Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

I'm not in favour of race determining who gets treatment.

Now, does an imbalance exist in who gets treatment today?

if it does, how should it be fixed?

Thankyou.

In who gets treatment? Yes, I'm not sure if this is race based but it certainly is wealth based. There is a disparity in outcomes in some areas based on race however..

And I am not sure, but I would not instigate a racist policy such as is being done. One thing to do would be to have universal healthcare, but this is America we are talking about.

Why is there a disparity of outcomes based on race? Are existing policies discriminating by race?

You are not sure how to fix a problem of discrimination by race but have yourself all in a twist that a policy to fix that also has to discriminate, how else would it be done? I mean, by definition, if there is existing discrimination, trying to fix it by targeting everyone cant fix it, that would be really really dumb, the existing discrimination would still exist unless targeted directly.

A lot of the discrimination that exists in the USA has been systemic which means systemic responses are needed to solve it, it's unfortunate, but up until the last few decades, they treated people with a different skin colour as second class citizens, it takes time and directed effort to fix those problems.

I think it's reasonable to go after these imbalances specifically (positive discrimination?) to try and undo the damage of past policies, this is what is generally happening in the USA (and other countries, though not specifically on race in all cases, it can be based on background, upbringing and parental income, for example). People don't like bringing race into it (which is weird as we had a big fight on this Island over discrimination based on religion) but it did happen and hasn't really been tackled properly, unless there is a genetic reason for the different outcomes it doesn't make sense that outcomes would be different based on race of people growing up and living in the same country.

So, in your opinion, outcome difference is explained by a higher percentage being overweight, does that track through results? Is a non-overweight African American woman going to have the same outcome as a non-overweight white woman? Is the difference exactly 20%? And that's before going into why that is the case (poorer upbringing based on previous racist policies leaning towards cheaper higher calorific food content).

The policies exist to undo decades and centuries worth of damage that was done based on race, yes, it would be nice to wave a wand and have equal access and opportunity for all, but that world doesn't exist which means that specific efforts need to be made instead. I don't believe there is anything particularly outrageous about that.

My point was that different health outcomes by race does not necessarily imply racial prejudice, as, for example, a larger number of people within a certain race may lead less healthy lifestyles. Another example is would be that Native Americans are more likely to smoke.

'The policies exist to undo decades and centuries worth of damage that was done based on race, yes, it would be nice to wave a wand and have equal access and opportunity for all, but that world doesn't exist which means that specific efforts need to be made instead. I don't believe there is anything particularly outrageous about that.'

No ones access nor ability to be treated should be based on their race, triage should never be based on race. It's as simple as that. Suggesting it is ok to do any of those three things is absolutely outrageous.

Wealth and other health factors does not explain the full disparity between outcomes based on race. If you have evidence to suggest it does please present it as you just seem to be assuming that it explains everything and we can go on to pretend like race doesn't effect outcomes.

Even the initial system for deciding triage was based on data from white people, I posted earlier about a paper showing the same numbers don't lead to the same outcomes for African Americans so the method of deciding triage picked up the bias used in creating it. I don't think anyone involved in this was racist but they simply didn't think it through and get a diverse enough sample.

This is the type of thing that has happened and will keep happening unless there is concious effort to avoid it.

There's an unfortunate confluence of historical discrimination based on race, and current discrimination based most on wealth. Many of the poorest communities are black, which have their roots in racism. Solving the problem isn't going to be achieved by turning pitting different ethnic groups against each other.

In trying to address the historical issues, politicians and activists focus too much on the racial aspect, over the economic one. The problems poor communities face are fairly universal, regardless of racial background. Lack of access to banking, to healthcare, to education, to jobs. These issues should be unifying, yet instead the conversation is white vs everyone else.

Telling African Americans to smoke less does not discriminate against other races, nor does any campaign have to directly target African Americans, it could target all smokers. Just because you think both those issues should be targeted by race, doesn't mean that everyone else does.

And I'm not interested in a 'shouty match' , nor am I right wing.

The facts and data are the facts and data. They do not imply that we have to engage in discriminatory policies that are race based.

Yes, it does. That's positive discrimination going on right there and again getting to the nub of why you don't understand the policy that was in place.

No it doesn't, if they decided to, for example, hand out nicotine patches to African Americans free of charge, whereas all other races had to pay, then that would be race based discrimination. Or worse, gave free nicotine patches free to everyone bar Asian Americans.

And again, such a policy need not be implemented.

It doesn't have to create resentment and division (and tbh, most of the shouting about it comes from one particular direction). If the goal is to restore balance to something then you have to target what caused the imbalance in the first place not just "target everything" because the imbalance will just remain. If we took €100 off every male in the country 10 years ago as part of a gender based discrimination policy and wanted to redress that, would we give €100 back to everybody or target who was discriminated against? Would those who didn't get the redress resent those who did? If so, why?

So, I run a campaign targeting African Americans specifically (say I use Facebook to do so) and it's OK because others potentially might see it? But spending the same or less on nicotine patches is outrageous?

You've talked yourself into a logical fallacy here.