The recent ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to allow employers to reduce or eliminate health benefits for retirees when they become eligible for Medicare at age 65, is absurd. The commission ruled only on the issue of age discrimination, but the ruling is going to be used on a much wider basis and have a devastating impact on our retirees.
When I was employed, we negotiated lifetime health insurance coverage. We gave up monetary improvements in lieu of these guarantees.
After the EEOC ruling, do you think the employers are going to honor these contractual agreements? What type of incentive will there be in the future for employees to be willing to forgo wage improvements for additional health benefits?
I suggest that each and every retiree, as well as currently employed persons, contact their legislators to have this ruling changed, nullified, and/or reviewed by the courts.
This is not or should not be a political issue, as it is a sword that cuts both ways. Whether you are Republican or Democrat, you are in harm's way with this ruling.
-- Thomas L. Bellovary, New Port Richey
Spouses will be made victims
Re: Retirees' health care can be cut.
This front-page story concerns the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's determination that retirees may be cut loose from their employer's health insurance plan when they reach age 65 and can join Medicare. The unnamed victims of this decision are the spouses - or significant others - of these retirees who most often are the second party to the insurance coverage.
In most cases the spouse is a wife who is some years younger than the husband and not yet eligible for Medicare. If the retired husband is pushed out the door of the employer's home plan, what happens to the wife - the second receiver of the health care insurance provided by the former boss?
I will turn 65 in October while my wife becomes 62 this May. If I no longer have access to coverage under my former employer's plan, then is my wife left to fend for herself at the age of 62 in a very inhospitable health care coverage market? She will have a three-year wait to receive Medicare coverage.
The EEOC's decision is based on the argument that there is no discrimination because the retiree can move into a secure Medicare system. However, my wife will not agree that there is no discrimination. And I am sure there are millions more out there who share her view.
-- Wallace F. Witham, Belleair Bluffs
Remember how the vote went
Re: Retirees' health care can be cut.
Another kick in the teeth for retirees. I hope that your readers will remember the vote on this one. Three Republicans in favor, one Democrat against says it all. Employees (both working and retired) should keep this in mind come next November.
-- Richard Vanni, Seminole
A victory for corporate America
Re: Retirees' health care can be cut.
It's obvious this recent vote by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to let employers eliminate health benefits for retirees when they reach 65 means that corporate America is calling in its chips. All the large contributions made to political campaigns are finally paying off big time. This recent decision is just one of many handed down and should make all of us think twice when going to the polls this November.
-- Jack Levine, Palm Harbor
Reject amendment limitation
Re: Amendment plan takes shape, April 24.
"Making it more difficult to amend the Constitution is one of the highest priorities for Gov. Jeb Bush and the business community." When I read those words, I almost fell out of my chair. Think about it. Our elected legislators and Gov. Bush believe that limiting the ability of the people of Florida to amend our Constitution is more important than education, creating a workable budget, health care, protecting the environment and protecting us. I am amazed at their forthrightness! They are not even trying to hide their insane agenda.
Is there anyone out there who can remember any candidate saying, "If elected, I will make it harder for you to amend your Constitution?" Do you think that candidate would be elected? I thought that when we elected these people, we were asking them to represent us, the people, and not some special interest group.
They use the ban on caging pregnant pigs as their excuse for changing the current initiative process, saying the amendment exemplifies "a system out of control." I contend that it is this group of self-serving politicians who are out of control.
The reason the caged pig initiative, the class size initiative, or any other initiative, proceeds to the people for a vote is that our elected representatives failed us. They could not be bothered to create laws that the people want and need.
I ask all Floridia voters to stand up against this inexcusable endeavor. Remember their names the next time you vote. Hold them accountable and don't allow them to make their will more important than the collective will of the people they represent. No to 60 percent and Yes to majority rules.
-- Ken Warren, Pinellas Park
Arrogant power grab
So the governor and his fellow Republicans, who always know what is best for us, have decided that a majority of Floridians can't have the wherewithal to vote on and pass a state constitutional amendment. It needs to be at least 60 percent of the voters to have any intelligence connected to it. So they want an amendment to the Constitution that requires any citizen initiatives to garner 60 percent of the vote to pass.
Well, I'm sure in their infinite wisdom and sense of fair play (are "wisdom" and "sense" appropriate words when talking about politicians?), they will require that 60 percent of Floridians vote for this to put it law into the Constitution. Correct?
And once again, we can thank the Republican majority here in Florida, for protecting us from ourselves! At least it will only take 51 percent in November to show these power-mongers the door!
-- Robert Prescott, Clearwater
Quality is the key to pre-K plan
Two years ago, a promise was made to Florida's children and parents. That promise - a constitutional amendment passed by voters - guarantees that every 4-year-old in Florida will be offered a high-quality prekindergarten program by the state, free of charge, on a voluntary basis, with appropriate professional standards. Within the next few days, decisions will be made in our state Capitol that will either make or break that promise to our state's youth and their families.
Research proves that high-quality education programs can launch 4-year-olds on promising paths toward elementary and secondary school education. The common elements of these high-quality programs include reliance on highly trained teachers, small group sizes, low teacher-to-child ratios and utilization of developmentally appropriate curricula.
The promise to our children will be fulfilled only if our legislators take on the hard work of developing and implementing a sound early education framework based on this research. This challenge requires higher standards, greater accountability and creative new approaches to move from the current uneven patchwork of early education programs to effective programs that provide a high-quality prekindergarten experience for every child in our state.
During the next few days, I encourage Florida residents to call your legislators and voice your opinions so that state officials can uphold the promise made to our children.
-- Kathy Castor, advocacy chair, Children's Board of Hillsborough County, Tampa
Higher education pays many dividends
As the state Legislature makes the final hard decisions about next year's budget, it is a good moment to reflect on the significant stake all of us have in healthy funding levels for higher education and the state university system.
It has become a truism to say that our universities are the engine driving Florida's economic development. We also know that, statistically, a college degree ensures significantly greater income over a person's entire career path.
Yet just as important as these economic indicators are the enhancements to the quality of life that higher education produces. Higher education, particularly a strong foundation in the liberal arts and sciences, creates qualities of mind and an intellectual openness that not only make life more intrinsically rewarding but also help promote success regardless of one's career path.
Embedded in this qualitative dividend of higher education is something particularly critical just now, which is the role higher education plays in strengthening civic life and our democratic institutions. Higher education requires not only self-discipline and persistence, but also an open mind concerning the direction that scholarly and experimental inquiry will take you.
Rather than leading to predetermined results that simply reinforce personal preferences or outlooks, students involved in learning at Florida's state colleges and universities are guided by inquiry that seeks hard evidence and sound argument. As such, they come to appreciate that serious disagreements can be profoundly healthy, and that dogmatic insistence on a single point of view both undercuts the search for truth and undermines the foundations of our democratic society. In other words, they learn to tolerate complexity and ambiguity without feeling the need to attack those with whom they disagree.
I hardly need to spell out the benefits to our wider democracy of such virtues as a suspicion of propaganda, a commitment to clear argument, and tolerance. Insofar as our public universities instill such attitudes, we might think of them as incubators of the virtues most important for a healthy democracy. Viewed in this light, public investment in our institutions of higher learning is among the most cost effective ways to insure a vibrant civic life based upon the worth and importance of the individual. Personally, I cannot think of anything more important for our state or our nation's future.
-- Dr. Gordon E. Michalson Jr., president, New College of Florida, Sarasota
A real health care solution
Re: Byrd flies home on jet HMO chartered, April 21.
I'll leave to others the ethical analysis of House Speaker Johnnie Byrd flying home on a private plane chartered by a Tampa HMO that is pushing legislation potentially worth millions of dollars to the company.
I am more concerned with the basic premise of the legislation, that forcing Medicare and Medicaid patients into HMOs will somehow improve care and reduce costs. Medicare has overhead costs of less than 3 percent, which means that 97 cents of every dollar goes to pay for actual health care services for seniors. HMOs on the other hand squander money as described in your article - lobbyists, political contributions, private charter jets for the speaker and his wife, corporate profits and administrative waste - amounting to 20-50 percent of the health care dollar.
It is not possible for HMOs or the "market" to solve the health care financing problems of this country. Universal, single-payer, coverage for all Americans - Medicare for everyone - is the only solution.
-- Robert Clark, M.D., Tampa
Share your opinions
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 through our Web site at: http://www.sptimes.com/letters/
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.
