The AMA Is Advocating for the Creation of a Communist State
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
 
On May 11, the American Medical Association published its misguided "Organization Strategic Plan to Embed Racial Justice and Advance Health Equity" where it essentially embraced critical race theory as a valid sociological model to explain disparities in healthcare. Unfortunately for its members, the totality of the piece is a fatally flawed instrument devoid of any objective scientific merit and serving only as a mouthpiece for Leftist political dogma designed to sow hatred and discontent amongst America's various ethnic groups and races. The negative repercussions of the AMA's position will be widespread, rippling well beyond the medical industry. And although its lack of scientific merit is sad enough, the treatise also goes on to conflate, perhaps purposely, the concepts of equality and equity.  With this erroneous start, the AMA dives into an intellectual quicksand pit filled with ill-conceived logic and conclusions from which it is unable to escape, taking with it everything Americans ought to hold dear.  Its misconceptions begin at the very basics: with its misrepresentations of equality and equity.
 
Equality
 
According to the AMA, "Equality means providing the same amounts of resources across populations."  This is exactly not what equality means. "Equality" is not a verb.  It is a noun. Providing to another is an action, making it verb and an impossible definition for the word.  The American Heritage Dictionary, deines "equality" as "[t]he state or quality of being equal"; a noun, not a verb.  There is no providing. There is no giving.  There is no taking in equality.
 
The concept of equality exists only in hypotheticals, mathematics, and engineering.  Humans are not equal to each other.  Thank God they are not.  They are endowed with different skills, life experiences, understandings, and insights that make each of the 7.8 billion people uniquely different.  This is why there are great artist, scientists, doctors, nurses, businessmen and women, inventors, writers, philosophers, theologians, and philanthropists.  
 
A pernicious and creeping mischaracterization of the concept of equality has been taking place in the United States over the past century. Like the AMA, many are confused into believing that equality means a manufactured situation where we must all be equal in our possessions and in our resources.  Thus we come across the AMA's dangerous conclusion equality necessarily means "having the same amounts of and types of resources across populations."  This concept is as absurd as it is hazardous to human existence.  Of course, we cannot, nor should we have, the same amounts and types of resources across the population.  Why in the world would I want to have an igloo in Florida, and why would an Alaskan desire a surfboard?  Advocating for such parity is simply stupid, yet this is what the AMA believes we should be striving for.  
 
One of the foundational reasons the United States is such an exemplary country is precisely because it neither assumes that there is parity amongst its citizens nor does it strive to achieve it.  The reality is that when we speak of equality in the United States, we speak of equality in the eyes of the law.   It is not up to the government to make sure we are all equally homogenistic and inhuman, but it is the responsibility of government to grant us equal access to redress, equal representation, and an equal freedom to pursue our own passions independent of government coercion or interference. 
 
The AMA actually dismisses the concept of governmental noninterference by deceitfully averring that "Seeking to treat everyone the 'same' ignores the historical legacy of disinvestment and deprivation through historical policy and practice of marginalization and minoritizing communities. It has generated an unequal society that traces back prior to the founding of the country."  
 
But once again, the AMA gets it patently wrong.  The concept of treating "everyone the 'same'" was born of two ideas recognized by the Founding Fathers.  First was the danger inherent to a government that fails to treat everyone the "same."  It is precisely because all were not treated the same that Catholics were beheaded in England, that Puritans were incarcerated, the Jews were oppressed, and that anyone who dared to disagree with the crown was persecuted, devoid of his property, and oftentimes, killed.  Despite the AMA's delusion, it is precisely because individuals were not treated the "same" that the United States had state sponsored slavery, repressed women, and the discriminated, in fact and in law, against immigrants.  Moreover, this despotic process has been repeated in every country where it has been tried.  See Hitlers treatment of gays and Jews.  Somehow, the AMA stupidly wishes to return to that situation in the name of a misrepresented and improperly defined "equality."  
 
Equity
 
The next concept the AMA fumbles is that of equity.  Here, the AHD defines the term as "the state if being just and fair."  As opposed to equality, equity requires active manipulation in order to be achieved.  If there is to be justice and fairness, there must exist some body to administer it.  
 
When it comes to equity, the AMA does not even attempt to define the concept, rather it employs a description delusionally put forth by the World Health Organization describing equity as the "absence of unfair and unavoidable remediable differences in health among social groups."  
 
There is a level of discomfort in knowing that the AMA would turn to the WHO, an organization that has twice ignored Chinese misconduct in the handling of major global pandemics when it attempts to define equity.  To the AMA, "equity can be understood as both a process and an outcome, it involves sharing power with people to co-design interventions and investing and redistributing resources to the greatest need–with explicit consideration for how racism, gender and class oppression, ableism, xenophobia and English language supremacy impact outcomes."  (No, I am not making it up.  This is actually what the AMA published.)  Thus we come to the centerpiece of the fatally flawed nature of the AMA's proposal and the naked truth behind the inherent threat from CRT.  
 
According to the AMA, resources are to be redistributed to those in greatest need.  Fewer, more direct comments in support of communism have ever been made by an American professional organization.  Note how similar the AMA's language jibes with the writings of Karl Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."  The AMA is making no secret of its advocacy for Marxism in healthcare. In short, what the AMA wants is to control the means of production and apply its products in the manner it sees most fit to rid the world of poverty and to make people "as healthy as possible."  What the AMA is doing, while substituting race for class, is calling for warfare and strife between American factions while the government administers whatever wealth is produced in the manner it sees most fit.  And it hides its destructive theories under the cloak of making all "as healthy as possible"!
 
And if its brush with communism and totalitarianism were insufficient take a look at the equitable goal to which the  AMA aimes when it proudly quotes Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  "People ask me sometimes, when do you think it will be enough?  When will there be enough women on the court?  And my answer is when there are nine." That is, when 100% of justices are women.  
 
Translated to healthcare, then, the AMA is signaling that its efforts at achieving "equity" will not be completed until 100% of all physicians are black, disabled, non-Christians, Latinx (whatever those are), and women. Does this sound equitable to you? Honestly, it strains credulity that AMA leadership would have ever allowed its staff to have produced such a vile and disgusting statement.  Yet it did
.
But of course, we are not done.  Next up, the AMA's deranged understanding of racism.  
 
Please support our ability to cover the events most important to you.   Click here to join The Founding Fathers Club or donate to The Federalist Pages.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida.  He served in the Florida House of Representatives.  He is the author of numerous books including  The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons.  He may be contacted through his website: www.thefederalistpages.com.
 
 
 
 

The AMA's Primer on Equity Is Anything But
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Last I heard, the medical profession was still based on science.  If one proffers a theory or explanation, one must immediately find the supporting data to back it up.  In medicine, for example, one cannot simply say that amoxicillin is effective against strep throat, or that hip replacement surgery is amongst the most effective health improving surgeries out there.  One must gather the data and prove the point.  It follows then, that if one were to make an argument regarding medicine and the delivery of healthcare it should, at the very least, be based to some degree on scientific observation or analysis.  
 
On May 11, the American Medical Association, published "Organization Strategic Plan to Embed Racial Justice and Advance Health Equity" where it essentially embraced critical race theory as a valid sociological model to explain the disparities in healthcare. I immediately scorched the paperas divisive, hateful, and offensive.    But its abhorrence is only part of the problem. The AMA's white paper, as well as its position on race relations, is also devoid of any scientific support.  
 
Take its claims about equality, equity, and justice, for example:  
 
We operate in a carefully designed and maintained system that normalizes and legitimizes an array of dynamics—historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal—over time that routinely advantage white (also wealthy, hetero-, able-bodied, male, Christian, U.S.- born) people at the expense of Black, Latinx, Indigenous and people of color (also low wealth, women, people with disabilities, non-Christians, and those foreign-born) and that is currently reinforced by policies that are blind to power (political and financial) imbalances and realities.   AMA, "Organizational Strategic Plan to Embed Racial Justice and Advance Health Equity," May 11, 2021, p. 11.
 
The statement, which sets the tone of the rest of the paper, speaks more about the AMA's mindset and tarnished soul than it does about any American sociopolitical reality.   
 
First, who is the "we" to which the AMA refers in its claim?  Is it the American people?  Is it American physicians only?  Or perhaps the AMA is referring to the whole world when it denotes a system in which we operate.  
 
Second, who "carefully designed and maintained" the system in which the AMA claims "we operate"?  Is it God?  The Founding Fathers?  The Romans? Abraham when he entered into his covenant?  Knowing exactly of whom we are speaking is extremely important because it informs the corrections that need be taken; yet the AMA does not identify the crafter of the decrepit system it describes.  Clearly, rectifying the work of the Founding Fathers requires a radically different approach than the correction of a problem dating back to the antiquities. And if the AMA is trying to take on God–which on issues like abortion and gender identification it clearly has–then count me out.  
 
Third, what in the world is a Latinx?  I ask this in earnest because if the AMA is claiming that Latinx(es)–is that even right?–are being disadvantaged, where does that leave me, an American-born, second generation descendant of Cuban exiles who would never call himself a Lat. . . (I apologize, but I cannot even finish the word in reference to myself; it is so offensive).   According to the Pew Research Center, only about 3% of Hispanics use the term Latinx when describing themselves, yet the AMA employs it to describe a whole sociopolitical subgroup within the United States?  Is it the three percent to whom the AMA is referring, or all Hispanics (my offense over to the use of the term notwithstanding)?  
 
I am a second generation, Cuban descendant whose family hastily fled to the United States in fear of communism, am I not included in the AMA's description of the disadvantaged?  It seems that I would be, but the AMA's white paper is so biased that it fails to capture me. I am an orthopaedic surgeon, lawyer, former state representative, author, and a former naval officer, am I still disadvantaged? Or did I lose the disadvantage because I achieved?  
 
How about Clarence Thomas, is he disadvantaged?  Or Condoleezza Rice?  Is she intersectionally disadvantaged or did she lose the title because she also achieved? If people like Thomas and Rice are disadvantaged, how did so many like them in race and gender become so successful? Alternatively, if the AMA no longer considers Thomas and Rice disadvantaged, then isn't its model for systemic injustice inapplicable since the characteristics of the disadvantaged can be shed? 
 
Let's have the AMA, which is so inculcated in pointing out the inherent injustices of the "carefully designed and maintained system" answer this inconvenient question:  In what other country, could we have a Condoleezza Rice, a Barrack Obama, a Clarence Thomas, a Sonia Sotomayor, or a Susan Rice, among countless others?  Does the AMA honestly believe that Obama could have ever been the President of Kenya?  Could Clarence Thomas have been able to rise from the darkest recesses of poverty and elevate himself to the pinnacle of his profession in Columbia?  Mexico?  Sweden? How about answering the same questions about second generation Americans like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio?  
 
It seems then that there are serious gaps in the AMA's adopted model for interracial relations, but like any great non-scientist, it chooses not to address them. 
 
Here's another question the AMA fails to address: how does a system that disadvantages people with disabilities and "non-Christians" advantage white, wealthy, heterosexual, male, U.S.- born citizens?  I'm sorry, but I do not see the relationship between disadvantaged disabled non-Christians and white, male privilege, nor does the AMA point it out.  And relatedly, how is an individual's physical disability in any way the result or object of the machinations of the "we" the AMA fails to identify?  
 
Like the racist, hate-filled producers of the dogma the AMA is now trying to disseminate, they offer no scientific basis for their claims.  It does this purposely because its theorem falls apart under the weight of even the slightest scrutiny, yet it lays it out there as if these mischaracterizations and anti-American propaganda were accepted facts.  
 
Just as importantly, the AMA fails to address the alternative scenario.  What if the system "blind to power (political and financial) imbalances and realities", is really the only way to administer justice and provide opportunities for all unencumbered by oppression, favoritism, and tyranny?   The AMA does not consider this possibility, yet it sells it as fact.  By ignoring the consequences of manipulating outcomes, the AMA also dismisses its perverted take on equality and equity.  
 
But the discussion on the conflation of equity and equality must wait for another, not-too-distant day.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida.  He served in the Florida House of Representatives.  He is the author of numerous books including  The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons.  He may be contacted through his website: www.thefederalistpages.com.
 
 
 
 
 

Harris: Unfit for President if for No Other Reason Than This
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
 
Sometimes, there are occurrences so significant, so revealing that they display the future direction we are to follow or avoid.  
 
Such was the case this weekend when Kamala Harris, the Vice President Designate, published her Memorial Day tweet.  It was as curt as it was revolting.  Quite simply, it read, "Enjoy the long weekend," and was accompanied by a photograph of Harris smiling while looking off into the distance.
 
Memorial Day is no mere long weekend.  As every other American should know, Memorial Day is a time designated to remember those who gave their lives in service to our country.  It is said that the practice began with southern women who decorated the graves of fallen soldiers following the Civil War, but in fact, the custom was observed in northern states as well and even predated the War.   It is a solemn time of reverence, sadness, silent pride, and profound appreciation that ought not be sullied by the flaunting of trips to the beach, picnics, and leisurely pursuits.  
 
It's been a long time since we've heard the press use the term "gravitas"; that virtuous quality of solemnity in demeanor heralded to be so important in presidential candidates.  The quality was lauded by the press when it broke out in a cacophony of the term as it made the argument that then Republican Presidential Candidate George W. Bush was lacking in it.  Bush may have lacked gravitas, but never did he, nor would he ever, be as trite and offensive as Harris was here.  One wonders in what secret drawer our press hid its Gravitas Memo when it failed to retrieve it this weekend. 
 
Harris's cold relegation of this most solemn weekend to a mere "long weekend" is an insult to all Americans, but especially to the loved ones of those who have died in recent wars and operations in support of what ought to be a grateful nation.  That she would do this as the designated vice president of the United States is revolting. 
 
Her followers would tell you that she tried to fix it, but even in this regard she failed miserably.  On Saturday, Harries released a second tweet that appeared to be aimed at fixing the offensiveness of the first. In it, Harris wrote, "Throughout our history men and women have risked everything to defend our freedoms and our country.  As we prepare to honor them on Memorial Day, we remember their service and their sacrifice."  
 
Except that's not what we do on Memorial Day.  Memorial Day is not a day where we remember those who "have risked everything to defend our freedoms and our country."  That's true for every living member of our armed forces and of every veteran.  On Memorial Day, we remember those who actually gave everything, specifically their lives, in defense of our country. The difference is as stark as the Vice President Designate's tweets are buffoonish.  
 
Finally, on Monday, Harris released a tweet properly observing the nation's holiday. It read, "We honor those members of our military who sacrificed their lives in order to defend our freedoms."  But, in an occult acknowledgment of her prior missteps and the heat she received for her ignorance and insensitivity, she microaggressively added, "We owe these heroes–and their loved ones–everything.  Not just on Memorial Day.  Every Day."  
 
Her words rang argumentative and insincere.  
 
They say that the Vice President is one heartbeat away from being President of the United States. In this case, Harris is but a few brain cells and a twenty-fifth amendment hearing away from assuming the office.  As President Designate, she would assume the role of the Commander in Chief of the United States.  Her role would be to serve as the moral voice, not only of the nation's military, but also for the whole nation.  Her goal ought to be to demonstrate the same dignity and clarity of purpose as did George Washington himself.  
 
Instead, this weekend, Harris demonstrated her complete inability to serve as the nation's leader.  She has shown herself, once again, to be revolting, insincere, insensitive, and unappreciative.  It will be a dreadful day indeed if she were ever to take charge of the White House.  
 
 
Please support our ability to cover the events most important to you.   Click here to join The Founding Fathers Club or donate to The Federalist Pages.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida.  He served in the Florida House of Representatives.  He is the author of numerous books including  The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons.  He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.