To: Neocon who wrote (10267 ) 2/3/2002 2:46:38 AM From: jttmab Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284 Actually, it is a valid rhetorical device, showing that we would not rely on life expectancy statistics alone in evaluating the quality of health care if our well- being were at stake. It's not a valid rhetorical question, because the audience is unlikely to know what the medical care facilities are in those countries.They were not engaged in depth analysis. That's for sure.I do not see anything insidious in the omission of "European blacks", since it does not have to do with the particular point being made. It was absolutely relevant. The phrasing of that section clearly states that the relative size of the population of blacks in the US vs. Europe is the deciding factor. It implies that the health problems of blacks in Europe are comparabe.Also, as you may know, Chinatowns in every city except New York are emptying out, as the Chinese follow the normal pattern of immigrants, moving to better neighborhoods, particularly the suburbs, as they become more afluent. And as a new era of immigrants come to the US, we've got areas of Pakistanis, or Indian, or Mexican. In the first quarter of the 1900's, we had Irish, or German, or Bohemian, etc. neighborhoods. The demographics of immigrants doesn't change, just the name of the particular immigrants. It just took a 100 years or so for the Chinese to be "accepted". blacks have been shown to have more health problems Sycle-cell anemia being one. jttmabAs far as black demographics go, approximately two thirds are classified as middle class or better, only one third lives in impoverished circumstances. The primary correlation for being underserved is poverty, not race