Tags: Obama | healthcare | racism

Obamacare Imperils Caucasian Seniors

By Friday, 17 July 2009 01:30 PM Current | Bio | Archive

“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.

© 2020 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
“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...
Friday, 17 July 2009 01:30 PM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved