Persuasive Statement About Racial Prejudices in The Health Care

Health surpasses party lines, genders, classes, religions, regions and races. Healthcare universally be a common denominator of concern, yet healthcare seems to be one of the most divisive and controversial issues in modern politics. Though there are several arguments as to why healthcare has become so polarizing, this persuasive essay argues that in health care sphere racial prejudice is visibly indicative of views towards accessibility to healthcare. While other factors may be influential, racial prejudice encompasses these factors, revealing biases to be the underlying cause of the extremes of polarization on healthcare policy stances within the past decade.

While overt racism may or may not be in play, subconscious racism can manifest politically through displaying disapproval of public policies that majorly benefits minorities. This is measured in “symbolic racism,” which is the role Whites’ attitudes play in politics. In this way, the political implication of subtle racism goes beyond the individual, and seeps into the sphere of public policy. Universal healthcare exemplifies a public policy that majorly benefits minorities, given that in 2011 non-Hispanic Whites are uninsured at a rate of 11.7% whereas Blacks are uninsured at nearly double the rate of 20.8%, and Hispanics even more so at 30.7%. The visible differences in access to healthcare illuminates the impact race has on access to healthcare throughout the United States. Furthermore, Whites are considerably less likely to support welfare than Blacks . It is evident that there is a racial divide, therefore it is imperative that there it is understanding of why such extremes have polarized racially.

The stark contrast in the percentage of Blacks and Hispanics who are uninsured compared to Whites is additionally reflected in whether or not different racial groups supported or opposed universal healthcare. Racial prejudice was found to be a crucial indicator of whether or not citizens support healthcare reform. White U.S. citizens who held an above-the-mean level of racial resentment towards Black U.S citizens were found to be extremely less likely to support initiatives for healthcare reform (Heatherington and Weiler). Such an example illustrates that racial resentment polarizes constituents about their opinions regarding public policy, particularly policy that has profound racial outcomes.

Polarization due to racial attitudes is further illustrated when citizens attribute universal healthcare policies to a white man versus believing they were instituted by a black man. In a 2009 research study, researchers participants with a higher implicit bias held a much more negative view towards healthcare reform ideas that were proposed as Obama’s, while having a more positive view when the same ideas on healthcare reform appeared to proposed by Bill Clinton. These findings highlight that racial prejudice plays a role in signaling citizens which policies to support or resent, a juxtaposition to the claims that race has nothing to do with how citizens views Obama’s reforms to healthcare.

The racial polarization may not be due to White Americans alone, though. While racial resentment has influenced white citizens stances on public policy, racial identity has influenced Black Americans stances as well. Black Americans identify more with certain policies that Black Americans are more highly affected by, and therefore support policies that benefit other Black Americans. When asked about the favorability of welfare policies, Black Americans are 20% more likely to be in support. Black Americans are equally polarized on this issue, although for different reasoning than racial resentment.

Surely, the claim cannot be made that race plays a sizable role in determining attitudes toward healthcare without taking other controls into consideration. One study done tested attitudes toward healthcare between 2008 and 2010 with controls such as levels of partisanship and political ideology, general racial resentment, resentment toward Black people, resentment towards other non-white races, income levels, worry about the cost of healthcare, age, gender and education. Through this investigation, it was discovered that race and racial attitudes were the sole signifiers in explaining changes in healthcare attitudes. Not only were there changes in public opinions of healthcare, the changes were immensely drastic. The study found that Americans with high levels of racial resentment were 29 percentage points more likely to have a negative view towards healthcare reform between 2008 and 2010. While this study focuses on racial resentment due to a Black politician rather than subtly racist views that form public policy opinions, the impact of racial resentment on public policy opinions is still clear.

While these studies make visible implications of racial prejudice influencing White opinions on healthcare, there has been a considerable amount of refutation. Naysayers argue that opposition of any form of welfare is due to middle-class Americans hostility towards paying taxes into programs that only benefit the poor, as well as the concept that many American citizens believe in individual initiative and responsibility. More broadly, those that oppose the idea that racial biases play a part in opinions on welfare programs such as healthcare are due to self-interest and individualism. While these views may be an interpretation of the data presented, the lack of findings on ties to racial prejudice are due in large to the fact that most studies that have reached such conclusions did not test for measures of racial prejudice to begin with. There very well may have been ties to participants’ views regarding race, they simply disregarded that race could have been a factor to begin with.

Healthcare is not simply a public policy rooted in fundamental values and hypothetical outcomes; in cases across the United States, it can be a matter of life and death. The results of the studies observed have led me to two normative conclusions: that racial influences have catastrophic outcomes for people of color, primarily Black and Hispanic people and secondly that it is dangerous how divisive an issue can become simply when a person of color in office is behind a policy.

The evidence presented has given visible proof that racial resentment has evolved into public policy, which alone is alarming. In an ideal world, opinions on policy would be the strongest indicators of whether citizens will support a policy, though it is clear that is and has not been the case. What is additionally concerning is that racial resentment appears to trump every other factor, including if the individual acquires healthcare themselves. The effects of lack of healthcare are immense, with a lack of access to healthcare resulting in at least

45, 000 deaths a year (American Journal of Public Health). In the United States alone, it draws into question how many people could be saved from their illnesses without the element of racial biases and symbolic racism as mentioned previously. Considering the steep contrast between the insurance of white people in comparison to the lack of insurance of people of color, people of color are at a much higher risk to die simply because of a lack of access to healthcare. Moreover, access to healthcare does not even take problems such as racial discrimination of healthcare professionals [PV6] issues such as suffering health from racial trauma (National Research Council) into consideration, therefore adding another level of oppression onto people of color simply based on discrimination overlapping with stances on policy.

In addition to how general racial resentment contributes to the lack of support on healthcare, it is of equal concern that the race of the man who initiated a significant change within the American healthcare system is also a deciding factor of whether it will garner support. This revelation is telling of how fragile the state of American politics is. The role in the race of the president has no actual implications for constituents, it is an unchanging constant that reveals no clues on whether policy will be beneficial or harmful; yet something so minimal can change the outcomes of support or disapproval for how America should be governed.

The information found also has implications how issues that appear to be non-racial have racial undertones to them. healthcare is not a transparently racial issue. Views on healthcare would be due in large to whether or not citizens support the government having a small or large role in the lives of constituents, and potentially if they can afford private insurance as well. Yet, given that polarization on healthcare views is reflective of racial resentment, clearly healthcare becomes a racial issue.

While I did not find much information on elites being tested for racial discrimination, I would be curious to know how at large symbolic racism plays into how elites vote on certain issues such as expanding access to healthcare. The impact of racial resentment of the public is abhorrent but means nothing politically without elites also resenting policies due to views on race. In regard to health care as well as various other issues, it is evident that there is a clear party divide. When Obama put his plans for health care reform before Congress, all of the votes for the Affordable Care Act and Patient Protection came from Democrats, while those who voted against the ACA and Patient Protection were majority Republicans in addition to some Democrats (U.S Senate). It would be interesting to see if those who voted against Obamacare similarly had high levels of racial prejudice as citizens who found Obamacare unfavorable. If so, the research could highlight how racial minorities in America are still institutionally affected by racism. It would also prove, as much of the information in this paper does, that America is not a post-racial society. There are still major effects of racism and how that contributes to the lives of people of color as a conglomerate more than simply on an individual level.

Though this information would be extremely revealing, I believe it would be extremely difficult to obtain. If this study were to happen at all, there would be no question that participants surveyed would be anonymous, or elites would have even less of an inclination to be involved with the study. The participants of the study would ideally be all members of the House and Senate and would measure their levels of racial resentment. When analyzing the results to discover whether racial resentment is linked to stances on healthcare, the levels of racial resentment within political elites would then be compared to votes on increasing or reducing public access to health care.

Outcomes of stances on health care directly impact all Americans, regardless of their demographics. Some argue that health care is a human right, while others argue that health care should not be given to those that have not worked hard enough for it. The polarization of health care may not be so simple to be blamed primarily on policy position, but requires a deeper look in order to address the racial construction of certain issues and how prejudice can affect whether or not all people in America have the safety nets required to live a healthy life.