This paper is doing its readers an injustice by printing Gov. Bush's letters to the editor as if he is just another man with an opinion. He is acting as nothing more than a lobbyist for the insurance industry, with more than enough opportunity to push his agenda without mucking up the opinion page.
Do your readers a huge favor and reprint the July 16 editorial Political malpractice in huge letters on the front page.
I am stunned at the volume of letters from people defending insurance companies. Who are these people? Lobbyists? Extraordinarily rich people? Owners of insurance companies? There is absolutely, unequivocably no way that the $250,000 cap will benefit any hard-working, wage-earning Floridians.
Another thing - trial lawyers don't sue; people do. If insurance companies settled cases fairly with claimants, there would be no need for lawyers. In all probability, insurance companies force people to get attorneys just so they can blame trial lawyers for high rates.
One person suggested that someone publish total awards and how much went to law firms. Well, fine. But as long as we're looking at the "important information," I also want to see how much money the insurance companies spend on company cars, business travel expenses, what they've lost making bad investments, whether stockholders are paid dividends, and how much the chief executive officers and management make. After all, if the insurance companies can't make a profit, here's a novel idea: Don't reward so well those responsible for running their companies so poorly. How about a salary cap?
Marianne Ferris, New Port RicheyAll testimony should be under oath
Re: Lawmakers like oath's effect, July 20.
Silly me, I thought all official testimony was under oath. Even though it may take longer (to swear them in), I always thought that the truth was the best policy and assumed that our elected officials made their decisions based on the best available information.
The contrasting points of view between the testimony of a sworn witness and the hearsay language of a representative of the witness is proof that all testimony should be under oath. Allowing hearsay to save time is only one of the great deceptions our system allows.
The truth that Florida has already dealt with "frivolous" lawsuits with a law passed in 1988 was never mentioned until someone was under oath. The fact that should jump out is that frivolous lawsuits don't receive million-dollar payouts - if they are truly frivolous, and judged on the merits of the case, they will not top the $250,000 allowance, and probably would not receive any money at all. What the insurance companies are complaining about is having to defend against frivolous lawsuits, but to them, all lawsuits are "frivolous."
If insurance companies paid out on rightful claims (the reason we purchase insurance is the payoff we need for unforeseen circumstances), then they would not be so overwhelmed by frivolous lawsuits.
Bill Brasfield, St. PetersburgTrial by jury is a right
Re: Juries are bad for medical justice, July 22.
Whether one believes it is the lawyers, doctors or insurance companies, or a combination of all in the current controversy of capping damages, one should not question the constitutional right of trial by jury.
This right is perhaps the only remaining vestige of American jurisprudence reasonably left untarnished.
Although one may feel medical malpractice is complex in fact, it must not be treated any differently in our justice system because of this alone. Juries should continue to try facts in any disputed claim irrespective of the complexity of the facts they are constitutionally mandated to decide.
Russell Lee Johnson, St. PetersburgUse medically trained juries
Re: Juries are bad for medical justice, July 22.
Philip K. Howard has come up with the solution to our medical malpractice problem. His idea could easily be instituted in Florida. Only medically trained people, i.e., RN-LPNs, MDs, retired or active, understand the terms and procedures used in hospitals and medical facilities. This one change would award fair and reliable verdicts. It would eliminate frivolous lawsuits that are destroying our health care system. Let's protect our doctors and call, write or e-mail your state senator.
Lee Tetreault, ClearwaterDoctors' expensive hobbies
Re: Doctors find solace in high places, July 20.
After reading the article about the high number of doctors who are also pilots, I was left with one question:
How can these physicians afford to indulge in a pastime as expensive as aviation at the same time they are being driven out of business by the high cost of malpractice insurance? Perhaps we should take a closer look at tort reform.
Sam Jordan, St. PetersburgOne thing that might lead to action
Re: Bush shows many faces in ongoing malpractice tiff, July 18.
Watch for speedy action in Tallahassee the minute there's a noticeable shortage of prostate surgeons!
Jan Dutton, GulfportFollowing California's example
In reference to the recall of California Gov. Gray Davis, can we have one of these for Jeb? Sounds like a great idea to me.
Richard Lehner, St. PetersburgReframe the abortion issue
Mark Shields' July 21 column on Democratic double standards on "tolerance" and abortion is telling. Indeed, as a Democrat who, while not supporting criminalized abortion, dissents from his party's "liberal orthodoxy" on this vital topic, I wholeheartedly agree with Shields' point that Democratic "tolerance" on this topic is lacking, to the electoral detriment of the party. It seems that all too often Democratic leaders respond to any challenge whatsoever to abortion, including a denial of public taxpayer funding for nonhealth- and nonrape-related abortions, with a boilerplate list of rhetoric conceived by NARAL and other influential organizations. However, despite party rhetoric that their stance is in the "mainstream," the fact is that they are hardly in the mainstream. Democratic positions on late-term abortions, taxpayer-funded abortions, parental consent and the general moral dialogue of abortion, not withstanding its legality, are out of synch with general opinions. Democrats have allowed themselves to fall for the Republican Party's trap of opposing the smallest regulations and letting the debate be centered around those regulations and not the entire picture of abortion rights. Democrats should reframe the abortion issue. For one, they can begin to correspond their party's social welfare stances on public schools, child care, family leave and health care with a "life-affirming" society. Provisions that make room for families in our troubled economy are life-affirming. Let the burden fall on Republicans who are prolife but oppose family leave, children's health care and Head Start.
Second, Democrats can address what most Americans, prochoice and prolife, have addressed: the stunning moral implications of abortion. The average moral hesitancy that many have with abortion is always missing from Democratic dialogue on this issue. As a person with deep moral reservations about abortion, liberal rhetoric on "choice" without any notice given to morality strikes me as ice cold - and I believe that I hardly stand alone on this opinion.
Third, and lastly, Democrats can begin to court those voters whose moral anxiety about this issue has alienated them from the party by putting forth good-faith efforts to curtail the worst effects and representations of abortion without courting the far-right wing.
Sadly, such views are almost heretical to many party leaders who continue to demand strict adherence to party orthodoxy. However, as the Republicans continue to make more and more gains among voters who are uneasy with the Democratic Party's hollow platform promise of "tolerance" and its legislative majority votes for abortion on demand, I find that the Democrats will have to learn their lessons the hard way.
Luis Viera, Temple TerraceSpreading the word on literacy
Re: Turning the page, July 18.
I'd like to extend my appreciation for your article on our organization. We are a nonprofit volunteer organization with a desperate need for tutors for the growing number of illiterate adults here in the bay area. Your article presented us in a positive way that introduced some staggering statistics about literacy, and for that we are extremely grateful to you and your staff. Thanks to your article we are "getting the word out" about our organization and our hard-working volunteer staff members who give us their precious time and effort.Mitchell Smith, president, Literacy Council of St. Petersburg, Treasure Island
Death photos needn't be published here
I am a longtime subscriber to the St. Petersburg Times and over the years have variously approved and disapproved of your coverage of events. I do feel that having a strong, relevant newspaper is important to the health of any community, and I have supported the Times as being that paper.
But I resent the inclusion of the death photos of the sons of Saddam Hussein on July 25. We do not show death photos of our own citizens; no useful purpose can have been served by including these.
I am an active member of the U.S. Army Reserve and could be called upon to serve on active duty for Enduring Freedom. I am saddened by the rejoicing with which the deaths of these two has been greeted by the public and the press. Certainly our path to victory should be easier with them dead, but when we sink to the level of our enemies we become them.
Each time one of our soldiers dies, I mourn with my brothers and sisters in service. I pray daily for victory in this difficult conflict, but I will not greet the deaths of Iraqi soldiers and leaders with more than a sense of unsettled relief.
I trust my government leaders to report the deaths accurately. I understand the need to publish these for the Iraqi people, but your reporting failed the "Cheerios test" in Florida.
Jacqueline D. Smith, LargoShare your opinions
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They also can be sent by fax to 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.
For e-mail users: Letters can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com E-mail messages must be text only and cannot include attachments. If you're using a word processing program to write the message, you must use its "Save as" function to save it as a text file, then import it into your e-mail program. Please include your return e-mail address, as well as your name, mailing address and phone number, in the text of the message.
