A Good Decision

by Christina Hazelwood
During this period of presidential campaigning, there is a lot of criticism, blame and mean-spirited judgments made about the current U.S. president. President George W. Bush, like all presidents, made some good decisions and some not so good decisions. He considered the information, opinions and options at his disposal and made decisions that appeared to him to be the best for the country at the time. Just as all the American presidents have done before him. Just as the next president, whether that be Senator McCain, Senator Obama or someone else will do.

Unfortunately when the president, like the rest of us, makes decisions, he or she cannot know, in advance, what the full scope of the outcome will be. Only time demonstrates whether a decision was good or bad. And even with the passing of time, the results may still be unclear. Rarely is the outcome of any decision all bad or all good. There are usually some positive and some negative consequences that result from any decision that’s made.

In this age of Bush bashing, I want to mention a presidential decision that I believe was mostly good for this country and its people. One that I believe will stand the test of time. On May 21, 2008, President George W. Bush signed into law the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) to protect Americans from being discriminated against by their employers and health insurance companies because of their DNA. This law allows Americans to obtain genetic testing, medical care and health coverage without fear of discrimination or reprisals based upon the results of their genetic tests. See the links at the bottom of page.

One example that held the potential threat of discrimination against women is genetic testing that reveals alterations in BRCA 1 and 2 genes which correlate to breast and ovarian cancer. A positive test indicates a high likelihood of needing certain medical procedures, that may be covered by health insurance. If health insurers were allowed to discriminate, they could potentially write into their policies that any woman who tests positive would not be covered for the very medical care they need. This is one of the devious ways that insurance companies reap unethical profits.

This is one moment when our federal government, congress and our president, stepped up to the plate and passed a law that protects Americans against greedy corporations who lack compassion and decency. This law prevents employers and insurers from lining their pockets, abdicating their responsibilities and withdrawing their support from those who have supported them (consumers and employees) just at the moment when their support is most needed.

Too often corporations and businesses are allowed to run roughshod over their employees, customers, governments and those they effect, by avoiding responsibility for their decisions. Like many of us, American businesses, figure out devious ways of scraping the cream off the top, leaving the rest of us with sour milk. If Americans, as individuals, are expected to be responsible for their actions, all of them, why aren’t American corporations held to the same standard? When a corporation creates relationships and establishes a “corporate family” it should be held accountable for and to those relationships and its corporate family, just as we, as individuals, are.

Corporations need to be held accountable and not be “bailed out” when things get tough. Many states have passed “deadbeat dad” laws, that hold parents financially responsible for the children they beget, even when a divorce takes place. If a parent fails to pay child support, the parent can be jailed or have their wages garnished. Perhaps we need to pass some deadbeat corporation laws that hold corporations responsible for their deeds, even when they choose to “divorce” their suppliers, customers, employees or countries.

At the very least, we need to see to it that companies who chose to make money by providing customers with health insurance, ought to be required to provide a minimal level of insurance and not be allowed to cherry pick the things or people they cover. Nor be allowed to arbitrarily drop coverage because their financial responsibilities have become challenging.

When insurance companies “drop coverage,” it’s the same thing as a parent saying, although I decided to have a child, this kid is costing me more money than I expected, so I’m going to dump it in the middle of the street and let somebody else take care of it. And when insurance companies expect customers to pay high monthly premiums, to provide minimal or cherry-picked coverage, it’s the same as a parent expecting a kid to get straight As, do household chores, be a great talent, never cause any problems and love the parent unconditionally, while the parent leaves food in the refrigerator, provides a bed and clothing, but entirely ignores and avoids the kid, except for church on Sundays. Then parents, like insurance companies, cannot figure out why the child gets hostile and rebels during teenage years. And when insurance companies drop long-time customers it is like a parent who drops the kid off at grandma’s or some other relative to deal with when the tough teenage years ensue.

In my opinion we need new laws, and perhaps a regulating governmental body, that holds health insurance companies accountable and sets minimal coverage standards. Rather than give the government total control over all medical care, the state of our individual health and charge of 20 percent of the nation’s economy, as “national” healthcare would do. Why not establish a system that provides reasonable rules for those covered and for health insurance providers? Individual healthcare insurance accounts could be established that allow individuals to contribute greater sums when they are working and able to pay, then draw down the funds during lean times. Rather than relying on sometimes unscrupulous and uncaring employers to provide us with the healthcare coverage of their choosing, if at all.

As Americans and voters, we need to demand that our representatives actually represent our interests. And certainly one of those interests is to have reasonable, affordable health insurance that respects the human condition, which invariable involves the ups and downs of life.

Associated Links

Health Insurance Discussion Air Dates
President Bush Signs GINA into Law

Documentary by Joanna Rudnick

Genetic Testing