Of Rescission and Affairs

Affairs are wrong; and so is the policy of health insurance companies of cutting off medical coverage; but all wrongs are not equal—Rescission is the practice by health insurance companies to cancel—rescind—a policy for certain illnesses. It is legal and the three largest companies have told federal policymakers they have no intention of changing it. What it means is that if a policy holder ends up with a catastrophic illness, or if he or she ends up costing the company what they believe is too much money, they will end up without medical coverage. Since these are usually dire cases, it also means that the lives of those with canceled policies are likely to be in danger. It may even be obvious to say that such putting lives in jeopardy may be legal but it is clearly wrong.
Mark Sanford, the SC governor, has now joined the list of the many officials forced to admit to having had an affair. Some are calling for his resignation; as happened with former Pres. Clinton, some are looking into how this affair could have criminal aspects; many defend their scrutiny of the matter based on the notion that it goes to what is called character. Whenever the discovery of such affairs occurs, the cries of how wrong it is are very loud, by those who had affairs themselves (as Mark Sanford did himself during the Clinton incident) and those who presumably didn’t or believe they wouldn’t.
There isn’t a culture in the world that sanctions affairs. It’s only a matter of how much it is frowned upon or declared wrong. In our culture it is clearly wrong. Because it is, it makes one wonder if we are so blinded by that wrong we forget to put it in context of other human weaknesses that have larger impact, perhaps revenge, or of other wrongs—such as the policy of rescission which tends to be life threatening.