About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Charen falsely claims health care reform "mandate[s] racial and ethnic quotas"

March 15, 2010 5:42 pm ET — 11 Comments

Columnist Mona Charen falsely claimed that the House health care reform bill contains mandated "racial and ethnic quotas for medical schools and other federal contractors." In fact, the bill contains no quota mandates.

Charen falsehood: House bill mandates "racial and ethnic quotas"

From Charen's March 12 syndicated column:

Among the specifications of the House bill that passed last November are several sections that mandate racial and ethnic quotas for medical schools and other federal contractors. As Allan Favish reported in The American Thinker, the bill specifies that the secretary of Health and Human Services, "In awarding grants or contracts under this section ... shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of ... training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds."

This, along with other provisions, is broad enough to cover every medical, nursing, dental school and teaching hospital in the country and guarantees the institutionalization of racial, sex, and ethnic quotas in perpetuity (though the use of the word "underrepresented" before "minority" ensures that the quotas will not apply to Asians or Jews).

The rationale for quotas, insofar as there is one, is that African-Americans and Hispanics have, on average, poorer health than other groups. Liberals assume that these disparities are the result of discrimination or lack of access to health care rather than other factors like poverty, eating habits, heredity, and fitness. If medical and dental schools are required to admit more minority applicants, newly minted minority professionals will tend to those "underserved" populations.

Of course, medical and dental schools have been practicing affirmative action for decades, but they've had trouble recruiting large numbers of minorities. Part of the problem is that African-Americans do not tend to gravitate to math and science (the solution to which is to be found in families and schools). Still, for the past few decades, less-qualified minorities have been offered spots in medical schools, with the result that: 1) Those minority professionals who would have qualified without affirmative action bear a stigma, and 2) less-qualified minorities fail licensing exams at much higher rates than their classmates. Is it a service to the African-American or Hispanic communities to provide physicians and dentists who are less capable than others? Will it improve health outcomes to be treated by less-qualified professionals?

McCaughey falsely suggested that "racial and ethnic preferences" were only criterion for grants. Charen's statement echoes a false suggestion previously advanced by serial health care misinformer Betsy McCaughey, that only "racial and ethnic preferences" would be used in providing education grants training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. [Wall Street Journal op-ed, 11/7/2009]

Bill outlines preferences for federal grants, doesn't mandate quotas

Bill lists several preferences for allocating training grants, including demonstrating a proven track record in training underrepresented minorities. In a July 21, 2009, column, American Thinker's Favish, whose work Charen cited, referenced Section 2213 of the draft House health care bill, which addresses the establishment of "a primary care training and capacity building program consisting of awarding grants and contracts." The section does not mandate quotas; rather, it establishes guidelines that the government "shall give preference to" in awarding the grants, including a proven track record "[t]raining individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds." From the bill:

''(d) PREFERENCE.--In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following:

''(1) Training the greatest percentage, or significantly improving the percentage, of health care professionals who provide primary care.

''(2) Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.

''(3) A high rate of placing graduates in practice settings having the principal focus of serving in underserved areas or populations experiencing health disparities (including serving patients eligible for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act or for child health assistance under title XXI of such Act or those with special health care needs).

''(4) Supporting teaching programs that address the health care needs of vulnerable populations.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by shaggles (March 15, 2010 6:52 pm ET)
      5  
      Isn't the goal to get everybody covered regardless of race and ethnicity?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (March 15, 2010 9:01 pm ET)
          7
        No, the goal is to get 1/6 of the nation's economy under the direct control of the federal government. It's called socialism.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ScienceBuff (March 15, 2010 10:54 pm ET)
          5  
          If that's the goal, this bill fails miserably. It doesn't come anywhere close to putting the health care industry under federal government control. Luckily, that's only the goal as seen by the ignorant and paranoid.

          The fact that health care makes up 1/6 of the US GDP is indicative of the reason we need health care availability reform.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by txthinker (March 16, 2010 9:40 am ET)
            2  
            No, the goal is to get 1/6 of the nation's economy under the direct control of the federal government. It's called socialism.

            And the goal of your post is to spread some right-wing ignorance and propaganda. The bill is for insurance coverage - it does NOTHING to take over hospitals or make doctors government employees.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by shaggles (March 16, 2010 1:28 pm ET)
            1  
            "The fact that health care makes up 1/6 of the US GDP is indicative of the reason we need health care availability reform."

            That's what I think every time I hear that tired talking point.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by thaneb (March 16, 2010 11:45 am ET)
             
          In your imagination. How did you get there?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (March 15, 2010 8:59 pm ET)
        5
      It says what Charen says it says. MMFA seems to think that if someone says something they don't like, the other person is lying.
      MMFA is a bunch of pompous fools.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wookie (March 15, 2010 9:37 pm ET)
        4  
        The right knows that quotas were shot down by the Supremes in 1978. But of course you keep using it. When in doubt just go with the southern strategy of "the brown people are out to steal all of the perks".
        Report Abuse
        • Author by rtejon (March 16, 2010 5:44 pm ET)
          1  
          There can be no other plausible purpose to Charen's assertion.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Another_Cat (March 16, 2010 2:28 am ET)
        2  
        Yes, it says what it says...not what you think it says. Preference to an entity (school) that demonstrates a track record of training the underrepresented minorities or those from disadvantaged backgrounds. So if you are poor, but have the skills to cut it as a medical professional once someone trains you, the funding would preferably be given to the school that can train you and your other-than-white neighbor. It doesn't mean that those schools have to get that funding, but when the folks getting ready to dole out the funds look, they should be looking for those criteria first, that all. Nowhere is there a mandate to do so, neither is there a mandate or quota for how much money or how many schools like that get the money. Nowhere. So it says what it says, which is not what is being claimed by the right wing media outlets listed in the article.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Pedro2 (March 16, 2010 10:49 am ET)
        1
      How can you say whether it is true or false when there are over 2000 pages to interpret. Even Nancy Pelosi said we won't know what is in it until it passes.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.