Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
Re: Court curbs right to stay silent, June 22.
This is a very dangerous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that says you must give your name to a law enforcement officer just because he asks. The justices are chipping away at the Miranda warning that says "everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." Everything includes your name. Complete silence is your right.
The dissenting opinions, available at the Supreme Court's Web site, include these observations.
Justice John Paul Stevens noted that "there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves." (Miranda vs. Arizona, 1966).
Justice Stephen Breyer, with Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurring, noted other court history in which ". . . the Court wrote that an "officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond.' " (Berkemer vs. McCarty, 1984).
Let's try not to live in a country with a "you're with us or you're against us" mentality, or in a police state.
Re: Court curbs right to stay silent.
I was both disappointed and surprised by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that a person must give his name to a police officer even if he is not suspected of doing anything wrong.
In the days since 9/11, our country has fought a seesaw battle over the issue of whether to limit certain individual rights. This ruling says to me that we are allowing the terrorists to win in that they are causing us to change not only our way of life, but also our core values. As a people, our privacy is one of our most valued rights.
Because of the age of some of our Supreme Court justices, this issue alone could change the way people vote in our next presidential election. I urge everyone to let their lawmakers know how they feel about this issue. Because of technology, the mere giving of a name gives much more information than just that.
Re: Court curbs right to stay silent.
Your subheadline to this story noted that the court's ruling said "police can arrest people who don't give their name, even if they haven't done anything."
Add the word "else."
I was always taught that if the police say stop, you stop. Similarly, if they ask you your name, you tell them. If you don't, you raise a red flag, and who knows what will happen.
The "privacy advocates" say it gives the police too much power. Hogwash. This is a prime example of just doing what makes sense. Taking the path of least resistance and move on.
Re: Court shields HMOs from suits, June 22.
As long as HMOs continue to practice "unhealthy health insurance policy," the courts are left as the only defense patients have in their struggle to obtain quality health care. The physician involved in the direct treatment of the patient must determine the course of a patient's care. The physician is the one who has spent 11-plus years studying medicine in order to provide the best care for his/her patients. The physician is, after all, the one who "still can be sued for malpractice for alleged mistakes."
No registered nurse employed by an HMO (in this case Cigna Healthcare of Texas Inc.) should ever be in the position to override the attending physician's recommendations. This practice is bad medicine and is anything but cost-effective.
The patient in this case required re-hospitalization, additional surgery (which added additional operating room charges and anesthesiologist charges not to mention the additional risk of more surgery) in addition to a prolonged hospital stay to recover from the second surgery. Where was the saving to the HMO? Where is the consideration for the patient's pain and suffering? Where does her prolonged absence from a job (if she is employed) fit into the cost of this alleged money-saving equation?
Also, can someone please explain why government workers and those who buy private insurance should be exempt from this ban on suing HMOs? Since when is the practice of discriminatory health care legal? Are government employees' lives worth more than the plain "Joe-Shmoe" on the street?
I challenge our legislators to recognize the true enemy of reasonably priced, quality health care for all. Unrestricted drug prices and frivolous malpractice lawsuits are what drive the rise in health care insurance, not lawsuits against HMOs. If our politicians can resist the lure of "soft money" being thrown their way by insurance and drug company lobbyists, I have faith that a solution will be found. Our lawmakers will be in my nightly prayers.
Re: More doctors are dropping insurance, June 20.
The irony was unbelievable! I can only wonder why this article shared a border with an ad for a prominent malpractice attorney. Was it deliberate, mean-sprited or simply coincidental? I am very concerned about the health of medical practice in the state of Florida in the future. The prognosis is dismal.
I grew up in St. Petersburg, and when I was 12 years old I knew I wanted to be a physician. There was no money for my education, so after I graduated from St. Petersburg High School it took me many years (1955-1978) to work my way through college, graduate school, medical school and hospital residency. Those were very lean times. I did not go into family practice to make a lot of money (family physicians are the least paid in medicine), but I did expect to earn an above-average wage commensurate with the long hours, hard work and massive responsibility required.
Because of decreasing insurance reimbursements and increasing office overhead expenses (including "malpractice" insurance premiums), my income, in annually adjusted dollars, is less each year. The peace of mind and personal satisfaction that come from doing the best that I can for my patients are increasingly disturbed by the fact that any given patient is a potential litigant, in spite of my best efforts, in the event of an unsatisfactory outcome. My situation, and concern, is not unique.
Many of my colleagues feel threatened and unappreciated. And a lot of the joy we all feel in being healers is being sucked out of us.
Re: A "regulatory vacuum," editorial, June 23.
A very fine commentary today on a challenging subject.
Judicial activists would have the court render a decision based on benevolence instead of judicial correctness - but it would be wrong.
As someone who suffers from diabetes, I'm not indifferent to the difficulty that today's high cost of health care imposes on the consumer.
Without affordable HMO coverage I'm afraid I would be in a very bad spot. Thanks to my employer's insurance program and solid medical care I'm able to keep my illness under control and live a decent life.
Re: Florida orders outlets to close, June 19.
Florida's Department of Health has issued a cease-and-desist notice to storefronts that process customer prescriptions to Canadian pharmacies allowing American customers a substantial discount on their drugs. Officials say these storefronts are illegally operating as drugstores, therefore breaking the law. Was it not a crime two years ago when these processing centers began operation?
First of all, a drugstore is a store where drugs are sold and prescriptions filled. Second, a pharmacy is the art or profession of preparing drugs and medicines. These "storefronts" do neither! They simply forward a customer's prescription to a Canadian pharmacy, much the same as sending a telegram.
Let's face reality here! President Bush thinks his Medicare drug discount card is the greatest thing since his tax cuts, and the pharmaceutical/drugstore industries deplore being denied more profits. And of course, let us not forget who is running this state.
No! It is not a question of putting "the health of our citizens and visitors at risk," as stated by the secretary of the Department of Health, Dr. John O. Agwunobi. If any health care risk should be noted, it is the fact that people who need certain drugs can't afford them.
These processing centers, as I like to refer to them, are the only means by which Americans can enjoy real savings on their prescriptions. The closing of these centers is only forcing the drug discount cards down our throats. Let's not take this latest government/big business fleecing lying down. Get on the phone or your computer!
As a lupus patient, I am writing in opposition of importing prescription drugs from Canada. While it is understandable that some people want lower drug costs, importation isn't the answer.
First and foremost, importation of foreign medications is illegal. The Food and Drug Administration can't regulate this process and is unable to approve such medications. Consumers who purchase medicines from foreign-based Web sites and so-called pharmacies must sign a waiver relieving the organization selling the medication of any and all legal responsibility. If the organization can't verify its own product, doesn't this signal a red flag that these medications are likely to be risky?
Many patients take prescriptions to treat serious medical conditions such as lupus, Alzheimer's, cancer and diabetes. If these patients were to receive the wrong medicine, it could mean the difference between life and death. This is simply not a risk we should be willing to take.
Re: Heroes of the Pacific, June 20.
This was truly a great editorial and well written. Normandy was, to say the least, a blood bath and should never be forgotten, as well as the many victories in the Pacific.
I am a Navy veteran of two years in the Pacific and five invasions. Saipan should have received more attention at the 50th and 60th anniversaries.
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 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. We regret that not all letters can be published.