Obamacare contains many racial preferences. But that fact has drawn remarkably little attention, even though the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights concluded back in 2009 that the healthcare bill was racially discriminatory, in two ways.

First, Obamacare is filled with “sections that factor in race when awarding billions in contracts, scholarships and grants” and give “preferential treatment to minority students for scholarships.”

Second, as an African-American member of the Commission noted, it “creates separate and unequal operating standards for long-term care facilities that serve racial and ethnic minorities.”

By granting HHS “the discretion to waive substantial penalties . . . for failing to report elder abuse and other crimes committed against residents of long-term care facilities that serve racial and ethnic minorities,” it “could increase the probability that residents of such facilities won’t receive the same level of protection as residents of nursing homes that serve non-minority populations.”


As the Daily Caller points out, some of these racial preferences reflect a weird theory promoted by certain Obamacare architects: that the healthcare system should promote “racial concordance,” a fancy word for “pairing patients and doctors of the same race, a goal toward which the law channels taxpayer dollars.”

The idea is that patients do better with doctors of the same race. But this motivation for using race conflicts with Supreme Court rulings, which reject such racial pairing as a reason for using race.

 djones520 wrote:
Now to look at the real issues of it. Why does it do some of this? What is the purpose of it?

Access to culturally competent care
Clear communication is essential to healthy patient outcomes, even when there is no
language barrier. At least 66 million patient-provider encounters occur across language
barriers each year.13 Without interpreter services, these patients have a more difficult time
obtaining medical services, receive lower-quality health care, and have a greater chance
of experiencing negative health outcomes. As many as one in five Spanish-speaking
Americans report not seeking medical care because of language barriers.14
Research suggests that health care providers’ diagnostic and treatment decisions, as well as
their feelings about patients, are influenced by patients’ race or ethnicity.15 Several studies
have shown that racial concordance is substantially and positively related to patient satisfaction,
although it is not essential for patient satisfaction.16
A 2007 report that looked at cultural and linguistic services in hospitals found that there
is much that needs to be done to address cultural and linguistic barriers, particularly in
the areas of language access services, informed consent and related patient-education
processes, and the collection and use of patient demographic data.17

Improving the health care workforce’s diversity and cultural sensitivity
Twenty-five percent of the U.S. population is composed of underrepresented groups, yet these
minorities represent only 10 percent of the individuals in health professions and are growing
very modestly. Hispanics account for 12 percent of the population, but only 2 percent
of nurses and 3.5 percent of physicians. Less than one in 20 doctors or dentists are African
American, even though one in eight persons in the United States are African American.
The Sullivan Commission on Diversity in the Healthcare Workforce examined disparities
and diversity in the health care system in 2004 and noted that “the lack of minority health
professionals is compounding the nation’s persistent racial and ethnic health disparities.”52
Increasing the number of underrepresented groups in the health professions can help
address health care disparities by both improving access and responding more effectively
to minority population needs. Studies have shown that minority health care professionals
are more likely to work in underserved areas, and there is also evidence that race concordance—
defined as shared racial or ethnic identities between clinicians and patients—is
related to patient reports of satisfaction, participatory decision making, timeliness of treatment,
and trust in the health system.53
The House bill directly addresses this issue. It provides scholarships and loan repayment
support for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds serving in the health professions,
and it grants funding for the Health Careers Opportunities Program, which supports
schools that recruit and train individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds to work in the
health professions. The bill also establishes a grant program at HRSA to promote health
care professionals’ cultural and linguistic competence.
The House bill has several provisions that look to reduce health disparities through the
provision of language services. The Secretary of HHS is required to develop a demonstration
program to promote access for Medicare beneficiaries with limited English proficiency
by providing reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services.
The program would also conduct a study on the extent to which Medicare providers utilize
or make available language services and ways that Medicare should develop payment
systems for language services. A second study requires the IOM to examine how the provision
of language services affects quality of care, access to care, reduction in medical errors,
and related costs or savings.
The Senate bill establishes demonstration grants to create increased opportunities for lowincome
individuals and other entry-level workers to receive education, training, certification,
and professional development for occupations in health care by providing financial
aid and supportive services such as child care. These are programs that will assist with
increasing workforce diversity.

 djones520 wrote:
Partisan source, yes. Cites other partisan sources, yes. Ok, got that out of the way. Now to look at the real issues of it. Why does it do some of this? What is the purpose of it?

 Ouze wrote:
The more interesting part is that anyone at all was interested in what she had to say, since she is an Australian. I have it on good authority that Australians should shut the hell up about healthcare in America because they don't know what they are talking about

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps that isn't what they mean. Perhaps it refers to different geographical locations.

For example, New Orleans had a 66% black population in the 2010 census.

cadbren wrote:
White people are the minority in several States but are never referred to as a minority.

 djones520 wrote:
Ignoring the DailyCaller crap (yes, I think DailyCaller is as bad as DailyKos, etc...), what concerns me is the US Civil Rights Commissions take on this.

cadbren wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps that isn't what they mean. Perhaps it refers to different geographical locations.

For example, New Orleans had a 66% black population in the 2010 census.

Which would still be regarded as a minority population. American officials use the phrase majority minority when referring to groups who are not white but who make up the majority of a local population group. Minority in the USA simply means non-white, though I think it can refer to the LGBT community too. White people are the minority in several States but are never referred to as a minority. It will be interesting to see if they keep those terms once white people become a minority in the USA.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

cadbren wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps that isn't what they mean. Perhaps it refers to different geographical locations.

For example, New Orleans had a 66% black population in the 2010 census.

Which would still be regarded as a minority population. American officials use the phrase majority minority when referring to groups who are not white but who make up the majority of a local population group. Minority in the USA simply means non-white, though I think it can refer to the LGBT community too. White people are the minority in several States but are never referred to as a minority. It will be interesting to see if they keep those terms once white people become a minority in the USA.

Circular argument.

cadbren wrote:

Circular argument.

Incomplete sentence.

 Ouze wrote:
OT; where spontaneous, multi-user Haiku can take form.