>>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 ever

>>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.