Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “healthcare”

Don’t Blame ‘Racism’ and ‘Inequality’ For Alleged Racial Disparities In the Coronavirus

Does racism and a lack of access to healthcare explain why African Americans are allegedly suffering disproportionately from the coronavirus?

Or instead, do lifestyle choices—including diet, exercise, and obesity—explain this alleged disparity? What about the fact that certain disease (sickle cell anemia, for instance) affect blacks more than whites, and for reasons that have nothing to do with racism?

And does race even matter? Is it a good way or prism through which to understand and address COVID-19?

Sadly, there is no shortage of media reporting, editorializing, and political pontificating purporting to blame “racism” and “inequality” for alleged differences in how the coronavirus is affecting black and white communities.

Political Agendas. So-called progressives and other leftists in the media and Democratic Party are eager to use and exploit whatever crisis they can to advance their left-wing agenda, and this pandemic offers an especially appealing vehicle right now.

“Progressives” and leftists are eager to blame racism for all manner of problems: because then they can use said racism as an excuse or justification to push for racial reparations and government wealth redistribution programs that they claim will benefit African Americans, but which really will give the government more power and control over our lives.

But as Zaid Jilani observes at National Review:

We are still in the early stages of this pandemic, and the research on this topic is as novel as the virus itself. [So] it’s difficult to draw hard conclusions about the causal factors that explain who gets the virus and who succumbs from it.

Exactly. Relatively few Americans, in fact, have even been tested for the coronavirus. The United States has administered fewer coronavirus tests per million people than Germany, Italy, Canada, and South Korea, Vox reports.

Yet, the New York Times published an article Tues., Apr. 7, 2020, arguing that “Black Americans Face Alarming Rates of Coronavirus Infection in Some States.” But as Jilani points out, 

Ironically, on the same day the New York Times published [this] article… New York City revealed age-adjusted numbers showing that Latinos, not African Americans, had the highest age-adjusted coronavirus death rate.

Perhaps this will bring about calls that the Times have should have reframed its article around Latino death rates rather than black ones. Maybe another newspaper op-ed will call the virus a “Latino plague,” at least in New York City.

The city’s data also showed that, despite claims from New York City’s Public Advocate that “New Yorkers of more color” are disproportionately at higher risk, the Asian-American death rate is actually lower than that of whites.

One way to look at this data would be to scramble the racial hierarchy being assembled by liberal activists and the news media—Latinos actually have it “worst,” and Asians, another ethnic minority—have it “best.” But that would simply replace one form of distorted thinking for another.

Moreover, even assuming that racial disparities exist—which, again, is a premature conclusion, given that we don’t yet know enough about the prevalence of the coronavirus nor its effects within different demographic groups—it is far from clear that such disparities are caused by “racism” and “inequality.”

Correlation, after all, is not causation. Consider, for instance, sickle cell anemia. As M. Laurence Noisette, M.D. writes:

Sickle cell disease, an inherited disorder of the red blood cells, is more common in African Americans in the U.S. compared to other ethnicities—occurring in approximately 1 in 365 African Americans… 

“Sickle cell trait,” likewise, “is an inherited blood disorder that affects approximately 8 percent of African-Americans,” notes the American Society of Hematology.

Unlike sickle cell disease, in which patients have two genes that cause the production of abnormal hemoglobin, individuals with sickle cell trait carry only one defective gene and typically live normal lives without health problems related to sickle cell.

Granted, COVID-19 is caused by a respiratory virus, the coronavirus; it is not an inherited blood disorder. So it seems very unlikely that genetic or biological factors would explain any racial disparities in either its incidence or effects.

But the point is that correlation can be explained any number of factors—including but by no means limited to the fact that different diseases sometimes affect various racial and ethnic groups differently.

Thus, seizing upon “racism” and “inequality” as explanations for alleged disparities is bad, sloppy, simplistic, and politicized thinking. And this is especially true when there are other legitimate and plausible explanations.

For example, as we reported here at ResCon1, and as the Washington Examiner’s Tina Lowe observed, “new data seems to indicate that obesity is itself a risk factor” for dying from the coronavirus.

Why does this matter? Because, according to the U.S .Department of Health and Human Services Office of Minority Health:

  • African American women have the highest rates of obesity or being overweight compared to other groups in the United States. About 4 out of 5 African American women are overweight or obese.
  • In 2018, non-Hispanic blacks were 1.3 times more likely to be obese as compared to non-Hispanic whites.
  • In 2018, African American women were 50 percent more likely to be obese than non-Hispanic white women.
  • From 2013-2016, non-Hispanic black females were 2.3 times more likely to be overweight as compared to non-Hispanic white females.
  • People who are overweight are more likely to suffer from high blood pressure, high levels of blood fats, diabetes and LDL cholesterol—all risk factors for heart disease and stroke.
  • In 2018, African Americans were 20 percent less likely to engage in active physical activity as compared to non-Hispanic whites.

Underlying health conditions that make the coronavirus more dangerous and more fatal—hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease, for instance—also are more prevalent within the African American community; and these, too, are caused in large part by obesity.

Does “racism” and “inequality” explain these disparities? I suppose to the racially obsessed, the answer is always yes.

But assuming that this overly simplistic explanation is even partially true, the reality is that, whatever racism exists, all of us—black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, et al.—make daily choices in diet and lifestyle that dramatically affect our likelihood of being obese and of contracting high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease.

Disempowerment. And that is the biggest problem with obsessing over “racism” and “inequality” as politically convenient excuses for bad health outcomes: Doing so disempowers each of us and denies us agency over our own lives.

The truth is that all of us are in this together. We all face a pandemic that is truly international in scope, and which seriously threatens our very lives and economic well-being.

Dividing us up along racial lines to score cheap and unwarranted political points, while advancing a bad political agenda, is shameful and wrong. And it’s unsupported by the weight of the scientific evidence and data.

The coronavirus doesn’t discriminate; but all of us, certainly, should be more thoughtful and discriminating when it comes to blaming “racism” and “inequality” for the prevalence and effects of COVID-19 within different racial and demographic groups.

Feature photo credit: Data for Chinese COVID-19 deaths as of Feb. 11, 2020, Ruobing Su/Business Insider.

As the So-Called Public Option Shows, There Are No Moderate Democratic Presidential Candidates

The media typically portray the Democratic Party primary contest as a race between far-left “progressives,” such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and more “moderate” candidates such as Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, and Peter Buttigieg. But this divide reflects stylistic and personality differences more than it does genuine differences in politics and policy.

In truth, the Democratic presidential candidates are all frighteningly progressive or left-wing. They really don’t have any substantive disagreements.

In fact, the one big disagreement that they ostensibly do have—on health insurance, and whether to provide “Medicare for All”(Sanders and Warren) or just “Medicare for All Who Want It” via a “public option” (Biden, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg)—turns out to be a complete ruse.

A so-called public option “would increase the federal deficit dramatically and destabilize the market for private health insurance, threatening health-care quality and choice,” reports Lanhee Chen in today’s Wall Street Journal.

“Some 123 million people—roughly 1 in 3 Americans—he notes, would be enrolled in the public option by 2025, broadly displacing existing insurance.”

In other words, the “public option” is just a more politically palatable way of displacing private-sector health insurance with a “single-payer” government monopoly over time. Sanders and Warren would eliminate private-sector health insurance proudly and openly; Biden, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg would do so more discreetly and stealthily.

But the end result would be the same: a government monopoly on the health insurance market and the elimination of choice and competition in health care.

To progressives who distrust markets and love big government, this might sound good. What’s not to like?! they might say. The problem is that a government monopoly will result in skyrocketing and unsustainable costs and deteriorating healthcare for patients and consumers. Chen explains:

“Many health-care providers would suffer a dramatic drop in income, while at the same time experiencing greater demand for their services.

“Longer wait times and narrower provider networks would likely follow for those enrolled in the public option, harming patients’ health and reducing consumer choice.

“Declines in provider payments would also affect investment decisions by hospitals and may lead to fewer new doctors and other medical providers…

“We estimate that federal spending on the public option would exceed total military spending by 2042 and match combined spending on Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and ACA [the Affordable Care Act or ‘ObamaCare’] subsidies by 2049.

“In the latter year the public option would become the third most expensive government program, behind only Medicare and Social Security. The public option alone would raise the federal debt by 30% of gross domestic product over the next 30 years.”

And good luck with financing this disastrous scheme. Chen estimates that “if tax increases to pay for a politically realistic public option were limited to high-income filers, the top marginal rate would have to rise from the current 37% to 73% in 2049—a level not seen since the 1960s.

“Such large rate increases,” he observes, “would undoubtedly have [adverse] economic effects, causing revenue to fall short of our static estimates.”

In short, there is nothing “moderate” or reasonable about the so-called public option. It is a radical and dangerous idea that will wreak havoc in the health insurance market and lead to the elimination of private-sector health insurance.

America deserves better and American voters deserve the truth about the Democrats now running for president: There’s not a moderate in the bunch. They are all far-left progressives now.

Feature photo/illustration credit: Lydia Zuraw/California Healthline illustration; Getty Images, via California Healthline.