Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Focus on how we let insurance operate here,10/21

Times readers are not stupid. They know that insurance is viable only if the number of insured is sufficiently large to allow for the occasional claims and rare catastrophic events.

Many of the insurance companies operating in Florida are national if not global corporations. Their profits and their financial ratings are determined on a much broader geographical area than Florida. Why do we allow them to argue that Florida property insurance premiums need to be increased, when many of us Florida homeowners have never submitted an insurance claim and the insurance companies' other insurance lines in other states are highly profitable?

Property insurance is not the issue in Florida. The issue is how insurance industries are allowed to operate in Florida.

Gerry Nassif, St. Pete Beach

Callous comment

I am writing in reply to the Oct. 17 letter If you can't take the risk, get out of the market, regarding homeowners insurance. First, the letter writer shows a callous disregard for those less fortunate than herself. Second, as a middle- income taxpayer, I have been subsidizing the poor as well as the rich with their tax loopholes. Who does this woman think she is kidding?

Beryl Scott, Beverly Hills

Use reinsurance

The Times is correct in pointing out that no complete solutions were agreed to at either of the insurance forums held last week (What will we do?, Oct. 13)

However, if you get beyond the veiled political rhetoric, Bruce Douglas of Citizens and others have concluded that the largest component in the rate increases has been the rising costs of reinsurance.

We need to start self-insuring by creating a large enough reinsurance fund that can charge reasonable rates to insurers, thereby lowering the rates to all consumers, including commercial properties and businesses. Douglas' proposal for a 1 percent sales tax increase, with essential item exemptions, to begin raising capital for this fund is a reasonable suggestion. You can't get something for nothing.

In years when there are no storms the reinsurance fund will show a profit that can be rolled into the fund for the following years.

An alternative is for the state to take over a majority percentage of windstorm damage and for sinkhole and windstorm to be separated from the basic homeowners policy.

Is this really so hard to understand?

Martin Altner, Clearwater

Build them better

In the Oct. 13 Business Section, five panelists discussed the escalating costs of hurricane insurance. The solutions offered by four of the five experts dealt with various ways to pay for hurricane damage. Only one panelist saw the correct solution when he said, "Build better buildings. Retrofit housing stock. Help people through low-cost loans".

Reducing homeowners insurance through state taxes or financial assistance only changes the manner in which we pay for insurance and hurricane damage.

I encourage our Legislators to look to the future and mandate safer homes. I for one would like someone to make this a campaign issue in the upcoming elections. They would get my vote.

Ralph Bauer, Spring Hill

Curious? You can get closer Oct. 13

Chimps aren't pets

The story of a woman who owns chimpanzees presented Gini Valbuena as an animal lover who is now "working together" with her chimpanzees to raise the $50,000 she racked up in medical bills because she didn't have health insurance.

According to the article, Valbuena is promoting a $100-per-hour "chimp encounter" to individuals and groups. In the past, Valbuena also "raised monkeys for other people." And when the chimps reach sexual maturity, "Valbuena sends them to an 82-acre farm she won't name somewhere in Florida." Is it no wonder animal rights activists have been in a "continuous battle" with Valbuena?

Anyone with common sense would be in conflict with her. Chimps should not be pets, and they don't belong in diapers and children's clothing.

Allowing people the freedom to "own" wildlife, from chimpanzees to python snakes, is unconscionable. And the Times' choice to write a piece that touts exploitation as humanitarian is revolting.

As a former director of an animal welfare organization, I will tell you that every story like this negates what we try to do to mitigate the overpopulation of pets in this country. Shame on you.

Marylou Doehrman, Spring Hill

Curious? You can get closer

Good chimp PR

Kudos to Gini Valbuena for providing a loving, safe home to these amazing animals. Allowing the public the opportunity to see chimps up close not only educates them about the importance of conservation, but also helps provide some financial funds toward the enormous cost of caring for them.

In modern society, people have few opportunities to see wild or exotic animals, let alone touch or work with them. While people can learn much from books, movies and the Internet, there is nothing that will open human eyes, minds and hearts to these wonderful creatures more quickly than seeing these animals in the flesh and observing their behavior with a trainer or handler.

It has been my experience that many people have no clue about the real crisis great apes face in their natural habitat. The death of wild chimpanzees due to loss of habitat and poaching throughout much of their range is leading to imminent extinction.

A creature can only become extinct once. There is no second chance to save them!

Shane Smith, Palm Harbor

In autumn chill, hope of spring Oct. 14

Cleansing breath

I couldn't tell yellow periwinkle shells from gold finches, yet, for me, the lyricism of Ellen Goodman's prose and the depth of her message graced the Opinion page. That space is too often misappropriated by the irascible, ill-willed or - what's worse - ill-witted. What she wrote was a salubrious (George Will, eat your heart out) breath of air.

Jerry Rawicki, Seminole

[Last modified October 21, 2006, 02:03:23]