Race Concordance and Obamacare — Segregation in Style

All these years we thought that segregation was wrong, and here, we find out it actually works out better when you apply it to health care.

President Obama’s infinitely controversial Affordable Care Act is now being accused of a concept called “race concordance.”  The idea is that a black doctor is more likely to take better care of a black patient.  A white doctor is more likely to take better care of a white patient than a black patient.  Extrapolate that out to every race you ever heard of.

collage1-e1382229718482A lot of blogs (mostly Republican in nature, as you might imagine) are pitching this latest knock on Obamacare, citing millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars siphoned into funding this concept.  Is it true?  Well, Common Sense Conspiracy looked into the matter, and the only correct answer is “Who knows?”

Navigate the complicated nuances of the ACA, which Congress famously didn’t understand or even read before passing it into law.  Navigate our ridiculously convoluted financial system, and try to determine where funds really go.  Navigate the politically-correct statements made by our leaders, from the President himself to the lowliest member of Congress.

If you can rationalize that out to a cohesive answer, then our hat’s off to you.  A lot of these political blogs are claiming to have done just that and found that Obama is promoting racial segregation in health care.  We find that there’s absolutely no way to know that for sure.

But with Obama’s track record of wanting to enhance conditions for African American students in education while overlooking, I don’t know, Americans (which we have wrote numerous articles on), it seems fairly reasonable that this may be the case.

So, we ask our readers.  What do you think?
[polldaddy poll=7496257]

One thought on “Race Concordance and Obamacare — Segregation in Style”

  1. I hope, and am convinced by your tone, that this isn’t intended as an objective report on the facts. It takes little open-minded inquiry to get a grasp on the context and concern here and to overcome the propaganda machines on both sides of the aisle. Instead you were flip and critical, taking lightly the misinformation that only deepens and widens the political divide in our nation. And you didn’t bother to supply any supporting information like, perhaps, the clause in question in the ACA.

    And your poll? Entirely useless and just another rhetorical device to perpetuate misinformation and disrespect a complex matter. You would get a more accurate reading on this kind of preference to ask, “Do you prefer to see a doctor of your same gender for sex-specific health issues? Or are you content to see any doctor with the credentials to treat you?” I assure you that your results would be quite different, and you would get at the issue at hand more objectively.

    Looks like I’ll stick to filtering through the BS on my own. Thank you, but no, thank you.

Comments are closed.