Tag: Ridgewood Real estate

>

>by Susan K. Livio/The Star-Ledger
Sunday August 23, 2009, 7:43 AM

https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/christie_and_corzine_battle_ov.html

In the midst of their protracted fight over political corruption and allegations of ethical misdeeds, Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine and Republican contender Chris Christie are having another heated battle — this time on health policy.

While the issue seems one for the wonks, it’s prompted a nasty volley of charges

Through news conferences and testimonials from breast cancer survivors, Corzine’s supporters say Christie is indifferent to women’s health issues because he proposed a low-cost insurance plan that excludes any legally mandated health benefits. Such a plan, Corzine’s allies forcefully say, would undo a law enacted five years ago that requires insurers to cover mammograms for women under 40 with a family history of breast cancer.

Flatly calling Corzine “a liar,” Christie posted an emotional video on his website revealing how a mammogram detected a cancerous tumor and saved his mother’s life 30 years ago.

“I am not the anti-mammogram candidate. Anybody who would suggest that is just a reprehensible human being,” Christie said Monday while campaigning in Westwood. “Because I want to offer people other options that they knowingly can either pursue or not pursue, that does make me “anti’ any of the mandates that are covered under the insurance policies now.”

Beneath the loud talk lies an issue that clearly defines differences between the two candidates, said Montclair University political science professor Brigid Harrison.

“One person advocates for a mandate-free insurance system and one doesn’t,” Harrison said.

Zeroing in on mammogram coverage among the dozens of insurance requirements in state-regulated health plans “enables Corzine to remind women voters, who tend to lean Democrat anyway, there is a difference between him and Christie,” Harrison said.

Unfortunately, she added, it didn’t take long for the discourse on this substantive issue to “degenerate into base politics.”

The debate started when Christie proposed ways to slow the soaring cost of health insurance — such as allowing insurers to offer a bare-bones policy stripped of health screenings and other mandated benefits, to appeal to “young people” who “may not need the chance to have every type of procedure that’s available in the medical world,” Christie said in a video posted on his website.

Corzine and his supporters viewed his comments as trivializing lifesaving screenings that state law requires insurance companies to provide, such as mammograms. The attacks quickly escalated.

“It is unconscionable Chris Christie wants to line the pockets of New Jersey health care insurers at the expense of the health care of millions of New Jersey women,” said Assembly Majority Leader Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-Mercer), accompanied by a three-time breast cancer survivor at the Statehouse.

Assembly Health Committee Chairman Herb Conaway (D-Burlington), a physician, said Christie’s plan would give “insurance companies free rein to drop coverage for mammograms, minimum maternity stays and even coverage of critical therapy and treatment for autism.”

Corzine issued a statement saying it would end coverage of 24-hour maternity stays, a law sponsored by his running mate, Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen). Senate Majority Leader Steve Sweeney (D-Gloucester) and Assemblyman John Burzichelli (D-Gloucester) keyed in on coverage for autism treatments.

Christie’s running mate, Kim Guadagno, hit back, hosting a teleconference with Assemblywomen Dawn Marie Addiego (R-Burlington) and Caroline Casagrande (R-Monmouth) saying they were offended by the Democrats’ charges.

Christie said “crass politics” has distorted an idea worthy of public discussion.

“I am trying to get people to say if they want less expensive coverage that has less mandates, they should have the option to pick it. No one is going to be required to do it. It’s going to be an option,” Christie said last week.

The state’s mandates for mammograms and other health coverage actually don’t affect most people. About two-thirds of those with health insurance in New Jersey are covered by self-insured and federally regulated plans that do not have to comply with state mandates, said Marshall McKnight, spokesman for the state Department of Banking and Insurance.

The value and cost of insurance mandates has been debated for a long time. With 45 mandates, New Jersey is tied for 13th most in the nation, according to a Council for Affordable Health Insurance report. Rhode Island ranks first with 70 mandates; Idaho is last with 13.

Mammogram coverage, provided by all 50 states, raises premiums less than 1 percent, the report said. But it added: “It is the accumulated impact of dozens of mandates, not just one, that makes health coverage unaffordable.”

Having bare-bones health coverage for the young and healthy also has a down side, said Joel Cantor, director for the Center for State Health Policy at Rutgers University.

While “offering a low-cost option is good for people who don’t want to pay,” Cantor said, allowing these healthy people to leave other health plans would drive up the premiums for those who remain in them. He added that money can be saved by providing screenings that can detect diseases like breast cancer, rather than treating them later.

Quinnipiac University political scientist Maurice Carroll said he doesn’t know who is right but welcomes a “legitimate” issue debate to a race marked by character attacks.

“It’s an honest-to-God issue. That’s a good thing,” he said.

Staff writer Josh Margolin contributed to this report.

https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/christie_and_corzine_battle_ov.html

>

Elementary Idol

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=669994n&tag=related;photovideo

its old but we still love it !

>Please — why waste money on an “expert” to opine on Valley? Whether we are for the renewal or against the expansion, we all know the issue to be addressed and we don’t need an expert to tell us. Simply put: the hospital can’t be maintained in its current site and size, so, should it be made larger? End of story.

We need to either decide: Ok, the hospital needs to expand to better serve our health needs and there may be some cost to the safety and beauty of the Village; or, no, it doesn’t get to expand.

We don’t need an expert to either define the question or suggest answers to us. Audrey Myers is an expert, and a fine person, and she has already told us the hospital can’t exist in its current location. Therefore, the issues are easily devined. For example, on the one hand, we could lose a tremendously fine hospital that is a stone’s throw away; the hospital is an attraction to people buying homes in the Village; or, more significantly, because I will have to travel further, I may not make it to a hospital in time to get the life saving care I or my children need. On the other hand, allowing an admittedly out of character building and being known as a hospital town will devalue the property values throughout the entire town; Pascack Valley and Hackensack really are not that far away: as the hospital further drains town resources, our taxes will go up; and, significantly, I or my child might be struck by an ambulance or delivery truck barrelling down any street in any section of our town.

There are difficult, stark choices. Life by no means presents easy decisions.

But what stikes me here is the inability of our Village council to simply make a stand here and now. There is no need for an expert. We don’t even need further debate. What more can be written or said?

The issue is framed — Are we a bedroom community where we raise children and live out our lives? Are we a hospital town that serves and is sustained by the needs of the hospital. There’s nothing wrong with either option. But let’s not kid ourselves anymore.

Hiring another expert is precisely the sort of stupid nonsense that this Village council has been engaging in for years. It has lost all backbone. And, once again, it avoids the real issue while the voting scenario is easily forseen. Hire an expert in the dead of summer to render a meaningless decision and then, months later and divorced from all reality, but under the cloak of an expert’s opinion, announce a decision. (No matter how they vote, you can see certain VC members later offering their time worn excuse: “well, gee, its not exactly what I wanted, but the experts told us x,y & Z, so that’s how I reluctantly voted.”)

Please, VC, either stand up like men or women or give it a rest — and if you can’t do the job that needs to be done, step aside now for the good of the community. Or, better yet, let the community decide if you can not. Put the issue on a referendum vote. But, don’t waste any more money on experts when the decision to be made is common sense. Don’t continue to insult us by hiding behind experts and other third parties. You were elected to make decisions and move us forward. Speak your mind, cast your vote — do it and do it now: Hospital town or sleepy village?

Are any of you able to step up to the plate?