I for one, would like your reporter, Nadia Pflaum, to know she did a great job getting an interview with Edwin Hall. I just hope she has tough skin in regards to all of the negative comments that have been directed her way.
She has been criticized profusely for not getting enough information with her choice of questions. The No. 1 complaint was not finding out why Hall left his truck at Target. If everyone who is following this case wants to know the answer to that question, what makes her critics think for a minute that Nadia didn't want to know as well? The fact of the matter is, nobody really knows what was said between the two of them.
The article clearly stated that what was printed was merely an "excerpt" of the interview, due to Hall's request that certain things be "off the record." I'm sure the last thing she wanted to do was put him in a defensive mode by putting him on the spot. She is a reporter, not an attorney in the middle of a trial. Her objective was to have an unbiased conversation with Hall. She accomplished this by letting him take the lead and say what he wanted to say — hence the title of the article, "Edwin Hall Speaks" (NOT "Edwin Hall Confesses"). The interview was obviously on his terms, not hers.
If Hall should grant a future interview, I bet Nadia will be the front-runner. Why? Because she kept her word on what she would print and what she wouldn't print, a claim not all reporters can make.
Melanie D. Strickland, Tulsa, Oklahoma
A health plan is a business contract. It clearly states what is covered and to what extent. Most people have no idea whats is in their plan ... until they need it.
If you agree to the contract — that is, if you pay the premiums — you are, in effect, signing the contract. The idea of "we have paid our premiums all this time and never asked for any money, and now they aren't there for us" is a dangerous and childish attitude. Insurance companies are a business, and they are doing what they do to make money —not to take care of anyone, just to make money.
If you were running a business and it specifically excluded a $250,000 item, would you let somebody have it just because they had never asked for anything before? I don't think so.
When business started taking over health care in the '60s and the '70s, things changed. And changed and changed. Too bad so many consumers haven't realized that yet.
Linda L. Kerby, RN, Leawood
In Sickness and In Hell
Shame on you for letting Eric Barton do such a disservice to Michael Moore. You need to address this before word gets out you are pro-corporate whoredom.
UNFREAKINGBELIEVABLE! You are going to hold Michael Moore responsible for this when he has done a tremendous service to this country, bringing the sins of the insurance whores to light? How dare you expect him to "fix" the wrongs of the insurance companies. You should be pushing readers to get involved and lobby their congresspersons to push for national health care, NOT expect Moore to jump in and take care of everyone's medical bills.
I am disgusted by the Pitch for this nasty, unintelligent slam piece. As a matter of fact, I wonder who paid this reporter to push this. Maybe the Pitch should follow up with a little investigation into this reporter's outside interests. Everyone knows that the blogs are all being bombarded by PR people from the insurance companies with tons of misinformation. Cut and pasted "talking points" appear almost word for word from one blog about it to another. The popularity of this documentary has scared the crap out of them — they might not be able to fleece Americans too much longer!