Comments on: ABQ Journal gives health care reform mostly sickly coverage

By: Kevin_L_Nault

Kevin_L_Nault — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 08:39:54 +0000

I would also be interested in seeing coverage of alternative methods that currently exist. For instance, Casa de Salud in Albuquerque's south valley reduces overhead by not billing insurance. Chiropractor Ken Pagett does the same thing.

I would be interested in seeing broader coverage of how feasible it is to simply bypass the current system, and in what circumstances.

By: arthuralpert

arthuralpert — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:55:06 +0000

I agree with Jerry Ortiz y Pino – the process is off-track. The President deserves credit for trying but first he failed to stress the moral/ethical morass that is our current system. And then he didn't ask for anything! Trying not to repeat the Clinton debacle, he gave the Congress huge discretion in shaping legislation and they're vulnerable to (sometimes indistinguishable from) lobbyists. So what they're talking about is superficial, not fundamental. The likely result will be a “reform” that the insurance and pharmaceutical and hospital businesses can live with; by definition, that means little change.
We can have an intelligent discussion, Jo Ma, as your “points” demonstrate. But it's also worthwhile analyzing (not “lambasting”) the Albuquerque's Journal's performance.
It reaches lots of people, some of whom may not pick up on its routine journalistic malfeasance.
The Journal reporters deserve better from management, too.
Also, I keep thinking that some day the responsible parties may feel shame.
Arthur Alpert

By: Kevin_L_Nault

Kevin_L_Nault — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:39:54 +0000

I would be interested in seeing broader coverage of how feasible it is to simply bypass the current system, and in what circumstances.

By: Kevin_L_Nault

Kevin_L_Nault — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:39:54 +0000

I would be interested in seeing broader coverage of how feasible it is to simply bypass the current system, and in what circumstances.

By: Kevin_L_Nault

Kevin_L_Nault — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:39:54 +0000

I would be interested in seeing broader coverage of how feasible it is to simply bypass the current system, and in what circumstances.

By: arthuralpert

arthuralpert — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 20:55:06 +0000

By: JoMa

JoMa — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:12:04 +0000

Instead of constantly lambasting the Journal, why not have an intelligent discussion here? You raise some interesting points, but because of the way this (and most other) blog software operates, the topic will soon be "below the fold" and go to whatever oblivion 1's and 0's go when they are no longer current. Maybe NMI could look into keeping topic like this current for more than a day or 2.

In addition to your points, I would add:

- will any new health care plan require mandatory participation? (as in everyone, including the young immortal pays)

- why can't the State regulate insurance companies as they should. Start with banning rescission after people pay their premiums for say 3 months.

- who is holding back the supply of new qualified healthcare providers. Is it the AMA? The medical schools themselves? Lack of qualified applicants? Greed, as in do all would-be doctors feel they are entitled to be millionaires?

- Why isn't the government really serious about going after fraud? Medicare and Medicaid fraud, big pharama fraud, insurance fraud, ad nauseum. When's tha last time you heard about a Bernie Madoff level fraudster getting nailed?

- What about curtailing the trial lawyers? Its one thing to use money to correct wrongs, but quite another to create more hugely wealthy lawyers. They just suck money out of the health care system. Could it be that the Trial Lawyers are one of the biggest contributors to politicians? Could it really?

Who needs the Journal anyway.

By: Owinurame

Owinurame — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:21:03 +0000

Right on, Senator!

CORRECTION to the lnk below: Try http://hsc.unm.edu/about/community
Then click on:
"2007 Community Perspectives Report"

By: jerryortizypino

jerryortizypino — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:52:15 +0000

Arthur's comment that insurance companies favor our current system of socialized medicine for
sizeable corporations captures perfectly why the national debate over “reform” of health care has neatly been pirated into an alternative discussion: how can we best fund the profit margins of insurance companies? While community activists are inundating Congress with appeals to make services affordable and available to all, the debate within Congress has shifted to how to preserve the fiscal health of parasitic insurers.

By: Owinurame

Owinurame — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:09:19 +0000

There's an unreported local story here: http://hsc.unm.edu/about/community/docs/Communi...