Today's Letters: Truth on health plan somewhere in the middle

It's a slippery slope

It doesn't take much foresight to see that the government will establish national standards for health insurance - then, in the face of rising costs, mandate premiums that will result in insurers leaving the business. The result will be the government takeover of health insurance as well - or, in other words, socialized health care.

To support such an outcome in the face of our troubled Social Security and Medicare systems, which show the utter incompetence of government management, requires a suspension of belief.

Malcolm H. Meyer, Tarpon Springs

A better system

Rudy Giuliani's negative statement about socialized medicine shows that he knows little about what he is criticizing. Most European countries as well as Canada have had successful programs serving the public for decades. Ask any Canadian.

I had a heart attack when working for the U.S. government as a civilian in England. After emergency treatment on the military base, I was sent to Oxford University Hospital where I recovered.

If medical care is supposed to be so bad in England, why did the American doctors chose to send me to a British hospital to recover? By the way, the American government has an agreement (under NATO) with the United Kingdom for free medical care for Americans working in the U.K. for the American military. I had much better care under the socialized system than I could have imagined. Follow-up care with a private British cardiologist was about one-third the cost it would have been here.

I highly recommend a similar program that serves all the people, not just the rich and powerful!

Robert Harkabus, St. Petersburg

New push to make Florida votes countSept. 13, story

Don't self-destruct

I can empathize with the angry reaction of many Florida Democrats to the decision by the Democratic National Committee to disallow any delegates from Florida because the party in Florida has broken a rule forbidding any states except Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina from holding a nominating contest before Feb. 5. But I think it is foolish and immature for any Democratic voters to either boycott the primary or withhold their support for any candidate who bypasses Florida on the campaign trail.

We may not agree with the rule, but we should understand the ramifications for the party and the candidates of trying to gain an advantage that would break an entrenched tradition and anger voters in the four states allowed to vote before Feb. 5.

Being stubborn and vindictive will get Democrats nowhere and could cost us not only the White House but also seats in Congress. Let's stop being the party of self-destructive impulses and really stick together to remove as many Republicans from office as possible.

Cecilia Ann Evans, Tampa

Delegate tradeoff

Here's a solution for the problem of the Democratic primary: Each Florida delegate should have one-quarter of a vote at the 2008 Democratic convention. Then the Jan. 29 primary could be binding and the Democratic candidates could be allowed to campaign. The same formula would be applied to Michigan and any other state that decides to advance its primary before Feb. 5. This would discourage other states from pushing their primaries ahead. Florida and Michigan would be trading increased influence in winnowing the field of Democrats for decreased influence in selecting a candidate if the outcome is determined at the convention.

Instead of 210 votes at the convention, Florida would have 52 1/2, which is comparable to Iowa's 57 and New Hampshire's 30. But Florida voters will have influence comparable to Iowa's and New Hampshire's in determining the nominee.

Arthur Volbert, St. Petersburg

U.S. deficit down, likely to dip more Sept. 14

Hiding good news

Psst. Want to know a secret? The U.S. budget deficit is down, way down, even though spending is up, way up. Why? Because the "Bush tax cuts" have unleashed a surge in taxable income, with a corresponding surge in tax receipts - just like the Kennedy tax cuts and the Reagan tax cuts before them.

But let's not publicize that. Let's bury the story in the middle of a column of unrelated items on Page 12A. It would not really be helpful for too many people to learn that the "tax cuts for the rich" have in fact resulted in a vast increase in tax payments by the rich and a reduced budget deficit. Yes. Page 12A. That would be a good place to hide it.

Barry Augenbraun, St. Petersburg

Religious right set to gather Sept. 20, story

Sending signals?

If the religious right gathering is to be free of politics, why on earth did they invite Katherine Harris, one of the most polarizing political figures in recent history? Perhaps they want to send a signal of support to the Republican Party.

Hopefully they will crawl out of people's bedrooms and start addressing some other pressing moral issues like the immoral war in Iraq, the 47-million people without health care, the crime rate, the growing divide between the rich and poor and the overwhelming greed of corporate America.

Judith Groner, Lecanto

Religious right set to gather Sept. 20, story

Skip the labels

I simply don't understand reporters who can't resist placing labels on everyone or every group. The article refers to those who are gathering as the as "religious right." If they are the religious right, then are the people who believe differently the "nonreligious left"?

Can't you people just report the news without placing a slant on every person or group by labeling them as the "right " or "leftists"?

Lee Carlson, Spring Hill

Hillary Clinton wants to force everyone to buy private health insurance. This was presented as a "solution" to the medical care crisis in this country.

Discounting the fact that no one has a clue on paying for this, forcing everyone to buy health insurance will do nothing to fix the two most significant U.S. health care issues: overall costs per unit of care and the quickly dissolving coverage for everyone who has insurance.

The only solution centers on concocting a single-payer/negotiator system. We already have one that works perfectly well, Medicare. Just expand it. And while you're at it, throw out that dopey graft to the HMOs, Medicare Part D, and put it in government hands.

This is a pipe dream of course. The HMOs and Big Pharma own all politicians. This includes Hillary Clinton, who triangulated her phony proposal so as to stay in the deep end of the contribution pool. The entire news media have been co-opted by revenue streams from drug company advertisers. Advertising drugs directly to consumers is illegal in every other civilized country in the world.

So as your life is being jerked this way and that while you grovel for coverage, be assured there are only two certainties. The entire medical system cares only that you cost them little while taking your premiums, and politicians only hope they fake you into voting for them.

Dale Friedley, St. Petersburg

A flawed approach

I have two points of concern. The first is that people are fooling themselves if they think that someone who currently isn't paying for insurance but is able to go to the hospital for indigent (free) care, is going to pay thousands of dollars a year for health insurance. Insurance is required for people who drive cars, yet there are many drivers who do not have car insurance. This component of Hillary Clinton's plan would be impossible to enforce, therefore we would have the producers ultimately paying for the nonproducers. Sound familiar?

The second point is that health insurance premium increases have consistently outpaced inflation increases. Clinton does not address this in her plan. Do you think Hillary Care II would change this phenomenon? Without more government intervention, premiums would soar disproportionately out of control in only a few short years. Her plan would ultimately lead to government run and controlled national health care - socialized medicine. Nice try but I'm not biting.

Dr. Mark C. Brown, St. Petersburg

[Last modified September 20, 2007, 23:03:36]