why we call it PROGRESS!

The post above by Firefly best describes how my argument is being misunderstood. I NEVER intended to make an assessment of Cuban health care using a historical perspective. Thus my concern is not progression or regression of status, but rather to confront directly a false summary of Cuban health care as "beyond awesome" or "beyond great" (Val Prieto's words), or anything similar.

And as seen above, those false summaries are based on inaccurate comparisons, such as the socio-historical analyses argued above.

I am NOT arguing about trends, but of states (based on current specific indicators), of which claims of "IS beyond awesome" best address.

Like I already posted before, Cuba's current vital statistics are improvements over Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, just to name a few in the Latin Region. Go to your local reference guide and see for yourself.

What's the significance of this comparison? ACCURACY.

I would love to focus on the other tangential issue brought up (trust me I would), but I believe a different forum would be best for that debate.

Since the issue of abortion rates in Cuba have been brought up (even in the Miami Herald), let me address it quickly.

If you look at the numbers carefully, abortion rates have little effect on infant and child mortality rates, mainly because studies show that child mortality is the result of "communicable diseases [which] still represent seven out of the top 10 causes of child deaths".(World Health Organization)

According to WHO, "[t]he most striking proportional reductions in [child]mortality have been seen in Chile, Costa Rica and CUBA, where child mortality has decreased by over 80% since 1970."

The birth rate in Cuba is about 12 per 1000, and Chile's is about 15 per 1000. Without question, Cuba's birth rate is lower than the average latin countries (about 20 per 1000), but more comparable to developing nations. This is because of the AVAILABILTY of abortions, which is mostly prohibited and restricted in the latin region.

Abortion is illegal in Chile. Not in Cuba. Yet, BOTH have similar child mortality rates. Does abortion have anything to do with it? Chile, nevertheless, has clandestine abortions that reach about 50 per 1000, but do not match about 80 per 1000 in Cuba.

Canada has a birth rate of about 11 per 1000, abortion rate of about 20 per 1000, but with a child mortality rate of 6 per 1000(Cuba with 8 per 1000).

The effects of abortion on infant and child mortality is marginal. There are far more significant factors, such as treatment during the first five years.

Hopefully, I will be able to continue this topic on my blog at some point.

The resources I used were:

World Health Organization
www.who.int/en/

The Guttmacher Institute
www.guttmacher.org

Human Rights Watch
www.hrw.org

CIA World Factbook
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

The effects of abortion on infant and child mortality is marginal. There are far more significant factors, such as treatment during the first five years. — Mumbo

When 7 out of every 10 pregnancies end in abortion in Cuba, then abortion most certainly has a huge impact on infant mortality. Communist Cuba is the only country on earth were eugenics is still practiced both to reduce population growth and to eliminate congenital problems that could result in greater infant mortality.

What proves, however, that you know nothing at all about infant mortality is your ludicrous statement that "treatment during the first five years" has anything at all to do with infant mortality. Infant mortality is calculated on the basis of the number of deaths in the first year of life.

Mambi,

Seriously man, never have I read such sheer and unbridled smoke and mirrors bullshit arguments. You can toss as many "numbers" into the debate as possible, but as long as those "numbers" are predicated upon true and factual information coming from the Cuban government, all your arguments based upon them are moot as the numbers are UNVERIFIABLE and most likely FALSE and MANIPULATED.

Also, your infant mortality rate argument is laughable. As are your numbers in regard to same. SEVEN out of TEN babies are aborted in Cuba. Thats seventy percent. Probability alone dictates should a good portion of that seventy percent go full term with the end result of a certain percentage of same being infant death, then that would be cause for an increase in the death mortality figure. its not that complicated:

More babies born = higher rate of possible infant mortality.

less babies born = lower rate of possible infant mortality

Thus more babies being aborted = less babies born = lower infant mortality rate.

Youve quoted my "Cuba's awesome healthcare" statements quite a few times in these comments. Notwithstanding the fact that I was being facetious, the fact remains that most articles vis-a-vis Cuba's healthcare and the linked "documentary" are nothing more than pure propaganda for the Cuban government as most "studies" of same are based on a minute percentage of the Cuban healthcare system as a whole, not to mention the unverified and unempirical evidence as provided by the Cuban government for same.

All of the above matters not, really, for all you have to do is truthfully answer the following question:

If your son or daughter had an apendicitis attack, would you prefer they be treated in Cuba, or in the US?

Val:

It occurs to me that what we are talking about here is nothing less than genocide. When you kill 7 out of 10 babies, what else could it be?

The systematic killing of potentially imperfect life carried out by the Castro regime to maintain its vaunted infant mortality rate is precisely what the foes of abortion have always warned would ultimately happen if it was legalized: the State, not women, would seize control of reproductive rights. It happened in Nazi Germany. It happened in Red China. And now it's happening in Castro's Cuba.

Manuel,

Not only are abortions carried out to rid of "potentially imperfect" life, but I have it on good authority - unreproachable athourity - that not only was the government sponsoring abortions, but they were doing so for embryonic stem cell research and subsequent treatments for foreigners.

So, basically, young girls were going out and getting pregnant ON PURPOSE just to make a few bucks when they sold the aborted fetus to the govwernment. It is absolutely disgusting.

Val,

I'm shocked, but somewhat not surprised, that your logic follows:

"More babies born = higher rate of possible infant mortality...less babies born = lower rate of possible infant mortality...Thus more babies being aborted = less babies born = lower infant mortality rate."

The most BASIC summary of causes for infant mortality show that many factors are involved, even to CONTRADICT your simple logic.

But, I'm seeing that this is growing into an issue about abortion, especially one of its effects on infant or child mortality rates. This is an easy argument to debunk (of which I will post on my own later).

Val, I sense you are beginning to contradict yourself. You have no trust in Cuba's numbers. That's fine. But, who's numbers do YOU trust?

I'm curious. So, I challenge you:

Where did you get the number that "seven out of ten" potential births in Cuba are aborted?

If there is no reply, then I will presume your argument is baseless.

Oh, and another thing Val. Your anonymous sources (of "IRREPROACHABLE authority") haven't been so irreproachable in the past.

Nevermind that challenge. I saw it was in the Miami Herald story.

Which is odd because another source reports different numbers.

"The highest abortion rate (83 per 1,000) is for Vietnam...in Cuba (78 per 1,000) includes menstrual regulation, an early abortion procedure carried out without pregnancy testing, as well as termination of known pregnancies."

BIG difference from the Herald number.

My source:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html

Mambrú:

You are referring to abortions per 1000 women, which is not the same thing as pregnancies that terminate in abortion.

Hence there is no contradiction in these statistics:

7 out of 10 pregnancies end in abortion in Cuba.

The overall abortion rate amounts to 78 abortions per 1000 women.

As for Vietnam having had in 1995 a slightly higher abortion rate than Cuba (83 vs. 78), is this suppose to surprise us? Vietnam is also a Communist country.

Mambi,

Im sure youve heard of Occam's Razor, no? I was trying to keep the argument as simple as possible, for us non-FIU-academic types.

You can argue all of the "factors" and "numbers" and cloud the issue all you want with as much superfluous and "technical" information all you like, the bottom line will still be the same: Cuba's low infant mortality is suspect and certainly not something to be lauding as an achievement when the results and the formula are manipulated from the onset.

As for my numbers, dude, either run a search on this blog or try Google. There's plenty of sources out there.

http://www.babalublog.com/archives/004472.html

And those are '96 figures. Perhaps a good reading of the figures and their notes in the bottom of the chart is necesary.

Val:

Yes, we must make this even simpler for Mambino.

The figures quoted by the Guttmacher Institute refer to the number of abortions per 1000 women. That is, all the women in the country, pregnant or not, young or old. All women. All this means is that for every 1000 Cuban women there were 78 abortions in the year Mambino cites (1995).

The figure which Val quoted refers just to pregnant women. And, so, of every 10 pregnant women in Cuba 7 opt or are coerced to have abortions.

There is no contradition in these figures.

Val and Manuel,

Very respectfully, I think you guys are wasting your time.

I have followed this string with great interest for the last couple of days. I've even contributed a comment or two. At this point, I think I spot a pattern. Mambi started out with a vague, hard-to-decipher post. I asked for clarification and got some earnest but convoluted "argument." He bobs-and-weaves and throws out "challenges" based on his misapprehension of certain statistics.

I sense that he is quite sincere, but has difficulty expressing exactly what he means, and all the bobbing-and-weaving has left him disoriented. After a number of lenghty posts, I still don't know exactly what his point is. By the way Val, it was very mean of you to suggest he is an FIU-academic-type. That is harsh!

Little Gator,

FIU is where his IP traces to.

In that case, I stand corrected.

I wonder if this guy is the faculty adviser to the "Bolivarian" Youth at FIU (all 3 of them).

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: