Did You Know...

   

Racial Preferences in Obamacare

Share
By mmguestblogger  •  March 23, 2010 12:43 PM

stethoscopeHello, comrades! The government’s take-over of the American health care system is almost complete.

The federal government, which does all things so well, is one step closer to making our medical decisions and having access to our medical records.

If that sounds like a far-fetched conspiracy theory, stretch your mind for a moment. Who could have imagined that the United States would adopt socialized medicine? That was a far-fetched idea not too long ago. But here we are.

Transfer of wealth and “crucial decisions” aside, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act contains provisions that provide incentives for racial discrimination. I mentioned the so-called health care bill’s racial preference provisions on the American Civil Rights Institute’s blog a while back.

One provision states that programs with “a record of training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or from a rural or disadvantaged background” will be given priority for government money. This is only one of several such provisions. Programs and medical institutions that practice racial preferences will be moved further up the money queue than programs and medical institutions that disregard race.

The one who disregards skin color is penalized. Hopenchange in America!

By the way, the Civil Rights Act prohibits government racial discrimination and preferences. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights called the provisions racially discriminatory and sent President Barack Obama and Congress letters warning them about the provisions. The politicians ignored the warning, naturally.

The Commission said the inclusion of the discriminatory provisions appeared to motivated by a crusade to narrow racial health care disparities and the belief that the disparities are caused by a shortage of medical professionals who are members of preferred minority groups. Seriously.

The Commission rightly concluded that medical institutions competing for federal dollars may end up lowering academic standards for minority applicants, and added that “race-based attempts to achieve some ill-defined ‘critical mass’ of minority students or to demonstrate a ‘sufficient’ record of training such students are constitutionally suspect… As we noted in our October 9, 2009 letter, it is generally illegal for the government to show favoritism or even use classifications based on race, ethnicity, or sex.”

If the Obama administration’s going to violate the Civil Rights Act, one would think the discriminatory provisions actually would solve the racial health care disparity problem. The Commission cited research that showed raising the quality of care at hospitals in the 500 largest minority serving areas would improve minority health care more than eliminating racial disparities within every provider in the U.S.

This finding seems intuitive, but the racism-under-every-rock civil rights industry prefers to deal in quantity over quality. Why adopt controversial and illegal discrimination and preferences over simply improving care for all?

blog comments powered by Disqus
~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's Email List:

California Assembly Passes Racial Preferences Bill

June 4, 2010 10:09 AM by mmguestblogger

One problem. California voters banned preferences in 1996.

The diversity housing racket in Berkeley

October 1, 2008 06:27 AM by Michelle Malkin

Shakedown.

Right in ’08: Colorado Civil Rights Initiative qualifies for the ballot

March 25, 2008 08:32 PM by Michelle Malkin

Milestone.

SCOTUS decides racial preference cases Update: Equality wins!

June 28, 2007 09:43 AM by Michelle Malkin


Categories: Affirmative action, Diversity, Supreme Court

Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook