What's up with Mitch Albom

[robtandersen]

I have to say, I really didn't read his columns and never subscribed to his melodramatic books about the afterlife, but what up with his recent columns?

The UGLY[[?) truth about insurance reform?

https://www.freep.com/story/sports/c...rm/1309469001/

18K are not going to be without catastrophic care. Many will have their own insurance to cover expenses, albeit at conventional rates of coverage. But what he misses is that if we had universal health care, everyone living after a catastrophic accident would find the care they need. Why isn't he calling for that? Instead, he calls for status quo and flies the fear flag.

Does he not see that the medical industry LOVED no-fault so they could milk every penny out of the system for the remaining 7 million Michiganders paying the PIP?

I know he is published in the Freep, but I'm starting to think he's a conservative shill. Am I just waking up to this?

The other column that makes me think he's a candy ass is in response to Rashida Tlaib's MF impeachment comment.

https://www.mitchalbom.com/rashida-t...on-a-low-note/

How could Rashida initiate a NEW LOW, compared to the P*ssy grabber in chief?

Thanks for letting me vent.

[DeLemur]

I'm with you. This latest piece is plain fear mongering without any details. Unlimited benefits are STILL available for purchase. Everyone is an adult here [[accept Mitch) and they chose the coverage they want.

He should be writing about Michigan government actually governing in a bipartisan way on an issue that needs fixing. Its not a perfect law but a huge improvement and its nice to see the Gov. and Leg. get something down.

Mitch for some reason is blowing more moral hot air and leaving out all the cost controls in this bill.

[Richard]

I have to say, I really didn't read his columns and never subscribed to his melodramatic books about the afterlife, but what up with his recent columns?

The UGLY[[?) truth about insurance reform?

https://www.freep.com/story/sports/c...rm/1309469001/

18K are not going to be without catastrophic care. Many will have their own insurance to cover expenses, albeit at conventional rates of coverage. But what he misses is that if we had universal health care, everyone living after a catastrophic accident would find the care they need. Why isn't he calling for that? Instead, he calls for status quo and flies the fear flag.

Does he not see that the medical industry LOVED no-fault so they could milk every penny out of the system for the remaining 7 million Michiganders paying the PIP?

I know he is published in the Freep, but I'm starting to think he's a conservative shill. Am I just waking up to this?

The other column that makes me think he's a candy ass is in response to Rashida Tlaib's MF impeachment comment.

https://www.mitchalbom.com/rashida-t...on-a-low-note/

How could Rashida initiate a NEW LOW, compared to the P*ssy grabber in chief?

Thanks for letting me vent.

You are venting because he did not call for universal health care to solve the problem?

Just like that,in 8 years the previous administration could not come up with a healthcare solution that did not involve punishing those who could not afford to put into it.

And Mitch is going to say ... I support universal health care and poof it appears?

I do do not see it as fear mongering,sure other states have lower insurance costs,but it is still based on zip code redlining.So price insurance in another state comparing apples to apples.

No fault is exactly that,what happens when somebody hits you,you work a service job that does not provide health insurance,they have nothing to sue for damages and you spend 30 days in the hospital.

Guess who gets to pay the bill and on top of that your are now insurance redlined for the next 5 years at SR22 rates,there are currently 3 insurance companies in the United States that will cover you,it does not matter whose fault it is.

If one has heath care already and they do not live in a redline zip code and never has an accident no matter who’s fault it is,there will be a savings.

One second in life will change that,even if somebody hits you,you still pay extra with the added rates.So one accident every 5 years keeps you at the higher rate,it’s a matter of odds.

Its not fear mongering it is the reality of no fault.

Insurance companies are like banks,they can claim they lost 1 billion in a year but the next year show a 2 billion profit,they do not lose.

[Burnsie]

It's interesting how comments are never enabled for Mitch's columns on the website. It wouldn't surprise me if that's a condition of his Free Press contract. Can't take any criticism.

[archfan]

I've seen the Freep's [[and News') comment sections. He's doing a public service turning that off.

[Honky Tonk]

Kudos to Mitch Albom for not drinking the Whitmer Kool-Aid or getting on the Whitmer bandwagon, and for bringing up bullet points that no one else seems to want to talk about. Seriously, all these lawmakers had to congregate on Mackinaw Island, [[and you can bet it was on your dime and not public transportation) to sign a bill that would "possibly" shave off $150 a year on a $5k + a year insurance policy, and literally put hundreds out of work and sentence hundreds more to bankruptcy and death, and no one sees anything wrong with this? Yeah, right, boooo Mitch Albom for ruining my buzz. They don't even have have any figures for what these new insurance plans will cost. I guess if they post enough videos of Gretchen grinning and cohorts patting each other on the back, that'll make it alright. One things for damn sure, none of these legislators, or their families, will have to worry about having enough insurance. Now that's Pure Michigan.

[Johnnny5]

The law signed by Whitmer doesn't go far enough in making our insurance less expensive, but reading Albom's piece he seems to imply that Michigan's current system is the best thing out there. Apparently totally

overlooking the small little issue that insurance is so expensive in this state that many of our most vulnerable citizens can't even afford it in the first place!

[Honky Tonk]

The law signed by Whitmer doesn't go far enough in making our insurance less expensive, but reading Albom's piece he seems to imply that Michigan's current system is the best thing out there. Apparently totally

overlooking the small little issue that insurance is so expensive in this state that many of our most vulnerable citizens can't even afford it in the first place!

And now because it's $150 a year less, there will be a line @ LA Insurance? I don't get the impression he thinks the current system is the best there is. I get the impression he thinks, as I do, that MI legislation threw some table scraps to the barking dogs to shut them up, while preparing them to be neutered. The "wait 8 years and you'll see", is laughable, and a childish tactic. And again, it's now signed legislation and no details or populace input. @ least Albom got off his can and talked to people.

[Hypestyles]

.. Deadline Detroit editorial on Mr. Albom:
http://www.deadlinedetroit.com/artic...lindsay_unions

[iheartthed]

You shouldn't have expected anything less from Mitch Albom. Doesn't he live in California, anyway? Kind of rich for him to be interjecting his opinion about car insurance rates he doesn't have to pay himself.

[Atticus]

As much as people don’t want to hear it, Mitch isn’t totally wrong. But again, he presents a one sided argument. What people can’t seem to wrap their heads around these days is that most major political policy questions have two legitimate arguments for and against... and that with both sides there are pros and cons.

That is one of the reasons I hate most media these days. You have the Fox News media that presents all of the positives of the conservative argument , while conviently leaving out the negatives. And then conservatives can’t figure out why Liberals think the way they do. And on the other side on more liberal media sources you hear all of progressive benefits, while the negatives are quietly discounted. And then liberals wonder how conservatives can be so dumb.

in this case, there are pros and cons to insurance reform. The pros are obviously that it now will [[hopefully) cost less, and more people can afford it. The cons are that those unlimited benefits go away, and ultimately it will be the hospitals and indirectly our medical insurance that will pay for most people injured who will choose to opt out. Fortunately most of us will never need the services, and we will have more cash in our pockets from this reform. But we are also kidding ourselves if we don’t think the injured won’t be worse off.

It really is a question of do we all pay more for something that is better, or do we pay less and hope we aren’t ever severely injured. And there is no right answer. But I am especially tired of hearing something is either 100% great or 100% awful. I miss the days when the media legitimately covered both sides.

[DeLemur]

Kudos to Mitch Albom for not drinking the Whitmer Kool-Aid or getting on the Whitmer bandwagon, and for bringing up bullet points that no one else seems to want to talk about. Seriously, all these lawmakers had to congregate on Mackinaw Island, [[and you can bet it was on your dime and not public transportation) to sign a bill that would "possibly" shave off $150 a year on a $5k + a year insurance policy, and literally put hundreds out of work and sentence hundreds more to bankruptcy and death, and no one sees anything wrong with this? Yeah, right, boooo Mitch Albom for ruining my buzz. They don't even have have any figures for what these new insurance plans will cost. I guess if they post enough videos of Gretchen grinning and cohorts patting each other on the back, that'll make it alright. One things for damn sure, none of these legislators, or their families, will have to worry about having enough insurance. Now that's Pure Michigan.

Hold on, there are some real cost controls in this bill.
Eight years of decreasing rates - required rate control [[this is a great line to cross when dealing with insurers)
Prior approval - now insurers have to have rates approved before putting them into the market. Now they could be stopped
Choice - now you can pick 50K medical coverage and get a cheaper policy
Medical payment rates - now medical providers can't charge 5 times what they normally do to insurers. They can charge 200-250% of medicare rates
Enforcement - directly focusing on insurers not paying for claims

I hate to say it but those people out of work from this law change shouldn't of been creating an industry relying on a cash cow called car insurance in MI. There are "medical clinics" that are only built to charge $1200 for a back brace that sells for $95 at Walmart. Or $4K for an MRI that is $400 at a normal spot.
This bill has a ton of good in it buts its not perfect of course.

[DeLemur]

Particularly on Mitch, for him to infer that the $220 MCCA cost covers our unlimited benefits and those will be taken away is ridiculous. Unlimited coverage is still available [[with or without the MCCA). People "won't die" if they keep buying what they've already been buying. Nothing has changed for them.

[poobert]

I see the merits of both sides, but the big takeaway is don't look to Mitch Albom of all people for substantive policy.

Take his writing: "There’s a reason people do things in the dark. Often, those things are shameful. And when the light shines on the coming years in our state, it will sadly reveal the shameful thing our legislators just did."

That's a third-grade reading level, and that is what he is writing to. He plays to the lowest common denominator, writing in shmaltzy platitudes, like some vaguely decadent dystopian Mayberry. Just keep moving. I tried for years and his stuff is literally unreadable if you're gotten past middle school. Sentence fragments for dramatic affect.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that he is a liar:
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs...081-story.html

I won't even get into his height in proportion to his ego.

[DeLemur]

I see the merits of both sides, but the big takeaway is don't look to Mitch Albom of all people for substantive policy.

Take his writing: "There’s a reason people do things in the dark. Often, those things are shameful. And when the light shines on the coming years in our state, it will sadly reveal the shameful thing our legislators just did."

That's a third-grade reading level, and that is what he is writing to. He plays to the lowest common denominator, writing in shmaltzy platitudes, like some vaguely decadent dystopian Mayberry. Just keep moving. I tried for years and his stuff is literally unreadable if you're gotten past middle school. Sentence fragments for dramatic affect.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that he is a liar:
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs...081-story.html

I won't even get into his height in proportion to his ego.

thanks for that. I only faintly remembered that one from Mitch. Funny thing is I used to stick up for the guy to my friends, but he's taken on an edge of smarmy moralizing in half truths now.

[EastsideAl]

.. Deadline Detroit editorial on Mr. Albom:
http://www.deadlinedetroit.com/artic...lindsay_unions

Thank you for posting this. I quaked with fury when I read what this smarmy little scab wrote about Ted Lindsay. A man who, unlike cheaply moralizing Mitchie, actually stuck his neck out for his less famous fellows at the risk of a significant professional and financial cost to himself.

I never liked his columns or his tone of [[unearned) intellectual superiority, and loathed his treacly and cheaply moralizing little money machine books. The selfish little scab certainly proved his money-grubbing bonafides conclusively years ago when he walked out on his fellow workers for a few more bucks, even though he was already wealthier than 90+% of them, thus rendering any of his future self-servingly syrupy writings about the moral bravery of others completely laughable [[and disgusting). And he showed his lack of respect for truthful reporting when he lied about events his subjects didn't witness as if they had been there.

So, I have to wonder what his self-interest is in writing this column of cheap tear-jerking lies that seems to serve no one but the interests of the price gouging insurance industry and the corrupt medical providers that profit handsomely through their license to sponge off of the public.

[Honky Tonk]

Thank you for posting this. I quaked with fury when I read what this smarmy little scab wrote about Ted Lindsay. A man who, unlike cheaply moralizing Mitchie, actually stuck his neck out for his less famous fellows at the risk of a significant professional and financial cost to himself.

I never liked his columns or his tone of [[unearned) intellectual superiority, and loathed his treacly and cheaply moralizing little money machine books. The selfish little scab certainly proved his money-grubbing bonafides conclusively years ago when he walked out on his fellow workers for a few more bucks, even though he was already wealthier than 90+% of them, thus rendering any of his future self-servingly syrupy writings about the moral bravery of others completely laughable [[and disgusting). And he showed his lack of respect for truthful reporting when he lied about events his subjects didn't witness as if they had been there.

So, I have to wonder what his self-interest is in writing this column of cheap tear-jerking lies that seems to serve no one but the interests of the price gouging insurance industry and the corrupt medical providers that profit handsomely through their license to sponge off of the public.

Are you talking about Ted Lindsay the hockey player? So Mitch Albom wrote some piece about some hockey player, and somehow you're equating this to a discussion about the new auto insurance rewrite. If it's not the hockey player, then I have no idea who your Ted Lindsay is. Regardless of your personal feelings for Mitch Albom, the the question remains how the new auto insurance scam is going to affect coverage and one's pocket book. What legal repercussions fall on an individual if, unfortunately, you are the cause of an accident to someone who's now under insured? Are they then allowed to clean out your bank account? Take that $150 and buy some cheap hooch, Al. Stop quaking all over.

[Bradley]

At least he never...

[A2Mike]

I haven't listened to him since he became a political pundit with numbingly bad predictions [[I was already tired of him always pushing his books). I actually tried reading one, but his sappy oeuvre makes Garrison Keillor's read like Tolstoy.

[EastsideAl]

Are you talking about Ted Lindsay the hockey player? So Mitch Albom wrote some piece about some hockey player, and somehow you're equating this to a discussion about the new auto insurance rewrite. If it's not the hockey player, then I have no idea who your Ted Lindsay is. Regardless of your personal feelings for Mitch Albom, the the question remains how the new auto insurance scam is going to affect coverage and one's pocket book. What legal repercussions fall on an individual if, unfortunately, you are the cause of an accident to someone who's now under insured? Are they then allowed to clean out your bank account? Take that $150 and buy some cheap hooch, Al. Stop quaking all over.

Yes, Ted Lindsay the hockey player. As referred to in the article linked by Hypestyles above, which I quoted in my reply. You can read it if you'd like, but for those who can't be bothered to read anything extra, I'll give a little extra insight.

On the occasion of Ted Lindsay's death a few months ago our little Mitchie wrote a column about Ted's courage in starting the NHL players union. In that column Albom had the audacity to write "you stand for something, or you stand for nothing". But of course we've long known that Mitch stands for nothing [[but himself), since he told his fellow workers 'I got mine, f--k you' and crossed their line to get his, even though he already had substantial side income. And he has never said a word of apology for it. So his column on Lindsay, like too much of his writing, is just hypocritical moral grandstanding. In this case standing on the shoulders of a dead man who had many times the courage shown by Mitchie baby.

Now he comes to write another of his heart-tugging specials, in an attempt to undermine a long overdue insurance reform that, although still inadequate, practically everyone wants but the auto insurance companies and the corrupt end of the medical establishment that profits outrageously off of the rest of us through the existing system. On top of that, his emotionally pandering column is based upon, at best, an incomplete reading of the truth [[or, less charitably, lies). So, since we already know that Mitch can be bought off, one could wonder just who might be doing the buying here.

[bust]

Mitch Albom is a like a placebo. He succeeds by pretending to deliver what his readers want to believe.

[Honky Tonk]

Yes, Ted Lindsay the hockey player. As referred to in the article linked by Hypestyles above, which I quoted in my reply. You can read it if you'd like, but for those who can't be bothered to read anything extra, I'll give a little extra insight.

On the occasion of Ted Lindsay's death a few months ago our little Mitchie wrote a column about Ted's courage in starting the NHL players union. In that column Albom had the audacity to write "you stand for something, or you stand for nothing". But of course we've long known that Mitch stands for nothing [[but himself), since he told his fellow workers 'I got mine, f--k you' and crossed their line to get his, even though he already had substantial side income. And he has never said a word of apology for it. So his column on Lindsay, like too much of his writing, is just hypocritical moral grandstanding. In this case standing on the shoulders of a dead man who had many times the courage shown by Mitchie baby.

Now he comes to write another of his heart-tugging specials, in an attempt to undermine a long overdue insurance reform that practically everyone wants but the auto insurance companies and the corrupt end of the medical establishment that profits outrageously off of the rest of us through the existing system. On top of that, his emotionally pandering column is based upon, at best, an incomplete reading of the truth [[or, less charitably, lies). So, since we already know that Mitch can be bought off, one could wonder just who might be doing the buying here.

I did read your original post. Three times as a matter of fact. I just thought there had to be something more to this. But that's it eh? The strike was when, in the early 80s? So from then on, to you, anything Mich Albom puts in print is bull. If I recall correctly, and I might not be, the strike dragged on for a year or so, and he wasn't the only one who crossed the line. People had debt piling and mouths to feed, ran out of unemployment, and even Union funds were starting to dwindle. But that's neither here nor there. I'm all for medical change that's for the positive. So far I haven't read anything about the change that assures me it'll be a positive change for Detroit. It looks like more of the same, only it'll cost me in a different way.