Today's Letters: Tax proposal adds up to more unkept promises

By LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Published October 12, 2007

Governor's tax plan erases deep savings Oct. 10, story 

What do you know, another promise Charlie Crist got elected on won't be coming true. Gov. Crist spent his entire campaign saying he would lower the cost of homeowners insurance and lower state property taxes. We all know how the savings turned out. Our homeowners insurance increased again this year to cover a hurricane threat that's been nonexistent for two years running. Now we may save an average of $214 on our property taxes. Wahoo!

According to the article, $3.9-billion will come out of local government over five years for that savings. Will anyone benefit from that plan? The local governments won't because they have to figure out where to come up with that extra $3.9-billion. I know that extra $214 will come in handy, but it won't even put a dent in my property tax bill.

I want to know where the public outcry is for voting Crist into office when he can't fulfill his campaign promises.

Joshua Spiegelhoff, Tampa

Property tax plan needs improvement

I just read about the new proposed property tax cut. As I understand it, the super homestead exemption is out, the Save Our Homes with portability added is in, and there is an increase in the homestead exemption from $25,000 to $50,000. That will save the average person only about $200 per year. Geez, thanks, but no thanks.

Why not bring back the super homestead exemption (which lawmakers were willing to do), attach the Save Our Homes to the new discounted tax base and attach portability? This combination would reduce current taxes and control future increases.

If this current proposed plan is approved, it won't be long before the millage rate is increased to offset the savings. With the proposal as it is now, my vote in January will be no. It is not that hard to fix this right. It isn't rocket science.

Steve Koch, St. Petersburg

Citizens must act

Our current tax crisis is driven by (1) the overbroad Save Our Homes cap, and (2) lack of budget constraints by local governments from 1999 to the present.

Unless the citizens abolish the current the Save Our Homes cap and its across-the-board application we will see seniors leave, new families avoid and businesses abandon Florida.

As a solution to (1): Amend Save Our Homes so it applies only to those over 65 and allow portability when they downsize. This protects our seniors and allows them mobility when the time is right. It will also restore the equitable distribution of ad valorem taxes which has been destroyed by Save Our Homes.

Another alternative is a value added tax and abolishment of the ad valorem tax system.

As solution to (2): Throw the bums out! In the last legislative session, local governments lobbied to protect their nearly decadelong lack of spending restraint. The ballot box is a long-recognized method for meaningful change.

Patrick T. Maguire, Esq., St. Petersburg

Medicare problems cited in audits Oct. 7, story

Call it fraud

Your choice of the word "problems" in your headline for this story reveals the danger in using a euphemism.

The article clearly discusses fraud by UnitedHealth, WellPoint, Sierra Health, MemberHealth and Bravo Health, all holding presumably unambiguous negotiated contracts with Medicare for provision of goods and services to all Medicare participants.

The historic litany of insurers' antics included mismarketing (yet another euphemism for fraudulent marketing); rampant and unsubtantiated "denial of claims without explanation"; "backlogs and demeaning hold times" (a method used routinely by these players to deny or delay payments guaranteed by contracts signed voluntarily); and, most egregious, termination for fictitious "nonpayment of premiums."

It's simply their "style," designed to glom our premiums and delay or deny payouts, thus ensuring the profitability of their chicanery.

That Medicare official Kerry Weems publicly refuses to tolerate "marketing abuses" is a decent starting point. Were the Justice Department to sue these entities for nonperformance of contract we would all be better served. When is "enough" government fraud enough?

Craig Usas, M.D., Cape Coral

Medicare problems cited in audits

Oversight is needed

It is the providers that are at issue, not Medicare.

Improperly denying claims; a backlog of 354,000 claims; 27 minutes to answer a member's phone call; having to repay $720-million; failure to meet deadlines on appeals 40 percent of the time - on and on go the lengthy lists of member neglect and failings. These are problems with the providers that simply devastate their Medicare members. Again, it is not Medicare; it is the providers.

Kerry Weems, acting director for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, says, "I am simply not going to tolerate marketing abuses." Well, Kerry Weems, there is a lot more being tolerated than just marketing abuses - with an estimated $4-billion due in paybacks for 2006 alone.

Medicare is a benefit for elders and unfortunates. It is morally and ethically wrong to grab dollars away from the recipients in order to increase corporate profits. How many claims were denied in this process? How many illnesses were exacerbated? And, yes, how many deaths resulted from all of this?

Demand accountability and demand responsibility from Congress as well as the providers. As long as the lobbyists rule, these sorts of shenanigans will continue. Indeed, our golden years have turned into gold for the providers!

Austin R. Curry, executive director, Elder Care Advocacy of Florida, Tampa

Don't trim inspection of meat - beef it upOct. 7, editorial

Well done is best

While I agree with much of your editorial - especially the billions we waste on farm subsidies that farmers don't need - the reality of ground-beef processing plants is that there are no "for sure" guarantees of no E. coli contamination no matter how many inspectors a plant has.

Processors spot-check and test shipments of incoming beef for E. coli bacteria, but it is impossible to test every pound. After the beef is ground and turned into patties and 10-pound tubes, it could be irradiated, but the public (unfortunately) has been taught by media reports to be wary of irradiation.

Therefore, the one sure way to avoid any possible contamination is very simple and is printed on most packages of ground-beef products: Cook all ground beef and patties to the safe temperature of 160 degrees, or until the juices are running clear (no red or pink). That will kill any possible E. coli or other bacteria that may be in the meat. The public needs to quit wanting medium-rare burgers and instead cook or order medium-well-done burgers.

John Keglovich, St. Petersburg

[Last modified October 12, 2007, 00:39:00]