Showing posts with label NEW MEXICO EDITORIAL FORUM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NEW MEXICO EDITORIAL FORUM. Show all posts

NEW MEXICO EDITORIAL FORUM

By Lilia Diaz

When hundreds of private investors came together at the 2010 Investor Summit on Climate Risk (INCR) in New York this past January, they weren’t there to debate the existence of global climate change or humans’ role in causing it.

They were there to talk about how to address the negative environmental impacts of the current climate crisis, while at the same time turning it into an opportunity for creating jobs and making money.

The private investors who belong to the INCR are increasingly embracing a reality that seems to elude Washington D.C. – investing in renewable and clean energy industries is the next crucial step towards digging ourselves out of this economic abyss and building a sustainable world economy.


Click here to read the full article.

NEW MEXICO EDITORIAL FORUM

By Lydia Pendley and Kathryn C. Sherlock

The working families of New Mexico and the nation are the backbone of our economic and cultural identity. Working families are so essential that our city, state and nation have created public policies and programs designed to help them to survive.

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC) are just such tools. Both programs encourage low and middle-income people to work, even when their jobs pay too little to live on. These tax-credit programs also keep millions of children out of poverty each year, building a stronger future for our next generation.

The EITC for low-income working individuals and families is a refundable federal income tax credit. It has received bipartisan support since Congress passed it in 1975. The EITC is designed to "make work pay" by decreasing the impact of taxes that low-wage workers pay on their earnings by supplementing their wages. The intention is to move a family with a full-time minimum-wage worker above the poverty line. The EITC is the largest poverty-reduction program in the U.S., and, in 2009, it was expanded as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to provide more help to married couples and low-income families with three or more children. In 2009, the EITC lifted 6.6 million people out of poverty, half of them children.

Click here to read the full article

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Laboring for Justice


NEW MEXICO FORUM


By Rev. Gary Kowalski


Americans are more likely barbecuing this Labor Day weekend than singing “Which Side Are You On?” We’ve forgotten the workers who were our own forebears.

My wife’s family, for instance, came from Nanticoke, Pennsylvania. Today it’s an unremarkable crossroads, but a century ago, it saw a titanic contest between labor organizers and the Reading Railroad, which ran the nation’s coal mines. The union wanted an eight hour day and took 100,000 men out on strike. The walk-out finally ended six months later when Teddy Roosevelt established a commission for binding arbitration. In his closing argument to that commission, the railroad CEO testified that “These men don't suffer. Why, hell, half of them don't even speak English.”

Three years after the strike, a government report found thousands of children still picking chunks of coal by hand from the mountains of slag. And this was my wife’s hometown.  Her great-grandfather Balliet died of black lung, as did great uncle Ellis. Grandmother Jeanette told stories of her brother Evan, who was so small when he trudged off to the pit that his lunch bucket dragged the ground; he perished in an accident at age 14. So the history of labor in this country is our family history. It’s a story whose repercussions are still felt.


Click here to read the full article

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

What is State Investment Fund Reform?

NEW MEXICO EDITORIAL FORUM

By Sen. Timothy M. Keller

Almost 10 years ago, our country was coping with a series of corporate accountability crises in the wake of Enron, World Com and other breakdowns in organizational governance. Widespread public outcry led to responses through our legal system and in Congress. Hundreds of lawsuits were filed in an effort to retrieve squandered funds and lawmakers responded by passing the Sarbanes Oxley Act. It’s now time for New Mexico to act.

Currently, a similar crisis faces state pension and investment funds across the country and at home in New Mexico. Our State Investment Council (SIC) has been drained by scandal costing over $5 million in legal fees. State funds finished 2009 in the very bottom 1 percent of performance nationwide, down a whopping $2 billion. Like those affected by Enron, our citizens and state should push legal actions to get our money back. We must also address the state investment fund’s inherent structural flaws much like Congress did with Sarbanes Oxley to prevent further deterioration of investor confidence and improve performance.

A central tenet of good governance is to have any board of directors be as diverse in experience as possible. Much attention has been given to ideas directed at diluting the Governor’s influence on our SIC. This idea is warranted, however, it’s only the tip of the iceberg. Our state has numerous structural conflicts of interest built into statute.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

NEW MEXICO EDITORIAL FORUM

By Jane McGrath, M.D.

You may hear a lot of talk about taxing soft drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages. A new tax never sounds like a good idea, but this one is well worth considering. The proposal would add an excise tax of 1 cent per fluid ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages. The tax would be levied on the manufacturers and would show up as a small price increase on the drinks on the supermarket shelf.

I don’t think anyone needs reminding that we are in the middle of an obesity epidemic in New Mexico, as well as in much of the rest of the world. Obesity is a complex problem with multiple causes that result in very high medical costs—which is unsurprising given that complications from obesity include diabetes, heart disease, liver failure, sleep apnea and orthopedic problems. In fact, we spend an estimated $147 billion dollars nationally each year on obesity-related medical costs, half of which are paid with taxpayer dollars through Medicaid and Medicare. Strategies such as an excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages will help decrease obesity rates and save taxpayer money by reducing medical costs.

Fixing the problem of obesity will involve many different kinds of strategies—much as we are doing with smoking. We have anti-smoking public information campaigns; taxes on cigarettes; age restrictions on buying cigarettes; and policies that restrict smoking in many public places, including the workplace. It takes this kind of multi-pronged approach to make an impact. So a targeted tax on sugar-sweetened beverages is part of how we can begin to deal with obesity from a legislative perspective.


NEW MEXICO EDITORIAL FORUM


By Max Bartlett and Jose Aguilar

One issue has generated little discussion during the heated health care reform debate: whether states should have the right to develop their own approaches to universal coverage.

The Health Security for New Mexicans Campaign wants to see language included in the national proposal that gives states flexibility to develop their own approaches to solving rising health care costs and growing numbers of uninsured.

The focus of current health care reform proposals is to create “insurance market exchanges.” These one-stop-shopping insurance exchanges must offer consumers -- primarily the uninsured -- choices of different insurance products, including some type of public option. A less than robust public option is in the proposal passed by the House of Representatives. The Senate is in the process of negotiating an alternative to the House version.

Click here to view full op-ed

Monday, November 9, 2009

A Tale of Two Cities

NEW MEXICO EDITORIAL FORUM
By Rev. Dr. Holly Beaumont

As I follow the outrageous rumors and disturbing behavior surrounding health care reform I am reminded of an earlier health crisis in this country. The outbreak of the AIDS virus in the 1980s created similar behavior among those who listened to the fear-mongers exploiting the crisis to advance their political and ideological agendas.

One of the victims of that hysteria was a young boy from Kokomo, Indiana named Ryan White. He acquired the AIDS virus through a blood transfusion he received to treat his hemophilia. When his diagnosis was made public Ryan and his family were shunned, vilified and threatened. Classmates refused to attend the same school. Customers dropped his newspaper route. The White family fled their home in Kokomo after someone so filled with hate and fear fired a bullet through their living room window.

Young Ryan and his family moved to the town of Cicero, just 50 miles south of Kokomo. On his first day of school the principal, superintendent of schools, and a number of students greeted Ryan with outstretched hands. It was a powerful gesture of reason and compassion. The news swept the country and began to calm the hysteria.

Click Here to Read Full Op-ed

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Nonprofits are Good for New Mexico

NEW MEXICO EDITORIAL FORUM
By Ona Porter

Following the close of the 2008 legislative session, and in preparation for a special legislative session on health care, New Mexico Youth Organized (NMYO) and Southwest Organizing Project (SWOP) distributed mailers to the constituents of six legislators. The mailers informed constituents about how their legislators were voting on critical issues and provided information about the source of contributions their legislators were receiving from special interests. Believing this to be political campaign intervention, Secretary Mary Herrera, acting on the advice of Attorney General Gary King, ordered the nonprofits to register as political action committees (PACs). A lawsuit disputing the claim quickly followed.

Recently, Judge Judith Herrera issued an important federal court decision in this closely watched case. In her decision, Judge Herrera sided with decades of legal precedent, and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Free speech is a value that all of us hold sacred. The implications of having nonprofits, whose primary purpose is not the election or defeat of candidates, register as PACs for simply speaking out about an issue are chilling. If nonprofits were forced to register as PACs, it would severely restrict the ability of thousands of organizations across New Mexico to serve their communities. Perhaps most importantly, it would leave critical voices unheard.

Click here to read the full Op-ed

KRWG - Newsmakers in Las Cruces, New Mexico recently aired a program about the multitudes of doctors that are speaking out about healthcare reform. They interviewed New Mexico Editorial Forum author Dr. Sandra Penn, who recently penned an op-ed "Stop Negotiating Away the Public Health Insurance Model" about her views that Congress is letting real reform slip away. You can see her interview for yourself, which occurs at the 5 minute mark.

NEW MEXICO EDITORIAL FORUM
By Jason Marks

Year in and year out, healthcare costs go up faster than the rate of inflation. This year, we will spend more than $2.5 trillion on healthcare in the U.S., which is over $8,100 per person. Even at that, more than 35 million of our fellow citizens are left without regular healthcare coverage through insurance or a government program.

Health insurers serve as a convenient target, getting criticized for denying care to those that need it most, creating too much red-tape for doctors and other providers, and for diverting too much of our insurance dollars to administrative overhead, profits, executive compensation, and lobbying. But since most insurers pay out 75 to 85 percent of premium dollars in medical reimbursements, the direct savings from taking them entirely out of the system is no more than 25 percent.

If like me, you are concerned not just with the availability and quality of healthcare, but also its affordability, then it is important to understand that we have to look beyond insurance reform and coverage mandates. We must also look also at our healthcare industries, by which I mean doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and so forth. Most importantly, we have to look at -- and fundamentally change -- the current dynamic in which employers, insurers, healthcare providers, and last (and sometimes least) patients come together to deliver and pay for our medical care.

Click here to read the full Op-ed

NEW MEXICO EDITORIAL FORUM
By Miriam Komaromy, MD

When I walked into the exam room, a thin, pale, middle aged man was sitting patiently in a chair waiting for me. Mr. Richards (not his real name) politely explained that he needed medicine for his heart, and gave me a list of the medications he was supposed to be taking. I asked about his living situation, and he told me he had been living in shelters for the past two years.

As he responded to my questions I learned this man was an engineer who had been employed by a prominent technology firm. When he had developed diabetes in his late 30s he quickly developed severe complications, including damage to his vision, and later heart trouble. He could no longer perform his work duties. He lost his job and then his health insurance. He became depressed and withdrawn, and eventually his wife left him. His health care bills bankrupted him and he lost his home. He had applied for disability benefits, but was turned down.

As this man’s story unfolded I felt my stomach clench with anxiety for what would happen to him. Unfortunately I had very little to offer. As a physician who has worked all of my adult life caring for low-income and uninsured patients, I have so often been in a position to apply a band-aid—in this case, arranging for him to receive a month’s worth of his medicine free of charge—but not a solution to the huge problems that face my patients on a daily basis. In order to get in to see a health care provider at my clinic he had stood in line for over an hour in the heat on two successive days, waiting to find out if we would have an available appointment. Tonight he would walk a long distance alone on the street, vulnerable because of his poor eyesight, and would sleep on a cot in a shelter.

I was struck all over again by the cruelty of a so-called health care “system” that offers health insurance only to those who are employed.

Click here to read the full Op-ed

NEW MEXICO EDITORIAL FORUM
By Sandra Penn, MD, FAAFP

I believe in evidence. As a Western-trained physician, I was taught that half of what I learned in medicine would be proved wrong and that I would have to continue to study, learn and seek evidence that what I was doing continued to be appropriate.

When I came into medicine in 1973, Medicare had already proved itself. Seniors were able to get care as they never had before. By the time I started practicing in the 1980’s, Diagnostic Related Groups was changing the payment system for hospital care because physicians had cleverly moved some diagnostics into in-patient procedures and thus kept patients in hospital longer. Changing the payment system, it was clear, would change the amount that was charged.

During my eight years in private practice, I often wrestled with insurance companies about how they paid. Each company had a different requirement and I would be encouraged to see a person many times for a lesser rate rather than allowing me to charge more and have a longer visit. The insurance companies delayed payment because a single block was not checked on their form, driving up my office expenses because I had to hire more staff to service their forms. Medicare, at least, remained the insurer of all my patients over 65, thus reducing the number of changes I had to make when my patients were forced to switch insurances. That experience has driven me for the last 20 years to be an advocate for health payment reform (I am no longer in family practice although I still do primary care).

The last eight years have seen the deterioration of our health care and our safety net. A safety net is essential because our country has not provided us with the universal, accessible, accountable and affordable health care that is enjoyed by the rest of the developed world.

Click here to read the full Op-ed

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Health Care Reform Would Boost Economy

NEW MEXICO EDITORIAL FORUM

Heidi Topp Brooks and Lydia Pendley

This year's multi-billion dollar bailouts of the banking and auto industry were meant to give the impression that these huge infusions of cash would buoy the economy and result in better circumstances for all. But many of us were left wondering where exactly those hundreds of billions of dollars would go and how exactly that would translate into improved conditions for regular Americans and New Mexicans.

The state of the economy and the repercussions from these drastic measures will no doubt be President Obama’s top priority. Rather than focus on more massive bailouts to huge industries, the administration must focus on a long-neglected issue that, once addressed, would not only give a boost to businesses large and small, but have real results for struggling Americans. That issue is health care reform.

The emotional and moral arguments for reforming our broken health care system are well known, but expanding the public role in health care to make sure that every American has coverage makes good economic sense too. Businesses have seen their private insurance costs almost double in recent years. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, employer-sponsored premiums for family coverage have soared from $6,438 in 2000 to $12,680 in 2008. In New Mexico average annual health insurance premiums rose 92.3 percent from $6,222 to $11,967 between 2000 and 2007. As a result, many businesses, especially small businesses, are being forced to cut insurance for their employees. The employees, when forced to choose between a job with no insurance or no job at all, will often choose the paycheck.

Click Here for Full Article