3 ms·

> Yes, it is. Scientific proof is not available in economics, but that doesn't make it not a science. It literally does. > That you have these advantages A d

> Yes, it is. Scientific proof is not available in economics, but that doesn't make it not a science. It literally does. > That you have these advantages A doctor parent in Italy is not advantages, my parents come from poor families, are born during the ww2 and studied a lot to get there, working hard while studying to support their families They are now retired and worked their whole.life for the public healthcare systems, they weren't high paid surgeons the like you see in US TV shows, they simply wanted to help people, not get rich. That's why they never made a lot of money. It is possible in countries where studying doesn't mean taking a loan of hundreds thousands of dollars, but it's almost free for everybody You know that thing you hate there, called social welfare? Makes miracles, especially for keeping babies alive. > What the hell does that have to do with anything? That most of us in Italy have African ancestry in our DNA > People of sub-Saharan African ancestry in Europe DO have higher infant mortality rates.. They don't. Look at France, 8% of the population comes from Africa, their infant mortality rate is 35% lower than the US Not 1,2 or 3% less as one would expect from the richest country in the World, 35% less It means US has 1.5 times worse infant mortality rate than France Every 2 in France in US there are 3 That's a very large difference! What's the explanation for having a 3.625 times worse infant mortality rate than Estonia whose GDP is so low that it is measured in billions? > Do some research on the causes of higher infant mortality rates in the US. Do some research on what make other countries have a better record than US There are at least 33 of them BTW what's your excuse for the mass shootings or the homicide rates worse than countries controlled by warlords or having the lowest life expectancy of the west? Are those traits that actually make US better than, for example, Sweden? Can you prove in any meaningful way that growth = general wellbeing? I mean, without blaming black people if you can...

CryptoPunk 6y ago
>>That most of us in Italy have African ancestry in our DNA First of all, that has no relevance to the debate. Second, everyone has some trace of DNA from every region. That's not a revelation. Third, it was almost all North African admixture in the Italian population, not sub-Saharan African admixture, and it was people of sub-Saharan African ancestry which I specified as having high infant mortality rates in the US and Europe. So even your Red Herring is incorrect. >>Look at France, 8% of the population comes from Africa, their infant mortality rate is 35% lower than the US North African is not "sub-Saharan African". Most people of African ancestry in France are of North African descent. And I didn't say demographics constituted the entire cause of the US's lower infant mortality statistics. I clearly said it's mostly due to methodology, with the US counting more premature births as live births, and consequently, the deaths of premature babies as infant deaths, while other countries count more deaths of premature babies as stillbirths. Anyway, you've completely avoided dealing with the original subject matter. It was a broader point about how economies are organized, and all you seem to want to talk about is the US and how its national healthcare program doesn't offer universal coverage. You seem have a very narrow agenda, focused entirely on confronting whoever you imagine to be opposed to socialized healthcare in the US. Diverting the discussion like this, to push your agenda, is very rude, and harmful to the public discourse.

CryptoPunk 6y ago

>>That most of us in Italy have African ancestry in our DNA First of all, that has no relevance to the debate. Second, everyone has some trace of DNA from every region. That's not a revelation. Third, it was almost all North African admixture in the Italian population, not sub-Saharan African admixture, and it was people of sub-Saharan African ancestry which I specified as having high infant mortality rates in the US and Europe. So even your Red Herring is incorrect. >>Look at France, 8% of the population comes from Africa, their infant mortality rate is 35% lower than the US North African is not "sub-Saharan African". Most people of African ancestry in France are of North African descent. And I didn't say demographics constituted the entire cause of the US's lower infant mortality statistics. I clearly said it's mostly due to methodology, with the US counting more premature births as live births, and consequently, the deaths of premature babies as infant deaths, while other countries count more deaths of premature babies as stillbirths. Anyway, you've completely avoided dealing with the original subject matter. It was a broader point about how economies are organized, and all you seem to want to talk about is the US and how its national healthcare program doesn't offer universal coverage. You seem have a very narrow agenda, focused entirely on confronting whoever you imagine to be opposed to socialized healthcare in the US. Diverting the discussion like this, to push your agenda, is very rude, and harmful to the public discourse.