If only states were capable of doing things to improve the lives of their residents above what the nation as a whole can do. Clearly it’s impossible. Woe be this poor powerless state politician.
Your justification doesn’t hold within its own logic. And doesn’t address how blatantly racist the statement itself is.
Solving it in his state is certainly a good way of spearheading a national solution.
As for you considering the statement racist: I was expecting a lot worse based on the headline. I don’t think grouping by race when looking at health statistics is inherently racist. Race can be relevant to health outcomes, among other reasons due to racism, and so one should be allowed to discuss that.
Deciding to ignore the problem because it predominantly affects a certain race is racist, but that wasn’t what was stated in the quote earlier in this thread, despite the headline suggesting it was.
Except adjusting for race is not appropriate. They are a significant portion of his constituent population. It may help explain a factor as to why it’s higher in his state. But I’ll bet being in a red state is also a factor given things like doctors fleeing, budget cuts, etc.
Additionally, such stats are prone to reflecting biases in the system rather than actual medically relevant information. Do black women have worse outcomes because of biological reasons, or because they are treated worse. This is one of those stats you have to be careful with because a nontrivial amount of time, it’s damn near proof of racism.
It’s appropriate if you follow up with investigations for the reasons that is happening and look for solutions to correct that. Other than, “Have you tried not being poor?” of course.
If only states were capable of doing things to improve the lives of their residents above what the nation as a whole can do. Clearly it’s impossible. Woe be this poor powerless state politician.
Your justification doesn’t hold within its own logic. And doesn’t address how blatantly racist the statement itself is.
Solving it in his state is certainly a good way of spearheading a national solution.
As for you considering the statement racist: I was expecting a lot worse based on the headline. I don’t think grouping by race when looking at health statistics is inherently racist. Race can be relevant to health outcomes, among other reasons due to racism, and so one should be allowed to discuss that.
Deciding to ignore the problem because it predominantly affects a certain race is racist, but that wasn’t what was stated in the quote earlier in this thread, despite the headline suggesting it was.
Except adjusting for race is not appropriate. They are a significant portion of his constituent population. It may help explain a factor as to why it’s higher in his state. But I’ll bet being in a red state is also a factor given things like doctors fleeing, budget cuts, etc.
Additionally, such stats are prone to reflecting biases in the system rather than actual medically relevant information. Do black women have worse outcomes because of biological reasons, or because they are treated worse. This is one of those stats you have to be careful with because a nontrivial amount of time, it’s damn near proof of racism.
It’s appropriate if you follow up with investigations for the reasons that is happening and look for solutions to correct that. Other than, “Have you tried not being poor?” of course.
Correct, I just don’t feel like pretending that that’s a thing they might do and that it isn’t the racism causing the problem.