Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!americast.com!usa-post Newsgroups: usa-today.issues From: usa-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: usa-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: issues Fri, Mar 27 1992 Date: Fri, 27 Mar 92 05:43:21 EST Message-ID: 03-27 0000 DECISIONLINE: Issues & Debate USA TODAY Update March 27-29, 1992 Source: USA TODAY:Gannett National Information Network Here are some of the issues and topics being debated across the nation Friday morning in USA TODAY: Health; Cable; Neuharth. TODAY'S DEBATE - MEDICAL RECORDS: USA TODAY'S OPINION: Your medical secrets aren't safe. Federal privacy laws protect videotape-rental lists, bank records, telephone calls and cable-TV subscriber lists. Yet only a handful of state laws and a fragile system of ethics prevent outsiders from peeking at your private medical files. Lost amid calls for health-care reform is an urgent need for a federal law to ease mounting strains on confidentiality: As employers move to "managed care" to control health costs, insurers use more outsiders to check up on medical treatments. That means more prying eyes poring over your records. Horror stories abound: A South Carolina doctor sold his files to an auto leasing and salvage executive who tried to sell photocopies back to the patients. A company fired a depressed employee after hearing of his condition from an insurer. An employer asked his insurer for a list of HIV-infected employees so he could "fire the sons of bitches." ... Some medical-privacy problems may be alleviated if cost pressures are eased by health-care reform. Meanwhile, we need the safety only a federal law offers. OTHER VIEW: HARRY SCHWARTZ, a Scarsdale, N.Y., writer who specializes in medical topics: The latest sign of today's widespread paranoia is the fortunately still-feeble movement to protect the secrecy of medical records. Some ultrasensitive souls out there are frightened because pharmaceutical companies get summarized reports about prescription numbers for different drugs and because insurance companies collect data on their beneficiaries' illnesses. Unfortunately, these ultrasensitive souls don't seem to realize that something they like very much, the near-socialization of American medicine, is the basis for the present situation. ... Everybody with health insurance has to sign forms opening up all his health records to insurance company sleuths looking for medical cheating. Again, we could prevent that by paying all our own medical bills. I don't hear any great call for that. ... As a nation, we Americans have chosen to enmesh ourselves in what is close to being a completely socialized medical system, and that is incompatible with true privacy. VOICES ACROSS THE NATION ON THE GOVERNMENT REGULATING CABLE RATES: NORMAN, Okla., Jeffrey C. Strow, 23, college student: Basically, the customers are going to get the raw end of the deal, no matter what the maximum cost is. I don't see a big problem with the government setting a maximum price, unless it sets it too high. I imagine the cable companies are going to charge that anyway. TIBURON, Calif., Joyce Turley-Nicholas, 63, prof. speaker: Television's old enough now that we have to re-evaluate how it fits into society. More uniform guidelines for cable rates could spill over into the quality of programming and into control of viewing periods so our children can be protected and guided. ROWAYTON, Conn., Nina Halsey, 31, advertising director: I'm not a cable subscriber because I think the consumer gets gouged. I refuse to pay $80 a month for a few cable stations. There's something wrong with the system. I absolutely believe there should be regulation. There's no competition. KANSAS CITY, Kan., Marcus Iszard, 32, pharmacologist: There's too much of a monopoly in the cable TV industry and, because of that, cable companies charge exorbitant rates. I don't mind paying for TV, but the prices have gotten out of hand. WOOSTER, Ohio, Thomas Ciha, 46, human resources mgr.: I feel that living in a free market system, you should be able to let supply and demand set the rates. The less government involvement, the better. TOPIC - NEUHARTH: AL NEUHARTH, founder, USA TODAY: If you're the parent of a college coed away on spring break, relax. She's much more likely to come back sunburned than pregnant this year. In 1960, crooner Connie Francis' lyrics in the hit movie "Where the Boys Are" ignited a sex-and-booze binge among spring breakers in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. For over 25 years, boys bossed the beach there each spring in simple pursuit of sex and suds. The ritual peaked in 1985 when 350,000 rowdy breakers invaded. Then city folks and students became disenchanted with each other. This year, Lauderdale expects no more than 15,000. ... I mingled with several dozen breakers outside Coconuts, a moderately priced fast-food place and watering hole in my hometown of Cocoa Beach, Fla., this week. Girls outnumbered boys 2 to 1. "What did you come here for?" I asked. "Sun," they chorused. Their bodies radiated the 80-degree rays they'd soaked up. Nearly all said the "sex-and-suds" aspect of spring break is grossly exaggerated. Consensus: We can get all that we want back home. Here, we want to score with the sun. Issues & Debate Editor: Michele Coleman. (1-919-855-3491) Making copies of USA TODAY Update (Copyright, 1992) for further distribution violates federal law. This article is copyright 1992 Gannett News Service. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM