PDA

View Full Version : Racial Preferences in the Democrats' Health Care Bill




bobbyw24
07-23-2009, 05:02 AM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html

Racial Preferences in the Democrats' Health Care Bill
By Allan J. Favish

All 1,018 pages of the Democrats' health care bill can be inspected here. The bill includes racial preferences. Under the Democrats' health care bill, if a medical school wants to increase its chances of receiving many different kinds of grants and contracts from the federal government, it should have a demonstrated record of training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups. This is because the Democrats' health care bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to give preference to the entities that have demonstrated such a record in the awarding of these contracts to medical schools and other institutions.

The bill does not state what would qualify as a "demonstrated record", so we can expect medical schools and the other entities to do whatever they think they can get away with to train as many "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups" as they think they might need to have a better "demonstrated record" in this regard then other entities competing for the grants and contracts. The Democrats' health care bill creates a very significant financial incentive for medical schools and other entities to lower admission standards for "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups" if that is what it takes to have the winning "demonstrated record".

On page 879-880, the bill states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services

"shall make grants to, or enter into contracts with, eligible entities . . . to operate a professional training program in the field of family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, or geriatrics, to provide financial assistance and traineeships and fellowships to those students, interns, residents or physicians who plan to work in or teach in the field of family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, or geriatrics."

On page 881-882 the bill states:

"In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds."

On page 883 the bill states:

"The Secretary shall make grants to, or enter into contracts with, eligible entities . . . to operate or participate in an established primary care residency training program, which may include-(A) planning and developing curricula; (B) recruitment and training of residents; and (C) retention of faculty."

On page 884-885 the bill states:

"In awarding grants and contracts . . . the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of training . . . individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds . . . ."

On page 887-889 the bill states that the

"Secretary shall make grants to, or enter into contracts with, eligible entities . . . to operate a professional training program for oral health professionals, to provide financial assistance and traineeships and fellowships to those professionals who plan to work in or teach general, pediatric, or public health dentistry, or dental hygiene, to establish, maintain, or improve academic administrative units (including departments, divisions, or other appropriate units) in the specialties of general, pediatric, or public health dentistry, to operate a loan repayment program for full-time faculty in a program of general, pediatric, or public health dentistry."

On page 889-890 the bill states:

"In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds."

On page 908-909 the bill states: "The Secretary shall award grants and contracts to eligible entities" to do the same things for the field of public health as the Secretary can do for dentistry.

On page 909 the bill states:

"In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds."

Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups", the Democrats' policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?

A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual's physical appearance or surname is no less a "badge of inferiority" than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats' racial preference program, all of the "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups" at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.

Allan J. Favish is an attorney in Los Angeles. His website is allanfavish.com.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html at July 23, 2009 - 07:11:23 AM EDT

literatim
07-23-2009, 05:08 AM
So essentially, it is an anti-white bill.

bobbyw24
07-23-2009, 05:11 AM
So essentially, it is an anti-white bill.


Obamacare Imperils Caucasian Seniors

Friday, July 17, 2009 1:30 PM

By: Lowell Ponte Article Font Size



“Disparate impact” is the civil rights legal doctrine that persuaded Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor to dismiss claims by Connecticut firefighters who passed a test for promotion.


That test, passed by several whites and one Hispanic, was failed by every

African-American firefighter who took it. This kind of disparate impact has been regarded as de facto evidence that a test was somehow defective and inherently discriminatory.


Let's apply this same controversial doctrine to the extreme scheme for socializing American healthcare now before the U.S. House of Representatives.


Does this radical House healthcare plan treat all Americans equally? If not, then to be intellectually consistent and egalitarian the liberals in Congress should reject it as discriminatory and racist.


This version of President Barack Obama's government plan to nationalize healthcare is called “Medicare for all” by some supporters, a reminder that we already have something akin to socialized medicine for senior citizens.


But Obama's new proposal to extend medical care will drastically shift its benefits. Under this new regime, writes veteran political analyst Dick Morris, “the elderly will go from being the group with the most access to free medical care to the one with the least access. . . .”


“The principal impact of the Obama healthcare program,” Morris continues, “will be to reduce sharply the medical services the elderly can use. No longer will their every medical need be met, their every medication prescribed, their every need to improve their quality of life answered.”


In other socialized medical systems, care has been rationed, allocated based on social calculations, especially for senior citizens.


In Canada and Great Britain, this has meant delay or denial of life-saving drugs, organ transplants, heart surgery, and other procedures to those who have retired as worker-taxpayers and now are seen by bean-counting socialist bureaucrats merely as a drain on limited welfare state resources.


Current liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg a week ago told The New York Times Magazine that the abortion-permitting ruling Roe v. Wade she supports came at a time when “there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid [i.e., Medicare for the poor] funding for abortion.”


One could infer that Ginsberg appears, from her own chilling words, to have seen Roe as eugenics, as a way to weed people of color out of the gene pool by reducing their numbers.


And, indeed, America's African-American population would by one estimate be as much as 23 percent larger today had liberals never imposed Roe v. Wade nor provided government-funded abortion.


This new liberal “health” scheme would give us more eugenics, more selective killing-off of what many on the left regard as a population “we don't want to have too many of” — today's predominantly conservative Caucasian senior citizens.


In 1940, at the dawn of a decade that began the baby boom, the U.S. Census found America a country 89.8 percent white. By 2000 the proportion of Caucasians in America's population had fallen to 75.1 percent.


Last August the U.S. Census Bureau projected that American Caucasians will become a minority in the United States by 2042, a mere 33 years from now. This has already happened in California and Hawaii.


These Euro-Americans are aging as well as shrinking in percentage relative to other Americans. The average Caucasian American is older than the average African-American or Hispanic-American.


We know that Obama's propaganda in support of socialized medicine has been Orwellian — using deception to declare his healthcare takeover urgently important and would save money. (This latter claim was slapped down hard on Thursday by the Congressional Budget Office, whose research clearly suggests that Obamacare will be a money pit, a black hole devouring at least $1.5 trillion year after year with scant evidence it will improve medicine for most Americans.)


But Obama's healthcare scheme is also Darwinian, throwing America into a survival-of-the-fittest struggle for politically-allotted health resources that will pit seniors against younger Americans.


Obama will suck away medical resources in Medicare that now go mostly to Caucasian senior citizens and reallocate healthcare to younger, largely minority people — including more than 10 million illegal aliens — expected to pay taxes (and disproportionately vote Democratic) for decades to come.


Darwinian eugenicists can safely project that this reallocation of healthcare will increase and accelerate the die-off rate of elderly, disproportionately white conservative Americans who vote Republican and worship God.


By rationing healthcare for this population group that needs it most — senior citizens — Obamacare will hasten their deaths. He will also increase the tax burden on private pensions they earned.


And because those seniors are mostly white, Obamacare will speed the day when Caucasians become a minority group (albeit without special rights and preferences granted to more politically correct minorities) here.


Medicare survives today only because it typically pays only 80 percent or so of medical treatment costs, forcing doctors and hospitals to make up the loss by overcharging those with private insurance.


Can Obamacare survive economically after it drives private insurance out of business? Page 16 of the current House healthcare bill makes clear its intention to choke out private competitors so that government quickly acquires monopoly control over all healthcare.


Surely it is mere coincidence that America's first African-American president is promoting a policy to redistribute healthcare from one racial group to others, and that this will disproportionately cause the premature deaths of potentially millions of conservative elderly Caucasian voters.


But whether intended or not, Obamacare will have a “disparate impact,” harming white Americans more than Americans of color. It is de facto discrimination against Caucasian Americans.


As Sotomayor should tell Obama, racism that kills its victims is the most unacceptable racism of all.


Lowell Ponte is co-host of the radio show “Night-Watch,” heard live nationwide Monday through Friday, 10 p.m. to midnight Eastern time, on gcnlive.com.



© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

MsDoodahs
07-23-2009, 07:36 AM
This is so sad....

bobbyw24
07-24-2009, 06:08 AM
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104719

Obamacare for old folks: Just 'cut your life short'
Health plan provision demands 'end-of-life' counseling


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The version of President Obama's universal health care plan pending in the U.S. House would require "end-of-life" counseling for senior citizens, and the former lieutenant governor for the state of New York is warning people to "protect their parents" from the measure.

At issue is section 1233 of the legislative proposal that deals with a government requirement for an "Advance Care Planning Consultation."

Betsy McCaughey, the former New York state officer, told former president candidate Fred Thompson during an interview on his radio program the "consultation" is no more or less than an attempt to convince seniors to die.

(Story continues below)



"One of the most shocking things is page 425, where the Congress would make it mandatory absolutely that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session," she said. "They will tell [them] how to end their life sooner."

The proposal specifically calls for the consultation to recommend "palliative care and hospice" for seniors in their mandatory counseling sessions. Palliative care and hospice generally focus only on pain relief until death.

Reclaim your health! Read "What Your Doctor Doesn't Know About Nutritional Medicine May Be Killing You"

The measure requires "an explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title."

Excerpt from health care plan


It also recommends a method for death: "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."



Another excerpt from the Obamacare plan


Then there's a third reference that sets out reporting requirements for doctors to monitor how such end-of-life orders are followed.

Under "QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE," the bill says, "For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment."

A third excerpt from Obamacare


McCaughey said she was stunned.

"As a patient advocate I am so shocked at the vicious assault on elderly people and the boomer generation," she told Thompson. "I hope people listening will protect their parents from what is intended under this bill."

She cited the federal provision that such counseling sessions must be administered every five years. If there's a significant change in the person's health or status during that time, such as an ordinary move to a nursing home because of declining physical abilities, the counseling must be administered again.

The message, she said, is "to do what's in society's best interests, and cut your life short."

"Can you imagine the response of the American people (when they find out)?" Thompson asked..

McCaughey is a health policy expert who founded HospitalInfection.org to stop hospital-acquired infections as well as DefendYourHealthCare.us concerning the proposed nationalization of health care.

The law also allows preferences that treatment levels set up by patients "may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all … interventions."

McCaughey also said the Obama administration is suggesting that medical care be withheld from seniors based on the expected years they have left to live. Such a program already is in effect in the United Kingdom, where patients losing their eyesight to age-related macular degeneration cannot be given an eyesight-saving medication until they lose sight in one eye.