Assess religious rhetoric by the policies produced
Published June 18, 2003
Re: Making the poor charity's problem, by E.J. Dionne Jr., June 12.
All presidents use religious references. Such "civil religion" is usually a matter of public relations, often empty of sincere religious content. But then again, how do you tell? Let me suggest one way. Namely, pay more attention to public policy than to public pronouncements. In other words, do the actual policies of the administration bear any resemblance to the religious tradition on which the president claims to stand? Where this president is involved, there is a terrible disconnect. Consider this administration's basic articles of faith:
Arrogance in foreign policy. The administration proclaims that since the United States is all-powerful, we can attack anyone, at any time, for any reason, using nuclear weapons if necessary. Opinions to the contrary are irrelevant. This national self-glorification is rooted in something called the Project for the New American Century. We see ourselves as gods.
Tax cuts in any situation. Why should the government pay its way? No matter what bills the government must pay, what wars are being fought, what vital national needs are pending, tax cuts that create huge deficits are the answer. After all, our children and grandchildren can pay the bills.
Assistance to the wealthy. No one even bothers to deny that Bush's huge tax cuts are meant mostly for the rich. We are simply told that this will be good for the nation. Who believes this? More pointedly: What religious tradition urges us to be zealous in assisting the rich?
The private sector is always better. Based on this article of faith, every move toward privatization is to be encouraged, including turning back Medicare and public schools to the private sector. Since this can't be admitted as the goal, such things as vouchers and tax cuts will move things along (i.e., the treasury is drained and government programs are literally starved out of existence). The government will deny this was intended.
Let compassion be handled as charity. My colleagues in ministry evidently believed, at first, that the faith-based initiative really meant cooperation between religious agencies and a government that cared. But as significant funding fails to appear, the meaning of compassionate conservatism becomes clear: Let religious congregations deliver crumbs to the needy, while the government feeds the rich.
The president's religious "sincerity" is not in question. The question is whether there is any meaningful relationship between the actual policies of this president and the religious tradition on which he stands.
-- The Rev. Dr. Harry B. Parrott Jr., St. Petersburg
A new approach to tax reform
Re: The tax question becomes a moral one, June 11.
Alabama's Gov. Bob Riley certainly has a novel approach for pushing a tax reform plan through the Alabama Legislature, one that shifts a significant amount of the state's tax burden from the poor to wealthy individuals and corporations.
Is this the "redistribution of wealth," which has always been abhorrent to the rich and powerful in this country?
It is true that as columnist Adam Cohen states, "If Riley's tax plan becomes law . . . it will be a major victory for poor people.".
Anyone who believes there are prevailing inequities in the tax laws in America should be interested in the outcome of this tax reform plan.
Further, as Cohen states, "If Riley's crusade succeeds this summer, Alabama may offer the nation a model for a new kind of tax system: one where the Devil is not in the details."
Unfortunately, knowing the current tax reform coming out of Washington, unless there are "born again Christians" who may come out of the "bureaucratic closet," this approach to tax reform has little chance of succeeding.
-- Russell Lee Johnson, St. Petersburg
Politicians, pay attention
Re: Subsidizing stinginess, letter, June 15.
Revelation is rare today, so we should pay close attention to this letter writer's sensible observation that "when the working poor are paid so little that they . . . must rely on public assistance . . . the taxpayer . . . is . . . subsidizing their stingy employers."
The letter writer is pronouncing an obvious truth that ought to transcend politics - something to tempt Republicans and Democrats alike. If both paid serious attention to him, they might radically reduce government welfare payments by realistically increasing the minimum wage.
-- John Hamm, St. Pete Beach
Disabled veterans deserve better
During the past six months or more, President Bush has been seen wearing a Navy flight suit on an aircraft carrier, placing a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington and being cheered by numerous military members of our armed forces. Evidently these people have no idea that this is the man who threatened to veto a concurrent receipt bill submitted by 83 (out of 100) U.S. senators and more than 400 members of the House of Representatives last year.
The amount of a V.A. benefit received by a 20-year or more retired disabled veteran is deducted from his retired pay for his own disability. These vets are the only ones who face this discrimination. To get off the hook, Bush had House Speaker Dennis Hastert table the bill.
He has no qualms about reducing taxes for the rich and very rich but won't consider giving equity to over a half-million retired disabled people who won World War II, fought in Korea, Vietnam and more recent battles.
This man disrespects all such veterans and will do the same for those who served in Afghanistan and Iraq.
-- Sidney C. Grahn, Seminole
An outrageous verdict
Re: Who's to blame for loss of this man's leg?
-- June 16.
Thanks for writing this very informative article. It should clarify some of the problems people face concerning malpractice in general.
How could a jury find that no one was at fault in this case? The man went into the hospital with both legs and came out with one. Obviously no one cared about this man and what he endured in that hospital. Yes, he chose that hospital because he thought he would be properly cared for there. Evidently that didn't count for anything. If I had been on that jury, it certainly wouldn't have been a unanimous finding. What an outrageous verdict. Someone was at fault, regardless of the physical condition of the man. There was negligence here. That doesn't mean I believe the man should've received millions in punitive damages.
The other part of this article which was of great interest was that the judge in the case had presided over three other malpractice cases and the plaintiffs all lost. Mendoza's insurer, ProAssurance, won 29 of 36 malpractice suits so far this year. Does that mean that the seven cases it lost account for huge awards given by juries? Doesn't the judge have the power to lower jury awards if the awards seem beyond reason? From those statements, it seems the people suing for malpractice aren't winning their cases.
The Times has a small article below this one about out-of-court settlements, which is also very interesting. It shows that the amounts paid by insurers for out-of-court settlements has risen significantly per settlement from 1991 to 2002. Who is at fault here? This sounds a lot like no-fault auto insurance - pay off big rather that go to court and add it to the premiums of those insured.
The big winner here is not the people being harmed by doctors, nor is it the doctors (although they sure are part of it). It's the insurance companies as always. I haven't heard any statistics on this, but how many insurance companies have gone belly up over this malpractice litigation? Maybe it's about time to put the blame where it belongs.
-- Paul Lukacs, Seminole
The true "malpractice' problem
Re: Who's to blame for the loss of this man's leg?
Scott Barancik's summary of the Cheatwood vs. Mendoza trial was excellent and nearly left me speechless, except to say that this trial points out the true "malpractice" problem, and that is that most patients sue because of an untoward result, not actual malpractice by the physician. These maloccurences can happen to anyone, healthy or not, but certainly to a 76-year-old diabetic with heart disease, vascular disease and numerous other health problems. I know both Drs. Mendoza and James and would trust my life with either.
As stated in the article, most suits are won by the defendants (physicians), making the suit frivolous from the start, a failed attempt to win the malpractice lottery. If the Legislature doesn't come to some agreement and pass meaningful legislation, patients might not be able to find anyone to do their cardiac caths or vascular surgery at all.
-- David Lubin, M.D., Tampa
National health care is the answer
Re: Let's try some other caps, letter, June 16.
The letter writer makes some good points, especially the idea of a cap on defense lawyers for the insurance companies (if a cap is ultimately imposed). However, any form of a cap is ridiculous and probably unconstitutional.
Isn't the real issue the high cost of insurance? Malpractice and health care insurance premiums are out of sight. Insurance companies have suffered humongous losses in the stock market since Sept. 11, not to mention since this administration took office. They want to increase their bottom line by limiting malpractice payouts. That's understandable. It's simple Business Economics 101.
Until Americans get a national health care package, none of this will get resolved. The reason we don't have national health care is that neither the insurance companies nor the doctors are willing to lose the huge profits they've been harvesting for decades. Also, the House and Senate are in bed with the lobbyists for the insurance companies and the medical profession. We need to elect officials who spend more time on the U.S. economic problems and health care and less time dropping bombs on countries that are housing so-called weapons of mass destruction.
-- Michael Harris, Oldsmar
Finding a healing magic
Re: If I could do magic like Harry Potter . . ., June 12.
David Dawson did even better than Harry Potter. David won the Harry Potter essay contest and will be spending a part of his summer vacation in England, with his Grandma Grace. David's experience will hopefully lift some of the sadness, which he has experienced since his mother's death.
This bittersweet article has a beautiful storybook ending. David need not worry about telling his mother about his extraordinary news. Somehow, someway, I am sure that David's mother is well aware and is very proud of her son. To David's serendipity, he has found his own magic potion to heal his broken heart.
-- JoAnn Lee Frank, Clearwater
Share your opinions
We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731.
They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).
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.
