Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
© St. Petersburg Times, published March 7, 2002
Re: The mini med: John Q and You, by Martin Dyckman, Feb. 24.
It is unfortunate that Martin Dyckman just doesn't get it. The crisis in health care access was brought to my attention, in part, by small business owners across the state who can no longer afford the increasing cost of health insurance premiums. As many small business owners know, these premiums are escalating annually between 25 percent and 50 percent.
There are 2.1-million uninsured Floridians, of which 1.6-million are hard working men and women who can't get affordable health insurance because their employers don't offer it. The movie John Q could have been written just as easily about the plight of the working uninsured, who live knowing that at any time a medical emergency could devastate them financially. According to bankruptcy experts, the inability to pay medical bills is a top reason for one out of two bankruptcy filings.
I am not filing this bill for the insurance carriers, as Dyckman suggests, but rather for the 2.1-million uninsured Floridians who deserve and need health care coverage. The insurance carriers do not need this legislation. But we do need more carriers in the small group market. At present, six carriers write more than 75 percent of all policies; five years ago there were more than 100 writing policies in the small group market.
My proposed legislation allows flexibility in deductibles, co-payments and annual out-of-pocket payments in the standard, basic and street plans. Current insurance rules do not allow this flexibility, and have caps of $500 deductibles, $15 co-pays and $1,500 annual maximum out-of-pocket payments. It allows patients to choose the physician of their choice, regardless of specialty, as long as he is in the plan. It also allows for medical savings accounts, which are currently prohibited in the small group market. The bill does not eliminate mandates in any of the current plans. Finally, as a last resort, it allows a bare-bones plan for those employers who are choosing to no longer offer health insurance because of high premiums. If employers choose a mini-med with annual maximum benefits, then they are required to offer a catastrophic plan as an additional benefit. (Current law requires employers to choose the plans for their company, something else Dyckman neglected to disclose).
The opponents of HB 913 legislation have not as yet come up with a viable alternative for this health care crisis. Nor has Dyckman bothered to interview those hard-working people who do not have health insurance. They are easy to find; there are more than 2-million of them in Florida alone. Regretfully, no one has made a movie about their plight. Yet.
-- Frank Farkas, D.C., state representative, House District 52, St. Petersburg
Rep. Frank Farkas, R-St. Petersburg, is sponsoring legislation that will allow insurance companies to sell severely limited plans to employers and employees of employers "on the cheap," meaning it costs less to the company and, of course, allows for more profits.
As a retiree of a national company (more than 20,000 employees), I was sent last year to an orthopedic surgeon due to an incapacitating problem with my back. I went with my MRI in hand. He looked at it and in less than five minutes said to go next door for physical therapy. I followed his advice and went next door, filled out the paperwork and was told, "We do mot accept this insurance company's plan."
In September, I received the yearly offer for insurance from my former employer. I called the company's employee benefits department and was told the new plan being offered had less coverage at a higher premium -- and still did not cover my condition.
Since 1999 I was offered three different plans from three different insurance companies. One left the county before its year was up. My doctor was not in the replacement policy, and I had to start over with a different doctor. In 2000, two doctors left the plan during the one-year coverage period.
This year, I decided to drop my company's offered plan and went on Medicare. To date I have not had anyone refuse to treat me, and am finally getting the help I needed last year. Based on that, I would be scared to death to buy a policy offered under Rep. Frank Farkas' legislation.
Richard Simon, Pinellas Park
--
Try Medicare for everyone
Re: They want to use fractured logic to brace state's insurance problem, by Howard Troxler, March 1.
This column demonstrates the inevitable outcome when health care financing is left to insurance companies. Health care should be financed through a nonprofit universal system that distributes costs and risks widely.
Why not expand Medicare coverage to everyone? The Medicare fee schedule is already the benchmark used by commercial insurance companies, and the money now spent on insurance company lobbying, corporate profit and administrative expenses could be used to buy actual health care for those currently without insurance coverage. Troxler is correct -- the system is broken; it needs a complete overhaul, but the current proposal isn't the answer.
Robert Clark, M.D., chair, Department of Radiology, University of South Florida
Re: Up against building code countdown, Feb. 28.
Why in the world would there be a run on building permits? Why are some home builders excited over being able to obtain building permits utilizing the previous, "outdated" building codes? Who wants to purchase a home that does not comply with the most current building codes?
It is absurd that anyone would delight in building a home that has not adequately addressed:
Pools and spas (protecting children and adults from drowning incidents).
Termite protection (protecting homes from the ravages of "wood destroying organisms").
Energy efficiency (what is there to say?).
Intrusion and security provisions (forced entry standards).
Wind and storm resistance.
Better windows and doors or the protection of glass components (Glazing is the single weakest point in a home).
Perhaps I have just been around too long. I am a licensed architect and have been practicing for more than 20 years. After conducting forensic evaluations of residential and commercial building failures in South Florida (post-Hurricane Andrew) I am grieved when I observe the manner in which most homes continue to be built.
It is about time we protected our public. And the additional costs to comply with the new codes should be offset in time by insurance rate reductions.
-- Michael A. Yaros, Tampa
Re: Up against building code countdown.
Stronger roofs and impact-resistant windows are now required on new construction to minimize damage from 120-mile-per-hour winds. One major component of the puzzle is missing: trees. Tree ordinances in the Tampa Bay area restrict removal of potentially damaging trees near homes.
Last September, Tropical Storm Gabrielle showed us how vulnerable our trees are to moderate winds. In 1985, Kate, a minimal hurricane, hit Tallahassee, an area noted for its tree-covered roads. Thousands of trees fell on homes, cars and power lines. Residents spent weeks with tree damaged houses and without power. The Federal Emergency Management Agency suggests stronger building codes and also suggests creating a defensible space around homes in wildfire-prone areas.
But the local tree ordinances don't permit removal of many local species of trees, even those within a few feet of homes. Trees provide beauty, shade, animal habitats and reduce noise and pollution. Tree ordinances should manage trees on county property, and mandate addition of landscaping after development, but should not interfere with homeowners responsibility to protect their homes.
-- Charles Paxton, Riverview
Here we go again. Florida legislators are making another attempt to mess with the local telephone rates using the same lame excuse as before. They claim consumers will save money on their phone bills by paying more to the local provider, and maybe the long distance folks will reduce their rates.
I somehow fail to understand how we are supposed to save by paying more, yet the long distance companies would be under no obligation to pass along their savings. The more the Legislature messes with these rates, the more consumers seem to pay. Local consumers should call toll free (800) 651-5481 and tell their senators to vote no on SB 988.
-- Jon Knudson, Spring Hill
Re: Indian self-policing is a bad idea, editorial, March 1.
This has got to be one of the most stereotypical, racist articles I have read in a long time. However, I am aware that such a thing has been occuring at the St. Petersburg Times for many years, and it sickens me to think it is still occuring.
If the homework was done, and the true facts were learned, then you'd know that police on reservations are trained in law enforcement, just as much as those officers who are trained in law enforcement off the reservations. And the same goes for "Indian" doctors and lawyers on reservations, too.
So, this to me is pure racism, and I take this article as a psychological hate crime!
-- Lisa Visconti, Cape Canaveral
Re: Miccosukee bill alarms law enforcement officials, March 2.
In light of the fast-track approval of a bill by the House Council for Smarter Government that would allow Indian tribal councils to enforce reservation land law, please publish a list of the lawmakers on this council and how much money each got -- directly or indirectly -- from the gambling/Indian lobbyists.
-- W.L. Head, Clearwater
I have read your paper ever since we moved to this area from Canada in 1997. I find it usually expresses an independent view. But the Feb. 27 lead editorial, Sneaky slot vote, shocked me. On scanning through it, the language used (such as "Feb. 26, 2002 -- a day of infamy") made me think you were referring to some new terrorist threat. Then I realized that words like "crack cocaine," "vice" and "evil" referred to slot machines, for goodness sake.
First of all, we already have state-run gambling -- the Florida Lottery. Second, if people want to gamble they can take an evening offshore cruise, fly to Las Vegas or place bets with an unregulated bookmaker on anything. I was born and raised in England where there have been slot machines in bars and clubs since the 1960s. But don't sneer at the British as a nation of gamblers. Even their national lottery doesn't pay out as much as many U.S. state lotteries. All are registered with and licensed by the government. The maximum payout is set by law.
Let's keep this in perspective. There are many real evils in the world. Small-scale amusement properly controlled is not one of them. Sir, aim your gun at worthy targets.
-- Barrie Gustard, Largo
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.