Reverse racism/Affirmative Action aspects to Obamacare

Migrated from the "grumpy old peeps thread" as the discussion there is wandering off topic, badly.

https://sciencefictionforums.forumotion.com/t1740p20-grumpy-old-peeps

Bandit wrote:

There is indeed inequality in our country. What concerns me, is if I think the government needs to do something about it. In many cases, I do not think they do. In many more, I think they have done too much, and caused more damage than good.

Weather or not you like the term, reverse racism is real. You really need to get past this white vs black thing, and see the world around you. Chinese citizens living in Japan absolutely discriminate against the Japanese. So do Koreans. And the Japanese citizens living in either China or Korea return the gesture. It's all over Asia. We took note of it during WW2. It wasn't until the 60's that reverse racism came to the US during Affirmative action.

It simply means that a majority ethnic group is being discriminated against by a minor one. Now you may think it's a bunch of rubbish, but Conservatives do not, and I agree with them.

As for name calling, the majority of it I have seen at this board, is by Conservatives. It was in fact a Conservative that called Liberals "Nuts" in my post. Still, I wouldn't say it's exclusively a tactic of either side.

Has anyone noted the reverse racism/affirmative action aspects to Obamacare?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/20/obamacare-seeks-to-segregate-patients-doctors-by-race/#ixzz2iQ6WIC00

Quote :

While the 2010 Patient Protecion and Affordable Care Act’s language on diversity sounds innocuous, a review of the frankly separatist thinking of the law’s ardent supporters indicates Obamacare is aiming for a health care system that puts political correctness above the struggle against illness and death.

A 2009 report by the Center for American Progress (CAP) examining the House and Senate bill eventually signed by President Barack Obama advocates pairing patients and doctors of the same race, a goal toward which the law channels taxpayer dollars.

There are also aspects regarding favoritism for black medical students and so forth. Are we to have relaxed standard for black students? Which will then paired with black patients after they graduate and become doctors?

Is that something we want?

Almost everything in this country anymore, especially if the government is involved, has built in racism against whites. Of course they also have built in sexism against men, I guess one could use another nonsense term to describe that called "reverse sexism". But as far as your direct question...

Quote :

Are we to have relaxed standard for black students?

We already do, blacks have an easier time getting into most colleges. They aren't required to have as high of GPA's, extracurriculars, SAT/ACT scores, etc as what the white students are expected to have. Given the fact they are given an easier "in" to college, and the fact they are given preference for hiring after college, why would that preferential treatment not apply while they are students?

I do not think there will be a relaxed standard. However, I am against pairing of like races between doctors and patients. That's as bad as doing the same with genders.

Bandit wrote:

I do not think there will be a relaxed standard. However, I am against pairing of like races between doctors and patients. That's as bad as doing the same with genders.

The entire idea of Affirmative Action is relaxed standards for the favored group. Just look around at the various places it's been put into place; Fire/Police, Military, etc. The standards are lowered for women. Standards for admission to educational programs are lowered for the favored targets. It's the basis of how it works.

And I'm not a sexist/racist/whatever-ist. If two people can do the same job, with the same resources and the same results, who cares what gender or race they are. I've been going to the same primary care physician for 25 years. And I'm very happy with HER service. If I wasn't, male/female/whatever, I would have changed doctors long ago. I just hope that with the Obamacare nightmare, I can continue to use her services.

If my house catches fire, and the fireperson who comes to my aid (assuming I need it) is able to do the job, what do I care what gender or race they are. However, if the person is not able to carry me because she's a female who weighs half what I do, well, I think I might care in that case.

If you can do the job without special favors or exceptions to the rules, fine. have at it. If you can't, then fine also. You just can't do that job.

Annoyed wrote:

The entire idea of Affirmative Action is relaxed standards for the favored group. Just look around at the various places it's been put into place; Fire/Police, Military, etc. The standards are lowered for women. Standards for admission to educational programs are lowered for the favored targets. It's the basis of how it works.

And I'm not a sexist/racist/whatever-ist. If two people can do the same job, with the same resources and the same results, who cares what gender or race they are. I've been going to the same primary care physician for 25 years. And I'm very happy with HER service.  If I wasn't, male/female/whatever, I would have changed doctors long ago.  I just hope that with the Obamacare nightmare, I can continue to use her services.

If my house catches fire, and the fireperson who comes to my aid (assuming I need it) is able to do the job, what do I care what gender or race they are. However, if the person is not able to carry me because she's a female who weighs half what I do, well, I think I might care in that case.

If you can do the job without special favors or exceptions to the rules, fine. have at it. If you can't, then  fine also. You just can't do that job.

The idea behind Affirmative action, was to level the field of employment. You could not be discriminated against because of Race, Color, Creed, or national origin. If you were fully qualified for any given job, then you must be considered for said job. That order said nothing about lowering standards, nor meeting quota's.

Now of note, is the fact people would trust a black MAN with the duties of a Doctor with no formal education, before a fully qualified woman. As such women were last to be accepted into the medical Doctor field, and even that was a fluke. Even with Affirmative action, I could discriminate against women, because they were not included. Not until 1967.

My point here, is at no point were the standards lowered. From the first fully accredited, licensed black Medical Doctor to the first white female, the standards were/are the same as a white male. So I see no reason that would change with Obamacare.

So lets look before the accreditation's and license. Sorry, but it already is as easy as it ever will be, for a minority to enter the medical field at any school.

My Primary Care Doctor is a black male. My Dentist is an Indian (India) female. Both are awesome. As they explained it to me, it (Obamacare) has no effect one me, as their patient. However, it might have an effect on their respective practices, as both are private. They're not sure yet.

Bandit wrote:

The idea behind Affirmative action, was to level the field of employment. You could not be discriminated against because of Race, Color, Creed, or national origin. If you were fully qualified for any given job, then you must be considered for said job. That order said nothing about lowering standards, nor meeting quota's.

Do you really believe that?
I'm not going to spend a lot of time proving  the ridiculously obvious, but feel free if you doubt me.

I present the results of about 30 seconds worth of effort on Google.
"examples of lowered standards affirmative action"

https://www.google.com/search?q=examples+o+lowered+standards+affirmative+action&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=examples+of+lowered+standards+affirmative+action&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&safe=off

One of the top hits:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=693

Quote :

In recent years, the SAT scores of white applicants to U.S. colleges and universities have been, on average, about 200 points higher than those of their black counterparts. Nonetheless, black students have been admitted to virtually all academically competitive schools at much higher rates than whites. At Amherst College in 1995, for instance, 51 percent of black applicants were admitted vs. just 19 percent of white applicants. At Rice University that same year, the corresponding numbers were 52 percent and 25 percent for blacks and whites, respectively. At Bowdoin College, the figures were 70 percent and 30 percent. In their 1998 book The Shape of the River, Ivy League professors William Bowen and Derek Bok report that at five of America's most elite universities, black applicants whose SAT scores fell within the 1200 to 1249 range had a 60 percent chance of admission, whereas whites with similar scores had just a 19 percent chance.

At medical schools the situation is much the same. The Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) scores of blacks who are accepted are actually lower than those of whites who are rejected. At the University of Maryland Medical School in 2000, blacks with college GPAs of B or B+ and MCAT scores in the bottom half of all test-takers had a 70 percent chance of admission; for whites and Asians of similar credentials, the chance was 2 percent.

At America's top law schools, blacks are admitted at fully 17 times the rate that a colorblind process would allow. At UCLA Law School in 1994, a black applicant with a college GPA between 2.5 and 3.5, and an LSAT score between 60 and 90, had a 61 percent chance of admission. The corresponding rates for similarly qualified Asians and whites were 7 percent and 1 percent, respectively. Consider also Texas Law School, which in 1992 rejected 668 white applicants before rejecting a single black. Fully 100 percent of blacks who scored between 189 and 192 in the school’s academic rating system were admitted, as compared to just 6 percent of whites.

It should also be noted that affirmative action has occasionally been applied to favor whites over blacks. In 1995, for example, a federal judge ordered Alabama State University (ASU), which was virtually all black, to spend $1 million per year on scholarships for white applicants only so as to attract students whose presence would "diversify" the ASU campus. Consequently, in the 1996-1997 school year ASU gave out 671 scholarships to white students -- one for almost every white who enrolled. As a general rule, affirmative action tends to lower standards for its beneficiaries, and ASU was no exception. To be eligible for many of these white scholarships, students needed only a C average, and in some cases were not even required to have earned a high-school diploma.


Adapted from "The Ugly Face of Racial Preferences," by John Perazzo
(August 13, 2001).

Bandit lives in a fantasy world that bears little resemblance to ours. Just ignore him and let him enjoy his unicorns, reverse racism, fairies, and AA that produces equality.

Annoyed wrote:

Do you really believe that?

Yes, because it's the truth. Don't think me so naive as to believe Affirmative action is at all what it was intended to be. I don't even need Google to prove it.

Still, you posted this:

The entire idea of Affirmative Action is relaxed standards for the favored group.


I expect that kind of statement from someone like Eber, but NOT you. You sir, disappointed me.

I am well aware of what Affirmative action has become, and furthermore how and why that came to be. It had nothing to do with JFK's order starting it in 1961. It was what LBJ CHANGED it into starting in 1965. Google that, and then you'll see the start of quota's and lowered standards. That's the how. Look further, and you'll see the why.

As you seem to have ignored it, I'll repost this:

My point here, is at no point were the standards lowered. From the first fully accredited, licensed black Medical Doctor to the first white female, the standards were/are the same as a white male. So I see no reason that would change with Obamacare.

So lets look before the accreditation's and license. Sorry, but it already is as easy as it ever will be, for a minority to enter the medical field at any school.

Your post proves me correct. However, graduating and getting the license is a whole different matter. That you have to actually earn.

But we're getting way off topic. If you wish to discuss AA, start a thread, and I'll meet you there. As I stated, I do not think Obamacare has any impact on it, or to do with it.

And here is another example of relaxed standards in the name of "equality".
http://nypost.com/2013/11/10/female-fdny-recruit-fails-running-test-five-times-but-graduates-anyway/

Seems that she has been unable to pass a required test not once, but 5 times, and has still been allowed to graduate.

Quote :

At the end of 18 weeks of probationary training, Tapia failed to run 1¹/₂ miles in 12 minutes without gear, as required by the academy. She blamed a foot injury.

The FDNY let her graduate anyway — and gave her five more deadlines over the past six months to pass the running test.

She failed all five times, insiders said.

Normally, probationary firefighters who fail the running test at the end of academy training don’t graduate — period. They flunk out but can join the next academy class, start over and get another chance to pass the course.

The article doesn't say, but I'd be willing to bet one of two things; either 1.5 miles in 12 minutes is an easier time then males are expected to complete the run in, or when NY started letting women be firefighters they lowered the requirements across the board.

Annoyed wrote:

And here is another example of relaxed standards in the name of "equality".

I disagree. Where are they seeking "equality"?

I felt there was more going on here than just the female. I present 15 seconds worth of effort using Google.

FDNY Academy Class of 2013

That is an article on Wendy Tapia's entire class. As you can see, NONE of the graduates from 2013 had to meet the same standards from the last class (2008). Lets look closely at those numbers.

870 EMT's/Paramedics took the entrance exams/fitness tests. These people had no physical fitness standards required for that job. 318 made it in to start class on Jan 15. The breakdown was 42 percent are black, Hispanic or Asian, and six are women. Of those, 285 graduated on May 17 and 5 were women, including Tapia.

Out of 318 that started the class, 166 failed the first physical fitness test: Four pull-ups, 30 push-ups in one minute, 30 sit-ups in one minute and a 1.5-mile run in 12 minutes. Regardless of race, age or gender, that is the standard.

And out of 318 around 33 quit before Mar 3. For 285 to have graduated, means unless you quit or died, if you started the class, you graduated, period. Of the 166 that failed that fitness test, I can promise you more than a few were white males. I can also promise you, that at least half still cannot pass that test.

So they used "relaxed standards" to meet minority quotas, not to have any sort of equality.

Yes this is a another example of affirmative action which is supposed to promote equality in hiring. Some judge decided that there weren't enough minorities in the fire dept so he ordered they had to have a certain percent added. And the whole reason there weren't many minorities in the FD in the first place is because they tend to not apply and when they do, not be able to make the qualifications, so in order to have "equality" in make up of firemen, they now have to lower the standards in order comply with some judges order. So now they have a bunch of unqualified people in the NYFD. You just better hope that if you have to call the NYFD that the only REAL minority in this country, straight white men, show up.

Bandit wrote:

So they used "relaxed standards" to meet minority quotas, not to have any sort of equality.

And what is the reason for minority quotas? An affirmative action program?

It doesn't make a difference who the favored group is, women, minorities, gays, or little green men from Alpha Centauri. Affirmative action is damaging to whatever it's applied to.

Annoyed wrote:

Affirmative action is damaging to whatever it's applied to.

Well it certainly damages the "white men only" club, now doesn't it?

Lets face the facts, shall we? Back in 2007, FDNY had 335 Black firefighters out of a total of approximately 11,500 firefighters, barely more than 2.9 percent. New York City as a whole, by comparison, is 27 percent Black.

New York City also has the least diverse fire department of any major city in America – only 7.4 percent Black and Latino. 57 percent of Los Angeles’ firefighters, 51 percent of Philadelphia’s, and 40 percent of Boston’s are people of color. The fire departments are 30 percent Black in Baltimore and 23 percent Black in Chicago. So what is up in NY?

That the city of New York and its FD were discriminating, was plainly obvious. During the investigation, the EEOC found that the written exam not only had a majority of questions that favored those with a higher education than needed for the job, the questions themselves had NOTHING even remotely to do with being a fireman or firefighting. In short, it was likely that those with just a HS diploma, or worse, a GED (Black/Latino) would fail the test. They also found that Black/Latino males that passed the test and even graduated with their class, still were not hired, sometimes for years, in favor of a white male. And the physical fitness test? That was intended to take out most of the females that applied.

So what you showed us, was a massive case of racial/sexual discrimination, that cost NY hundreds of millions when they got caught.

Go Whitey!

Were they giving the same test to all applicants? Were all applicants required to take the same physical fitness test?

And exactly what are you implying by saying that with a high school education, Blacks/Latinos were more likely to fail? That Blacks/Latinos are less intelligent?

Or are you suggesting Blacks/Latinos were were victims of Affirmative Action programs in schools, allowing them to meet lower standards than white males in order to graduate?

If the same process is applied to all applicants equally, you don't have discrimination. If you are lowering the standards for certain groups, then you do. But if it's reverse discrimination, it doesn't count, does it?

Annoyed wrote:

If the same process is applied to all applicants equally, you don't have discrimination.

Exactly, which is what they did have. But now they are being forced to let unqualified people in in order to meet AA quotas. Firefighting is a very physically demanding job, only about 1-2% of women are physically strong enough to meet the requirements that men must meet. So, instead of a man who can carry 150-200 pound victim to safety, we now have women who can't even carry a 50 pound eight year old to safety. Sorry, but it isn't "sexist" to exclude women from jobs they are physically unable to do. Now if they excluded the 2% that can do it, then it would be. Affirmative Action, assuring that unqualified people get jobs based on their sex, race, and orientation. Meanwhile qualified straight white men can go F themselves.

Annoyed wrote:

If you are lowering the standards for certain groups, then you do. But if it's reverse discrimination, it doesn't count, does it?

Nope, because not only is racism against straight white men accepted and expected, it's very much required.

Annoyed wrote:

Were they giving the same test to all applicants? Were all applicants required to take the same physical fitness test?

I've already researched more into this incident than you have, and YOU posted it. So YOU do some, report back to me.

Quote :

And exactly what are you implying by saying that with a high school education, Blacks/Latinos were more likely to fail? That Blacks/Latinos are less intelligent?

Same as above. Keep it confined to NYC and the FDNY.

Quote :

Or are you suggesting Blacks/Latinos were were victims of Affirmative Action programs in schools, allowing them to meet lower standards than white males in order to graduate?

As posted, your article has nothing to do with affirmative action.

Quote :

If the same process is applied to all applicants equally, you don't have discrimination. If you are lowering the standards for certain groups, then you do. But if it's reverse discrimination, it doesn't count, does it?

I have already made my position on affirmative action, discrimination, and reverse discrimination clear.

Another example of relaxed standards to allow affirmative action goals.

http://www.npr.org/2013/12/27/257363943/marines-most-female-recruits-dont-meet-new-pullup-standard

Now, if you were in a a combat situation, would you want to be with people who were allowed in, regardless of them being able to meet the standards or not?

If a woman can meet the same standards as men do, I have no problem with their wishing to serve. If they can't, they can't. End of Discussion. Or so it should be.

And this applies to all types of affirmative action, no matter who the group being given the preferential treatment is.

Annoyed wrote:

Another example of relaxed standards to allow affirmative action goals.

Um, no. It's another example of you not knowing what you're talking about.

Quote :

This year, for the first time in the history of the Marine Corps, the graduation class at its infantry training course will include women.

Fifteen women voluntarily began the training at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, on September 24. On Thursday, three of them will graduate from the course, a milestone for women seeking equality in the Armed Forces, according to Capt. Maureen Krebs, a Marine Corps spokeswoman.

A fourth woman finished the course, but was injured and couldn't pass the required combat fitness test. She will be allowed to graduate once she heals and passes that test.

The women went through the same physically grueling exercises as the male Marines, including carry 90 pounds of combat gear on a 12.5-mile march, Krebs said.

They also had to perform three pull ups, just as the men did. For ordinary Marine Corps physical fitness tests, women can choose either the pull up or something called a "flew arm hang."

This is part of Marine Corps research regarding the capability of women to serve in infantry units. Since last year, 10 women officers have entered Marine infantry officer training at Marine Base Quantico, Virginia. So far none of the officers have completed that course.

However, the women who passed the enlisted course will not join infantry units. They instead will be sent to non-combat jobs throughout the Corps. Their 59 days of arduous work will instead become part of the Marine Corps ongoing research into the possibility of having women serve in combat.

USMC linkage

They have over a dozen women now, but none serve in the Infantry because they're females.

The point here, is the standard isn't changing. The article you posted is just part of the research.

Bandit wrote:

Annoyed wrote:

Another example of relaxed standards to allow affirmative action goals.

Um, no. It's another example of you not knowing what you're talking about.

Quote :

This year, for the first time in the history of the Marine Corps, the graduation class at its infantry training course will include women.

Fifteen women voluntarily began the training at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, on September 24. On Thursday, three of them will graduate from the course, a milestone for women seeking equality in the Armed Forces, according to Capt. Maureen Krebs, a Marine Corps spokeswoman.

A fourth woman finished the course, but was injured and couldn't pass the required combat fitness test. She will be allowed to graduate once she heals and passes that test.

The women went through the same physically grueling exercises as the male Marines, including carry 90 pounds of combat gear on a 12.5-mile march, Krebs said.

They also had to perform three pull ups, just as the men did. For ordinary Marine Corps physical fitness tests, women can choose either the pull up or something called a "flew arm hang."

This is part of Marine Corps research regarding the capability of women to serve in infantry units. Since last year, 10 women officers have entered Marine infantry officer training at Marine Base Quantico, Virginia. So far none of the officers have completed that course.

However, the women who passed the enlisted course will not join infantry units. They instead will be sent to non-combat jobs throughout the Corps. Their 59 days of arduous work will instead become part of the Marine Corps ongoing research into the possibility of having women serve in combat.

USMC linkage

They have over a dozen women now, but none serve in the Infantry because they're females.

The point here, is the standard isn't changing. The article you posted is just part of the research.

Three pullups that is all the Marines have to do. I was up to 50 when I was in the Navy even though did not have to do them. It helped with doing push ups and when I was getting my expert rifle and pistol. Needed the upper body strength to shoot when standing.

From the article I cited.

Quote :

Marine officers would not talk to NPR on tape. They said they delayed the pullup requirement to avoid losing not only recruits but also current female Marines who can't pass the test.

Quote :

For years, female Marines have had to meet a different standard — an exercise called the "flexed arm hang" (holding one's chin above the pullup bar for at least 15 seconds).

How can you not see the favoritism there?

Bottom line: Men and women are built differently. In some areas, they are our superiors, and in others, we are their superiors. Yes, you will find exception to the rules, but overall, women simply don't have the physical strength men do. Adjusting the rules to allow them to bypass standards that they cannot meet is discrimination. If you want to claim equality, you have to be equal in whatever attribute you're measuring.

And here's another beaut.

Quote :

Some Marine officers privately say only a handful of Marine women will show interest in combat or be able to pass the course.

And what of some male draftee who "doesn't show interest" in combat? Will he be given a pass excusing him from combat?

And finally, let's discuss the draft itself. If women want to claim equality with men as far as the military goes, if men are subject to the draft, shouldn't women be also.

Again, it's either identical treatment for all comers or it's discrimination. No exceptions, no excuses. It's either equal or it isn't.

Annoyed wrote:

How can you not see the favoritism there?

Because there isn't any. Females have one standard, males another. Regardless, you fail to make the standard for your gender, buh-bye. It has been this way since long before you were born.

Annoyed wrote:

Bottom line: Men and women are built differently. In some areas, they are our superiors, and in others, we are their superiors. Yes, you will find exception to the rules, but overall, women simply don't have the physical strength men do. Adjusting the rules to allow them to bypass standards that they cannot meet is discrimination. If you want to claim equality, you have to be equal in whatever attribute you're measuring.

Brilliant! From now on, men must shave their legs and armpits, wear a bra to support their massive pecs, and also wear slips, skirts, panty hose, and high heels. How's that for equality? Why allow a different standard of appearance for men? We FORCE women to do this, so back at you.

Annoyed wrote:

Some Marine officers privately say only a handful of Marine women will show interest in combat or be able to pass the course.

Annoyed wrote:

And what of some male draftee who "doesn't show interest" in combat? Will he be given a pass excusing him from combat?

No, he will dodge the draft like males do, and leave a woman to fight for him.


And finally, let's discuss the draft itself. If women want to claim equality with men as far as the military goes, if men are subject to the draft, shouldn't women be also.

Absolutely. But again, women were not running from combat, men were.

Again, it's either identical treatment for all comers or it's discrimination. No exceptions, no excuses.  It's either equal or it isn't.

And yet you ignore the fact there was NOTHING in the USMC Infantry Course that a woman could not do.

The military isn't trying to turn men into women, or women into men. They are different, and we both understand the differences and apply them where needed. If those women could not do the pullups, they never would have passed.

The fact is, if men were even half the man they claim to be, women would have never needed to step up to the plate in the first place.

If the women can meet the physical standards for infantry as long as those standards stay the same they should be able to participate in combat. However America better be ready for the horror stories.

Bandit wrote:

Annoyed wrote:

How can you not see the favoritism there?

Because there isn't any. Females have one standard, males another. Regardless, you fail to make the standard for your gender, buh-bye. It has been this way since long before you were born.

How can that not be considered preferential treatment? If you want equality, you can't have different standards.

Thank you very much for a very effective end of this discussion.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

If the women can meet the physical standards for infantry as long as those standards stay the same they should be able to participate in combat. However America better be ready for the horror stories.

Yup. I care less about your physical assessment test score. That still does not mean you will pass infantry school.

But women are not stupid. Most will avoid combat arms. Not because they cannot physically handle it. Not because they fear combat. Simply because they'll never get promoted. Heck, even in Support and Service Support, there are too many males competing for the same jobs. With the continued downsizing of the forces, there are only so many jobs to have.