Is Discrimination Always Wrong?

5 Replies

In response to Gutter Ball Master’s post, “Dr. Paul May Do Harm“, I offer the following article as rebuttal. I do not claim to be in total agreement with it, but I present it as an opposing viewpoint.

I Favor Discrimination

“If ever anyone wants to discredit me, he can cite the title of this article. I am giving it away on a silver platter in order to make one point: Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate. Discrimination is nothing more than making distinctions and being selective. Without discrimination, freedom to choose is an empty exercise. I favor the freedom to choose. Therefore, I favor discrimination. Not only do I favor discrimination, I discriminate constantly. And so does everyone else.”

It should be noted that the good doctor rejected the law on privacy, federal ineptitude, states rights, and constitutional authority grounds. Here’s his defense in his own words, emphasis mine (Fedora Tip to Chronicles of Dissent).

“Madam Speaker, the supporters of H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, are right to be concerned over the possibility that third parties, such as the government or potential employers, will access an individual’s genetic information without consent, and use that information to deny an individual health insurance or other benefits. I have long advocated repealing government laws and polices that allow third parties to access personal information. For example, I have worked to repeal the provision of Federal law giving the Federal Government the power to assign every American a ‘unique medical health identifier.’ I also support repealing the phony ‘medical privacy’ regulations that give law enforcement officials and state-favored private interests the right to access medical records at will.

“Because of the Federal Government’s poor record in protecting privacy , I do not believe the best way to address concerns about the misuse of genetic information is through intrusive Federal legislation. Uniform Federal mandates are a clumsy and ineffective way to deal with problems such as employers making hiring decisions on the basis of a potential employee’s genetic profile. Imposing Federal mandates on private businesses merely raises the costs of doing business and thus reduces the employment opportunities for all citizens. A much better way to eliminate irrational discrimination is to rely on state and local regulation. Unlike the Federal Government, states and localities are able to tailor their regulations to fit the needs of their particular populaces. I would remind my colleagues that 34 states currently ban genetic discrimination in employment, while 46 states forbid health insurers from engaging in genetic discrimination. Clearly, the states are capable of addressing this issue without interference from Washington. My colleagues should also remember that Congress has no constitutional authority to forbid private sector employers from making hiring or other employment decisions on the basis of genetic information.

“The best way to address the sponsors of H.R. 493’s legitimate concerns is to put individuals back in control of the health care dollar. When individuals control the health care dollar they, not their employers, insurance companies or Health Maintenance Organizations, can make all health care decisions, including whether or not to share individual genetic histories with a potential employer, insurer, or other third party. Therefore, instead of creating more Federal regulations and bureaucracies, my colleagues should increase individual control of health care by passing legislation expanding Health Savings Accounts and individual health care tax credits and deductions.”

This entry was posted in government, law, and politics and tagged , , , , , , , on by .

About Funky Dung

Who is Funky Dung? 29-year-old grad student in Intelligent Systems (A.I.) at the University of Pittsburgh. I consider myself to be politically moderate and independent and somewhere between a traditional and neo-traditional Catholic. I was raised Lutheran, spent a number of years as an agnostic, and joined the Catholic Church at the 2000 Easter Vigil. Why Funky Dung? I haven't been asked this question nearly as many times as you or I might expect. Funky Dung is a reference to an obscure Pink Floyd song. On the album Atom Heart Mother, there is a track called Atom Heart Mother Suite. It's broken up into movements, like a symphony, and one of the movements is called Funky Dung. I picked that nickname a long time ago (while I was still in high school I think), shortly after getting an internet connection for the first time. To me it means "cool/neat/groovy/spiffy stuff/crap/shiznit", as in "That's some cool stuff, dude!" Whence Ales Rarus? I used to enjoy making people guess what this means, but I've decided to relent and make it known to all. Ales Rarus is a Latin play on words. "Avis rarus" means "a rare bird" and carries similar meaning to "an odd fellow". "Ales" is another Latin word for bird that carries connotations of omens, signs of the times, and/or augery. If you want to get technical, both "avis" and "ales" are feminine (requiring "rara", but they can be made masculine in poetry (which tends to breaks lots of rules). I decided I'd rather have a masculine name in Latin. ;) Yeah, I'm a nerd. So what? :-P Wherefore blog? It is my intention to "teach in order to lead others to faith" by being always "on the lookout for occasions of announcing Christ by word, either to unbelievers . . . or to the faithful" through the "use of the communications media". I also act knowing that I "have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors [my] opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and [I] have a right to make [my] opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward [my and their] pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons." (adapted from CCC 904-907) Statement of Faith I have been baptized and confirmed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I, therefore, renounce Satan; I renounce all his works; I renounce all his allurements. I hold and profess all that is contained in the Apostles' Creed, the Niceno- Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. Having been buried with Christ unto death and raised up with him unto a new life, I promise to live no longer for myself or for that world which is the enemy of God but for him who died for me and rose again, serving God, my heavenly Father, faithfully and unto death in the holy Catholic Church. I am obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. That is, I promote and defend authentic Catholic Teaching and Faith in union with Christ and His Church and in union with the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter. Thanks be unto Thee, O my God, for all Thy infinite goodness, and, especially, for the love Thou hast shown unto me at my Confirmation. I Give Thee thanks that Thou didst then send down Thy Holy Spirit unto my soul with all His gifts and graces. May He take full possession of me for ever. May His divine unction cause my face to shine. May His heavenly wisdom reign in my heart. May His understanding enlighten my darkness. May His counsel guide me. May His knowledge instruct me. May His piety make me fervent. May His divine fear keep me from all evil. Drive from my soul, O Lord, all that may defile it. Give me grace to be Thy faithful soldier, that having fought the good fight of faith, I may be brought to the crown of everlasting life, through the merits of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen. Behind the Curtain: an Interview With Funky Dung (Thursday, March 03, 2005) I try to avoid most memes that make their way 'round the blogosphere (We really do need a better name, don't we?), but some are worth participating in. Take for instance the "interview game" that's the talk o' the 'sphere. I think it's a great way to get to know the people in neighborhood. Who are the people in your neighborhood? In your neighborhod? In your neigh-bor-hoo-ood...*smack* Sorry, Sesame Street flashback. Anyhow, I saw Jeff "Curt Jester" Miller's answers and figured since he's a regular reader of mine he'd be a good interviewer. Without further ado, here are my answers to his questions. 1. Being that your pseudonym Funky Dung was chosen from a Pink Floyd track on Atom Heart Mother, what is you favorite Pink Floyd song and why? Wow. That's a tuffy. It's hard to pick out a single favorite. Pink Floyd isn't really a band known for singles. They mostly did album rock and my appreciation of them is mostly of a gestalt nature. If I had to pick one, though, it'd be "Comfortably Numb". I get chills up my spine every time I hear it and if it's been long enough since the last time, I get midty-eyed. I really don't know why. That's a rather unsatisfying answer for an interview, so here are the lyrics to a Rush song. It's not their best piece of music, but the lyrics describe me pretty well.

New World Man He's a rebel and a runner He's a signal turning green He's a restless young romantic Wants to run the big machine He's got a problem with his poisons But you know he'll find a cure He's cleaning up his systems To keep his nature pure Learning to match the beat of the old world man Learning to catch the heat of the third world man He's got to make his own mistakes And learn to mend the mess he makes He's old enough to know what's right But young enough not to choose it He's noble enough to win the world But weak enough to lose it --- He's a new world man... He's a radio receiver Tuned to factories and farms He's a writer and arranger And a young boy bearing arms He's got a problem with his power With weapons on patrol He's got to walk a fine line And keep his self-control Trying to save the day for the old world man Trying to pave the way for the third world man He's not concerned with yesterday He knows constant change is here today He's noble enough to know what's right But weak enough not to choose it He's wise enough to win the world But fool enough to lose it --- He's a new world man...
2. What do you consider your most important turning point from agnosticism to the Catholic Church. At some point in '99, I started attending RCIA at the Pittsburgh Oratory. I mostly went to ask a lot of obnoxious Protestant questions. Or at least that's what I told myself. I think deep down I wanted desperately to have faith again. At that point I think I'd decided that if any variety of Christianity had the Truth, the Catholic Church did. Protestantism's wholesale rejection of 1500 years of tradition didn't sit well with me, even as a former Lutheran. During class one week, Sister Bernadette Young (who runs the program) passed out thin booklet called "Handbook for Today's Catholic". One paragraph in that book spoke to me and I nearly cried as I read it.
"A person who is seeking deeper insight into reality may sometimes have doubts, even about God himself. Such doubts do not necessarily indicate lack of faith. They may be just the opposite - a sign of growing faith. Faith is alive and dynamic. It seeks, through grace, to penetrate into the very mystery of God. If a particular doctrine of faith no longer 'makes sense' to a person, the person should go right on seeking. To know what a doctrine says is one thing. To gain insight into its meaning through the gift of understanding is something else. When in doubt, 'Seek and you will find.' The person who seeks y reading, discussing, thinking, or praying eventually sees the light. The person who talks to God even when God is 'not there' is alive with faith."
At the end of class I told Sr. Bernadette that I wanted to enter the Church at the next Easter vigil. 3. If you were a tree what kind of, oh sorry about that .. what is the PODest thing you have ever done? I set up WikiIndex, a clearinghouse for reviews of theological books, good, bad, and ugly. It has a long way to go, but it'll be cool when it's finished. :) 4. What is your favorite quote from Venerable John Henry Newman? "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt." 5. If you could ban one hymn from existence, what would it be? That's a tough one. As a member of the Society for a Moratorium on the Music of Marty Haugen and David Haas, there are obviously a lot of songs that grate on my nerves. If I had to pick one, though, I'd probably pick "Sing of the Lord's Goodness" by Ernie Sands.

5 thoughts on “Is Discrimination Always Wrong?”

  1. gbm3

    Yes, we all discriminate. It’s by what criteria that makes the problems. In Aff. Action, it is wrong to discriminate by race, but it is not wrong to discriminate by ability or academic performance.

    I understand Dr. Paul’s strict constitutional stance regarding the powers of the Fed’s. However, I have already aired my disagreement with his stance in part (regarding income tax laws).

    “The best way to address the sponsors of H.R. 493’s legitimate concerns is to put individuals back in control of the health care dollar. When individuals control the health care dollar they, not their employers, insurance companies or Health Maintenance Organizations, can make all health care decisions, including whether or not to share individual genetic histories with a potential employer, insurer, or other third party. Therefore, instead of creating more Federal regulations and bureaucracies, my colleagues should increase individual control of health care by passing legislation expanding Health Savings Accounts and individual health care tax credits and deductions.” Rep. Paul

    Giving individuals the opportunity to “share individ. genetic histories” basically gives the insurance companies the opportunity to jack up health care costs of individuals with genetic problems to a point where they and their employer or the taxpayer cannot afford them. Yes, this discrimination will lead to deaths before the other states without GINA get on board with GINA, if they ever do.

    States do have laws to undermine this practice, but in the open market, in reality, when this genetic discrimination gets more widespread, the insurance companies will increase premiums statewide in the states with these GINA laws.

    In order to get consistency, a federal mandate is necessary (just as there are for/against abortion). GINA of 2008 does this.

  2. Funky Dung Post author

    “Giving individuals the opportunity to ‘share individ. genetic histories’ basically gives the insurance companies the opportunity to jack up health care costs of individuals with genetic problems to a point where they and their employer or the taxpayer cannot afford them.

    No, voluntary sharing of genetic information would allow people without genetic time bombs to get a break on insurance costs. The only law I’m inclined to support would prevent insurance companies from requiring genetic profiles. Even then, I’m not certain. Insurance sales are measured risks. In order to be a viable business, companies have to be confident that they will not be expected to pay out more than they charge (in toto, not per customer). Some people are better risks than others. Someone with a strong genetic predisposition to a nasty disease that’s very expensive to treat is a very bad risk. Christian charity would demand that someone help those folks out, but it’s immoral to force anyone to do so. Forcing insurance companies to accept bad risks is wrong.

  3. gbm3

    In order to be a viable business, companies have to be confident that they will not be expected to pay out more than they charge (in toto, not per customer). … Forcing insurance companies to accept bad risks is wrong.

    I’ve been thinking about this quote for a while. I keep on coming back to the airlines in my head (I pass BWI and Reagan Nat’l everyday). What would happen if the airlines were able to cut costs by not keeping their airplanes safe? People would die. The government has a hand in the airlines business to safeguard lives. It’s similar to insurance, it doesn’t matter what the cost; people, no matter what their genetic makeup need affordable health care. Plus, if they don’t, we’ll all be paying for it in some form or another in the long (or even short term).

    Christian charity would demand that someone help those folks out, but it’s immoral to force anyone to do so.

    First, by nature, laws force people to do or not do things. You’ll probably say that forcing people to do or not do things in general is wrong, but I disagree, and so does the law.

    Second, who specifically will help these folks out when no one will pay for their medical bills? Catholic Charities and others can only do so much. The government isn’t the people’s best friend, but at least this law (GINA) will stop technology and knowledge from killing some.

    I don’t believe in survival of the fittest for our fellow humans. We should help our neighbor be fit in some way. Our gov’t reps. helped do that with GINA.

  4. Funky Dung Post author

    “What would happen if the airlines were able to cut costs by not keeping their airplanes safe? People would die. The government has a hand in the airlines business to safeguard lives. It’s similar to insurance, it doesn’t matter what the cost; people, no matter what their genetic makeup need affordable health care. Plus, if they don’t, we’ll all be paying for it in some form or another in the long (or even short term).”

    I apologize if this sounds to snarky, but I’m not sure you could have picked a less apt analogy. There is a distinct, and I would have thought obvious, difference between laws that guard public safety and laws meant to ensure general public health. Laws regulating airplane safety ensure that corners aren’t cut. If corners are cut, people are likely to die. Laws regulating health care have no direct impact on life and death. They only aim to promote good health for citizens. Put another way, making sure a vehicle is safe to ride in isn’t the same as telling you what doctor to go to and how much to pay him.

    “First, by nature, laws force people to do or not do things. You’ll probably say that forcing people to do or not do things in general is wrong, but I disagree, and so does the law.”

    Law isn’t some monolithic thing. Some laws prescribe. Others proscribe. In my opinion, laws should be mostly of the latter type, and the fewer the better. Laws are meant to insure order. That doesn’t have to be done by force.

    “Second, who specifically will help these folks out when no one will pay for their medical bills? Catholic Charities and others can only do so much. The government isn’t the people’s best friend, but at least this law (GINA) will stop technology and knowledge from killing some.”

    High tech health care is not a right. Besides, charities did quite well helping the poor get adequate health care before the State stuck its ugly nose into the situation. If charities seem unable to handle the burden these days, it’s because they’ve atrophied through disuse. After all, why help charities do what the welfare state will do for others?

    “I don’t believe in survival of the fittest for our fellow humans. We should help our neighbor be fit in some way. Our gov’t reps. helped do that with GINA.”

    Absolutely. By all means, we should help our neighbor be fit, but we should do so as an assembly of Christians. Helping the less fortunate is not the job of the State. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have. Caring for the poor or genetically unfortunate is not the government’s job. It’s Christians’. I will not render unto Caesar what is not rightfully his.

  5. gbm3

    Laws regulating health care have no direct impact on life and death. They only aim to promote good health for citizens. Put another way, making sure a vehicle is safe to ride in isn’t the same as telling you what doctor to go to and how much to pay him.

    I totally disagree. “Laws regulating health care” do indeed have “impact on life and death.” It may not be direct, though. As a said before,

    In addition, parents with children with negative genetic makeup would be forced to drop their children off their insurance. Some parents would probably even be forced to abort their children so they (the parents) could have insurance. (So much for safe and rare.)

    Your analogy with the “vehicle” is also not valid. The main payment in question is the payment to the insurance companies. If GINA was not enacted, individuals and families would not be safe in that they couldn’t afford healthcare and that some parents would rather kill their children (which is directly unsafe) than not have insurance for themselves.

    The vehicle/FAA analogy is not the same, but it does bring together the life saving aspects of both (as above).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *