Image 01 Image 03

You cannot Just say No to the Obamacare race questionnaire

You cannot Just say No to the Obamacare race questionnaire

State your race and ethnicity, or no doctor for you.

The image below was sent to me by a reader who went for a visit to a physician, and was told that she could not be seen unless she filled out this race and ethnicity questionnaire, and put her name on the form.

She initially refused, but they insisted that it was required or she could not see the doctor. The form does indicate that it is mandatory under Section 4302 of Obamacare.

Section 4302 is explained by HHS as follows:

Overview of Section 4302 of the Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes several provisions aimed at eliminating health disparities in America. Section 4302 (Understanding health disparities: data collection and analysis) of the ACA focuses on the standardization, collection, analysis, and reporting of health disparities data. While data alone will not reduce disparities, it can be foundational to our efforts to understand the causes, design effective responses, and evaluate our progress.

Section 4302 requires the Secretary of DHHS to establish data collection standards for race, ethnicity, sex, primary language, and disability status. The law requires that, once established, these data collection standards be used, to the extent practicable, in all national population health surveys. In response to this statutory requirement, this implementation guidance outlines the new minimum data collection standards for race, ethnicity, sex, primary language and disability status for implementation in HHS, along with a description of the data standards development process, the rationale for each data standard, and instructions for their implementation.

You cannot Just Say No.

Obamacare Ethnicity Questionnaire


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Just check “American Indian”.

If Fauxcahontas can do it …

Ve haff vays to make you co-operate.

Let me get this straight. I’m not supposed to know anything about anyone else’s race or ethnicity but the government can know everything about mine.

Welcome to the USS of A.

2nd Ammendment Mother | February 5, 2014 at 5:20 pm

And soon, you won’t be able to “refuse to answer” when you’re doctor asks if you have firearms in your home. And I suspect that if you lie and say no, that it could be used as a premise for a felony charge later for lieing to a government agent, aka your doctor.

    Speaking as a physician, I feel that (barring very particular circumstances) an MD asking you about whether you have firearms has way too much time on his or her hands. Or some political axe to grind, in which case find yourself another doctor. In the 15 minutes (or less) we typically have to see a patient, just finding out about the reason for the visit, and actually important preventative stuff such as smoking, blood pressure, diabetes and physical activity take up all the allotted time.

    If physicians are forced to document a discussion about firearms as a quality (i.e. physician performance) metric find one who will put in the note “We discussed health maintenance and safety issues including wearing a seat belt in automobiles, proper storage and handling of firearms, wearing a helmet when bicycling or motorcycling, and having a fire extinguisher and smoke and CO2 alarms in the home. The patient indicated s/he understood the conversation, and questions, if any, were answered to his or her satisfaction.” That’s a piece of boilerplate that then appears in EVERY patient’s note and does not indicate whether a particular patient has firearms, or indeed if s/he rides a motorcycle or bicycle.

    So as not to commit fraud I would indeed say to the patient while face to face “I am obligated to say: Please wear a seatbelt in cars, a helmet while cycling, and if you have firearms handle and store them safely.” Followed by “I am happy to discuss any of those further in detail if you like, but only if you want to.” Usually people are perfectly happy to get out of the office with that.

      Michiguy in reply to Michiguy. | February 5, 2014 at 9:06 pm

      Gah. Carbon monoxide, not CO2.

      Juba Doobai! in reply to Michiguy. | February 5, 2014 at 9:13 pm

      Great post.

      I’m happy to say my doctor doesn’t bother me with stuff like that. He’s too busy complaining how I’m like my mother—we prefer to take herbals. Plus, when I hit the front desk, I usually tell them don’t bother me with any of the intrusive Obama regime nonsense cuz I pay cash.

      9thDistrictNeighbor in reply to Michiguy. | February 5, 2014 at 10:09 pm

      “…an MD asking you about whether you have firearms has way too much time on his or her hands. Or some political axe to grind, in which case find yourself another doctor.”

      We just did that with a pediatrician. There was one in the group who bought hook, line, and sinker any pap that came out of the AAP or the govt., with questions about guns, an endless discussion about “stranger danger” that terrified my little boy…questions asked when we came in with an acute issue and not during some extended physical. I was terrified of inappropriate questions about sexuality, as the practice really pushes Gardasil for everyone as though it is some requirement. So, next week we’re at a new practice. Unfortunately, we have had more than our share of contact with physicians lately, and I always try to make a point of asking them how much time they spend on the phone with overseers trying to tell them how to practice medicine. Some are silent; some answer honestly. Just let them practice medicine.

      Socratease in reply to Michiguy. | February 5, 2014 at 10:12 pm

      I’d just *have* to ask: “Exactly how much training in safe firearms handling and storage did they give you in medical school?”

        Michiguy in reply to Socratease. | February 5, 2014 at 10:50 pm

        Hah! Less than none. Other than something unofficially along the lines of “Guns! Scary! Bad! Right-wing nuts!” And frankly I’m glad there was nothing official, because I have a strong suspicion that it would not be something practical such as “These are Col. Cooper’s four rules ….” (Yes, it’d be a useful place to start, as many people — including medical students — know nothing about firearms other than the nonsense they see on TV action shows.) Instead the curriculum on firearms would be used as a platform for indoctrination.

        Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to Socratease. | February 6, 2014 at 12:34 am

        “What qualifications do you have as a Risk Management Specialist?? None? Does your insurance underwriter know you’re providing advice in an area in which you have no training or certification?”

      david7134 in reply to Michiguy. | February 6, 2014 at 12:01 pm

      As a doc, I have found that all you have to do is either post a notice on the wall or give the patient a hand out. This qualifies for information and discussion. Then you can safely check the appropriate box. We do this where I am on all issues.

      As to the race card (literally), I usually put down that I am a Jewish Cajun, I encourage my kids to do so and believe it or not, this usually gets some perks, like admission to an Ivy league school. Now, I am not actively Jewish, but I figure at some point someone in my lineage was (have the DNA to prove) and I do live in Louisiana. If you are felling bold, put down Jewish, African Cajun. Did that before and the computer broke. Again, I figured I am African based on the Nat Geo project.

La Raza is an ethnicity?

    Formerly known as Skeptic in reply to MTED. | February 5, 2014 at 5:36 pm

    Apparently so is “American.” Who created these categories? I have never seen some of these “ethnicities” before.

      “American” is the out. For those who don’t want to answer, you can always say that.

      I see all kinds of variations of Spanish speaking countries for ethnicity – some previously unknown.
      There are no boxes foe European countries – or even a single box for Europe. No Italians, French, Poles, etc. exist in Obamaland.

      I guess I fall under “Not Hispanic or Latino”. I guess that’s their version of being inclusionary.

    I saw that too… is this a joke..? Is this a real form..? Because if you look at the link, the list of ethnicity is way shorter… I think this “form” may be a hoax…watch out…

    NOT Hispanic or Latino? How is that a question? This is a joke, right?

      Nope, unbelievable as it is, that’s official US government policy. Since Hispanics and Latinos are also “white,” but they have to be tracked because they are a protected minority, the category of “White” has two options. Those of us who aren’t H or L are officially labeled “White, Not Hispanic or Latino.”

    Juba Doobai! in reply to MTED. | February 5, 2014 at 9:14 pm

    Yes. Mexican Wannabe-Colonialst Oppressor.

    Crawford in reply to MTED. | February 5, 2014 at 9:41 pm

    If “La Raza” is on there, why isn’t “Der Volk”?

    (Or whatever it would be in the original German.)

      9thDistrictNeighbor in reply to Crawford. | February 5, 2014 at 10:17 pm

      “das Volk”–which is entirely appropriate when using the term describing people as a nation, or perhaps, “We the People….”

    jnials in reply to MTED. | February 6, 2014 at 2:04 am

    Damnit, if they can have “La Raza” on there, I want TEXAN.

Check “other.”

My objection isn’t to the idea, it’s to the inefficiency. The government doesn’t really need this complicated form and set of regulations. There are several systems already worked out, bugs all removed, that could be implemented quickly and efficiently.

Virginia, for example, had a very specific race code. So did South Africa. And the Nuremberg Laws haven’t been used for a while; they’re nice and fresh.

I’d just check off “other,” as my ethnic group is “Ashkenazic.”

    Juba Doobai! in reply to Alex Bensky. | February 5, 2014 at 9:16 pm

    Here’s hoping they never find out you’re Ashkenazic. A government that wants to classify us by race, ethnicity, and name, is also a government that can oppress us by these variables.

    Exiliado in reply to Alex Bensky. | February 6, 2014 at 6:50 am

    I don’t care if the government needs these “complicated form and set of regulations” or not.

    I know, 100% sure, that I, ME, MYSELF, don’t need it and don’t want it.

DINORightMarie | February 5, 2014 at 5:39 pm

The Ethnicity section lists “Unknown/Decline” as a choice. The Race section lists “Other” as a choice.So there is a way to say “no” – you check and circle “Decline” and/or check “Other.”

Of course, you could either check them all (or a large subset of them), or write in your own. How can they prevent you from doing that? Data integrity, as I’m sure we all know, is only as good as the provider’s honesty to provide valid, honest data.

It’s like asking for Religion and people writing Jedi Knight” in……. 😉

    Henry Hawkins in reply to DINORightMarie. | February 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm

    “So there is a way to say “no” – you check and circle “Decline” and/or check “Other.”

    Then a bell rings over at IRS.

    DinoRM is right. I filled out a similar form today and checked “decline” on the ethnicity question and “other” on the race question. I wrote in “decline” after the check mark for “other”. There was no problem with seeing my doctor after I filled the form.

    I fear Henry Hawkins has it right (even if that was actually snark that I’m too dense to detect). I always check “decline to respond” if that’s an option. If there is a fill-in-the-blank option instead I either write “None of your business” or “How will we EVER build that color-blind society if you people insist on fixating on race?” depending on the amount of space available. I suspect those get either an eye-roll or a laugh depending on who is processing the forms, but with vindictiveness that puts Nixon’s to shame coupled with the self-righteousness of the true believer who know what will happen.

    As far as seeing the doctor goes, the vast majority of us don’t give two shakes of a rat’s ass about the forms. If there’s something where ancestry actually may play a role (e.g. sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs to take but two examples) I’ll actually talk to the patient about it directly.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Michiguy. | February 5, 2014 at 9:15 pm

      I was joking, but some remote DC keyboard jockey might indeed interpret a refusal or declined reply as something one of those ‘conservatives’ might do. One can learn a lot from the information in our medical charts and infer a lot more.

      The word paranoid crosses my mind, but it’s not like there isn’t ample evidence they are, in fact, after conservatives.

        > The word paranoid crosses my mind,
        Provisional diagnosis? 😉 No, I don’t really think that “Others” go on any sort of list, if for no other reason than because going after smartassed petty resistance is not cost/benefit effective.

        But as you noted above, I’m pretty sure there are folks who get all huffy and indignant, because they’re selflessly working to better people like me, and we’re just too foolish and stubborn to lay back and enjoy it.

          Exiliado in reply to Michiguy. | February 6, 2014 at 6:55 am

          Let’s not say names, but in certain political circles costs or cost-benefit ratios are not important.

          The only thing that matters to “some people” is the agenda.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Michiguy. | February 6, 2014 at 11:17 am

          My point is that I suspect a high percentage of those entering ‘decline to answer’ will be right leaning, don’t tread on me people, and that someone in the federal bureaucracy will make note of that marker. After IRS, I can see them doing anything, literally anything, for political gain by opponent subtraction. It’s the Chicago way.

    Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to DINORightMarie. | February 6, 2014 at 12:37 am

    Race: Human.

Snide Alert! Hope he isn’t related to anyone you know BUT, finally a real live shot of Mortimer Snerd, to Barry’s left.

Humphrey's Executor | February 5, 2014 at 5:41 pm

That form doesn’t look very official.

Iwo Jiman? Are we sure this isn’t a joke? Where are the rest of the world’s uninhabited islands?

How did they decide which ethnicities matter. I don’t see I rush, German, or any European, Asian, Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, Russian, or etc.

DINORightMarie | February 5, 2014 at 5:52 pm

You know, after a more detailed review, I can see where there could be a major law suit against the doctors and the state for requiring this information when it does not list ALL POSSIBLE “Ethnicities” and “Races.”

Where is American Indian – they have “Mexican American Indian”? Where are all the African tribes that make up the ethnicities of many “African Americans”? Where are the various Caucasian and Vandal tribes, the Nordic ethnicities, the Asian tribes – like the Cossacks and Mongols?

If you are going to have such a large list of all Latino and Hispanic “Ethnicity” groups and “Races”, then you have to have them ALL for ALL people-groups, ALL races.

Ain’t Balkanization grand?!

? DARN autocorrect. The first one listed should be Irish.

Who is that bizarre appearing guy to Obama’s left in the photo?

It’s not enough simply to answer ambiguously on this intrusive questionnaire; the public should enter answers as randomly as possible. ANYTHING this administration does cannot be for the good.

    Yukio Ngaby in reply to nomadic100. | February 6, 2014 at 3:42 am

    “Who is that bizarre appearing guy to Obama’s left in the photo?”

    Just one of Obama’s typical supporters.

    Or is he the guy that holds the record for voting for Obama the most times in one in election day? OFA away!

They seem to be as concerned about Race, and have as many “races”, as The Reich was. This does not bode well for members of the HUMAN race.
I’m afraid that I don’t take such intrusive surveys seriously. One time I filled out the census, Sex: yes, Race: human, Religion: noneya.

Are these categories determined at the time of one’s birth, or are they what each individual feels he or she should have been born as?

byondpolitics | February 5, 2014 at 6:07 pm

Canal zone as ethnicity? Tee-hee! The questions are bull-shit. Having lived in Micronesia, would one choose “Micronesian” or “Mariana Islander?” Why include it twice then? So why are the tiny populations of MIcronesia split down to such small classes, (every state in FSM!) when all European descendants are lumped together as ‘white/caucasian?’

At least they give you an option for ethnicity: declined. But for race… your only choice is “other.” and… since “race” is such a dated concept…. best choice.

    Don’t forget “Unkown.”

    This has got to be fake.

    Oh the ignorance and insensitivity!

    How could they lump together “Yapese” as a single race? Don’t these ignorant and white-ethnocentric chauvinists realize that the central island of Yap is populated by people with more of a Malayan decent, and the people of the outer islands are more Polynesian, meaning that the Yapese are of two distinct races? If any of the 11 thousand or so Yapese in the world end up taking this survey, they might be irrecoverably damaged by such a slight, resulting in a feeling of racial hostility, causing them to define themselves as a repressed class (entitled to government payouts) for generations to come!

    Such ignorance and intolerance is not to be tolerated!

Healthcare reform was going to happen no matter who was in the White House, but previous administrations wouldn’t touch it because it’s career suicide: no measure to fix it will make you popular.

You need data in order to make informed decisions when it comes to healthcare reform. That’s why this clause is there, and would have been there no matter who was drafting a healthcare reform bill. Without this data, you’re just guessing. Without this data, any idiot with an internet connection can claim that all the money goes to illegal immigrants or crack whores on welfare.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Ted Snark. | February 5, 2014 at 6:32 pm

    I don’t think the form asks immigration status or whether you smoke crack.

    Michiguy in reply to Ted Snark. | February 5, 2014 at 10:19 pm

    > Without this data, you’re just guessing.

    They’re still guessing. Last census the friendly census guy (CG) knocked on my door. I answered and we had a nice chat. While filling out the form I made a face at the “ethnicity” part and told him that I declined to fill out that particular question. He said “Fine, but I was told to fill out that part if a respondent refuses.”

    Me: “Really? And how exactly do you do that?”

    CG: “Um, I’m supposed to take my best guess as to what you are.”

    Me: “And …?”

    CG: “Well, I’m going to guess East Asian.”

    Me: “You identified my ancestry correctly, but from my perspective the only cultural identity that matters when dealing with the US government is that I am a goddamn (pardon my language) American.”

    CG: “Have a nice day, sir.”

    The above notwithstanding, I know any number of people with an ethnic-sounding last name by marriage who are then cited in affirmative action stats as being of that ethnicity themselves. So a (probably) non-negligible proportion of it is indeed made up, “data” or no.

    Exiliado in reply to Ted Snark. | February 6, 2014 at 7:09 am

    Yes, you need to know people’s race in order to make the proper decisions, right?
    Like, who lives and who dies maybe?

    Uncle Adolf would be so proud you, boy!



    It’s amazing how those who claim to be champions of equality are the ones who always want to know people’s race, national origin and/or religious beliefs.

    If race don’t matter, why do you ask?

The Ethnicity is basically a list of choices for national origin. But to be fair, it has a unknown/Declined</b option.

Now, the Race section, another list for national origin, would be hilarious if it wasn’t so outrageous.

Where do they find those idiots?

We could all try the Fauxchahontas solution. If you are an American citizen identify yourself as Native American.

Let the government try to explain the explosion in the Native American population.

    Michiguy in reply to Howard Roark. | February 6, 2014 at 5:32 pm

    If called and outed on your faux Native-hood, give the “Guts” Regan answer (from that Ayn Rand play, if I recall): “I’m legally allowed to not understand the form — and I don’t.”

    Not that smartassery is a running theme here….

Where is Dutch, English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Swedish, Norwegian, French, German, Polish, Russian, Icelandic, Czech, Belgian, Finnish, Romanian, Greek, Austrian, Bulgarian, Danish….?

No categories for ANY white people? Except Canadian?

I lived in New York City for a short time. I think they need to include “Asshole” as an ethnicity.

As a Texan, I consider myself a CENTRAL (as in the middle) American.

But, more seriously, just screw with them.

“Irish democracy”…a term we all should know, and a concept we need to practice.

    Howard Roark in reply to Ragspierre. | February 5, 2014 at 6:57 pm

    I notice the questions for Ethnicity and also for Race each show a possible answer of OTHER.

    This cowboy may be known to the feds as Other/ Other.

Henry Hawkins | February 5, 2014 at 6:37 pm

Supplemental forms like this in the health sector are common, usually a result of some present public health concern, like HIV, exotic flu, etc. Typically, the staffers in the medical setting could care less about the form personally, they just know they’re required to obtain it (along with all the HIPAA-related crap). They likely don’t care what you put down. They just collect it and upload it to somebody in DC. That being the case…

Passive resistance: On something like this, one choice is to studiously fill out the form every time required, but change my answers a little each time. They’ll have so many variations of me in their database, I’ll be as anonymous as I ever was. Use government’s stumbling and lurching bureaucracy against it. See how long it takes before they realize their data is corrupted by sabotage and worthless, as will any future attempts at invasions of privacy.

It is common for conditions requiring immediate treatment to be discovered during what began as a routine office visit. Won’t Obamacare look even better when somebody dies because medical care was denied for refusing to sign a form? More o’ ‘at ‘ere SMART POWER we was promised.

Canadians, by the way, have their own mix of ethnicities. This had to be written by pajama boy, and designed by Julia.

This data mining is for “Understanding health disparities?”

The only “health disparity” I want understood is between me in perfect health and my health issue.

I would check “Refusenik.”

All skin color, all the time. Never content of character, at any time.

I’d like to see “Typical White Person” be more explicitly noted. “White/Caucasian” seems disappointingly generic.

No “Pajama Boy” option for Ethnicity? I smell a lawsuit.

nordic_prince | February 5, 2014 at 9:27 pm

You cannot Just Say No.

Okay – how about “Hell, no!!”?

I didn’t see any OMB approval markings on the form. The Paperwork Reduction Act requires OMB approval for mandatory forms required by the federal government. Perhaps there is an exception to the act, but this form could break the PRA if this form is mandatory.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to nebel. | February 6, 2014 at 4:21 am

    Interesting about the PRA. This can be quite important – people I know found, for example, that a lot of the USPTO regs had not been properly approved in this manner. Not to get too far off on a tangent, but this got me thinking earlier today about some of the stuff that the IRS did with their investigations of Tea Party groups, and, esp. in relation to the secret regulations that Lerner and Treasury were apparently working on.

So “ethnicity” boils down to the precise version of Spanish you speak, and everything else is “Other”?

I do like the idea of picking and choosing from the two lists. If Hannibal’s slingers had been Belearic Islanders who were also Samoans, he’d have been able to use them as siege artillery and taken Rome after Cannae.

For the skeptical, I give you The Office of Minority Health, created by the section mentioned on the form. They have some documents referring to data collection standards, but it’s not clear as to when the standards were supposed to go into effect; most of the links are invalid.

One can be one of several thousand Yapese, but somehow the hundreds of thousands of Hawaiians are ignored.

If anyone asks, my ethnicity is Canal Zone.

Apparently it is now acceptable to claim a race, sex, or ethnicity if you “identify” with it. As I have always identified with Hobbits…

Are they going to apply the “one drop rule” like most racially repressive regimes do/have done?

If so, then their needs to be a larger selection of ethnicities and races or I’m gonna feel oppressed.

Obamacare, in its original format of 2700 or so pages, contained >300 pages dealing specifically with racial preferences.

Obamacare institutionalizes racism at the federal level on a scale that is absolutely unprecedented.

Starts with determining who gets into medical school, by race. Then, determines where you are allowed to set up your practice, by the racial composition of the community you want to do business in (“protected minority” communities will be sure to be overrepresented).

EVERY little thing that EVERY doctor does for EVERY patient nationwide will be tracked by the race of the patient, to be sure that racial quotas are filled for the spending of healthcare dollars – basically, ensures that “protected minorities” get at least as much % of healthcare $ as their % of the general population. They don’t care about other races.

Every section of the entire bill, btw, has a special subsection for “Native Americans”.

Seriously, read the bill. It’ll make your blood boil.

    Karen Sacandy in reply to Aarradin. | February 6, 2014 at 9:24 pm

    I’ve never read the bill, but of course listened to some who have. They’ve never mentioned this aspect. Thanks for the insight.

Heh. Under “race” is Singaporean. LOL. Gotta love it.


This document appears to lay out the requirements for collecting race and ethnic data for conformity with section 4302 of the ACA. The minimum categories (which is what I think that we are seeing) appear to be HHS standard, based on OMB’s current government-wide standard.

I was trying to dig through OMB’s HHS PRA clearances, but ran out of time. Did find something about preclearance regulations in the Federal Register from a week ago, but again need some more digging.

My grandmother said that,” who your mother is ,is a fact but fatherhood is an opinion.” appear confused-easy- and state that you don’t know/can’t be sure. take up their time with your angsty act. How can unceretainty be legally actionable?

And then there is this:

GPs revolt on patient records: Growing anger at NHS plan to harvest private data

Confidential records will start to be extracted next month by health officials
NHS insists data is to identify poor care – but it could also reach insurers
One GP said ‘bullying’ to co-operate with officials is akin to Stalinist Russia

The logical conclusion to this farce.

I am Celtic and Bavarian. Neither of those is on the list.

Frankly, the government shouldn’t even be allowed to ask you your race, anywhere. Period. It shouldn’t be a category they are interested in knowing.

If “La Raza” is an option on that form, then “Aryan” should be too.

La Raza as an ethnicity? La Raza means “the people”. It is the name a group of people have taken to identify themselves and they want to take back California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas as part of Mexico. So, placing the name La Raza on a legal document (and your medical record is a legal document) seems to be saying that they have legal standing? Are they a country and anyone living in this “country” is a La Razian? Wake up everyone, obummercare is nothing but one of the ways obummer is trying to destroy our beloved country, America.

the form’s a little blurry, I thought I saw “republican” on there with criollo, la raza and canal zone- how the dim bulbs decided these were ethnicities is anybody’s guess.

This is designed to get information that can be used against us later, about that I have no doubt. Bah!

    Vince in reply to Chicklet. | February 6, 2014 at 1:50 pm

    I’m guessing whoever was in charge of putting this list together just grabbed as many choices as they could from a google search. For the sake of being thorough.

    Canal Zoners Unite !

You boobs… it says right there on the form in the very last block “Unknown/Declined” Yes, you can say no! Just check the last block!

But at any rate, I took a DNA test from family and learned that I’m 8.64% African (north Africa to be exact… that’s the people who built those totally cool pyramids!)

So WOW, this makes me 98% more “brown” than Elizabeth Warren! Sayweet… Now how to report myself is entirely up to me…

LI made Mark Levin’s show tonight. I think Mark was about to read this post, but I only heard his lead in.

They don’t have “Semite.” Based on my forefathers’ 400 years of slavery in Egypt, I can legitimately answer that I am “African American.”

I live in Las Vegas, which is in the southern part of the United States. So I guess I’m “South American.”

I am “not Latino”, and I am “other” and I am “unknown.” “Jew-boy” is not one of the choices.

[…] You can’t see a doctor now unless you fill out a questionnaire about race and ethnicity, and Maetenloch comments at AOSHQ: […]

Holy cow!!!

Here’s the answer. If your gender is up to you, regardless of your DNA, then so is your race. Whatever race you choose to identify with, you should check that box.

P.S. White dudes, don’t try this at Harvard.