Letters to the Editors

Bush's vetoes have hurt needed health centers

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 9, 2000

There has been a great deal of coverage in the press recently regarding the so-called legislative "turkeys," or items deemed non-essential to the state -- so much so that Gov. Jeb Bush saw fit to veto $313-million in "turkeys."

Unfortunately, hidden among the tomato festivals and caladium research were a myriad of health and social service programs that are essential to the people and communities in which they are located.

While we can only speak for the few community health centers that requested funding, programs such as domestic violence shelters, senior centers, mental health programs and shelters for abused children also received the veto ax.

The funding requested by community health centers was to be used for long-overdue renovations to health center facilities. Before we finish patting each other on the back over all the money "saved" by the budget vetoes, let's look at what's happening.

Florida's economy and tourist industry are thriving, but they provide little in the way of health care benefits for low-wage workers. There is no state program for the working uninsured. Health center patients without insurance pay for services on a sliding scale based on income. Out of nearly 430,000 health center patients statewide, 215,000 of them are uninsured and most are members of working families struggling to survive during the biggest economic boom this country has experienced.

Where will the families go when the health centers have no more room to provide for them? County health departments do an excellent job, but it would cost the state tens of millions of dollars if health departments were to take over the services currently provided by community health centers. Where are the savings?

Why should taxpayers care? Because the only choice these Floridians will have is at the already overcrowded emergency rooms. Their care will be paid for, and it will come out of the taxpayers' pockets. Where are the savings? Investing state dollars in preventive and primary-care facilities saves money by keeping Floridians healthy and at work.

The community health center projects included in the budget were supported by the Department of Health and are essential to the health of Floridians statewide. All the necessary forms and procedures were completed. Support through local matching funds had been secured. Legislators throughout the state sponsored and fought for the funds to complete these projects. The projects were vetoed even though similar projects in last year's budget were not. What should these health centers do now? What should 215,000 uninsured Floridians do the next time they need medical care?

Making across-the-board cuts for the sake of cutting is not good public policy. There has to be a better system for the people of this state and the essential health and safety programs they rely on daily. Let's hope the Legislature and Gov. Bush figure it out soon.
-- Tracy T. Payne, president/chief executive officer, Community Health Centers of Pinellas Inc., and Gail Cordial, vice president, Florida Association of Community Health Centers, St. Petersburg

In Cuba, parents count for little

Re: A victory for parents, June 2.

Your editorial celebrated the court ruling that Elian Gonzalez is too young to claim political asylum and must be returned to Cuba with his father. This is indeed a victory -- if you redefine "parents."

In Cuba, where the all-powerful Communist state has smashed every vestige of alternative authority, the role of biological parents is usurped by a totalitarian state. Under such a system, parental authority disappears and the state dictates to both parent and child.

Until this unpleasant fact is acknowledged, the celebrated "victory for parents" is a hollow sham. The question remains: Should the courts step aside and let this happen?
-- John V. Koontz, St. Petersburg

A question on parental authority

Re: A victory for parents.

In this editorial, you said, "Caring, fit parents should have the authority to direct their children's upbringing, even in a country such as Cuba."

If this is true, how can people justify locking parents out of a decision for a teenage girl to have an abortion? Politics?
-- G. Hitchingham, Dunedin

We must battle guerrillas and drugs

Re: Spend money on drug treatment, not Colombia aid, letter, May 6.

The writers expressed dismay at the prospect of U.S. aid going to Colombia to assist that country in its war against the Marxist FARC guerrillas. They fail to realize that the FARC has dedicated itself to destabilizing neighboring countries as well as its own. In addition, the FARC is aligned with Colombia drug cartels, and those groups have declared chemical warfare, using cocaine and heroin, against the United States and other countries. We are discussing a national security threat here, not the domestic issue of treatment.

The Colombian cartels and their willing handmaidens, the FARC, have aggressively marketed one toxic product after another (e.g., cocaine, crack cocaine and now heroin) to the United States and the world in furtherance of that despicable goal. It seems to be quite in our interest to aid the people of Colombia against the Marxist insurgents/cum drug co-conspirators.

As for the writers' concern for treatment funding, there is merit to that idea. Prevention, enforcement and treatment are equally important. However, the place to look for that money is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which is the natural federal agency to task with responsibility for drug treatment.

The entire federal criminal-justice apparatus, including the enforcement agencies, corrections and the courts, receives about 1 percent of the federal budget. It dedicates over half of that funding to combating drug trafficking, which constitutes national and international crimes. HHS receives 18 percent of the federal budget but dedicates only about 1 percent of that to drug issues, including research and treatment. If HHS were to dedicate 5 to 10 percent of its massive budget to treatment, it would go a long way toward providing treatment on demand to drug addicts.

It is imperative that we reduce the demand for drugs through prevention and treatment. It is equally necessary that law enforcement fight to stem the flood of drugs with the limited resources allocated to it, while we struggle to find ways to convince children not to begin drug use and current adolescent and adult users to quit.

We must also fight international criminals who declare war against us.
-- Wayne J. Roques, St. Petersburg

Size up drug testing's value

Re: We should try to limit drugs' harm, letter.

On May 19, Calvina L. Fay of the Drug Free America Foundation responded to your May 1 editorial about drug testing in the workplace. In your editorial, Put it to the test, you advocated a cost-benefit analysis of drug testing.

Fay asked rhetorically if it is okay for our airline pilots to smoke a joint at night and then fly our planes the next morning? Of course not. It is well established that workers doing safety-critical jobs can be tested for drugs, including the drug alcohol.

Fay asserted there is no credible research showing marijuana is not a significant factor in safety or productivity. In fact there is. It was done by three different road safety researchers in Australia in 1985, 1992 and 1995. All three studies showed the degree of driver responsibility (for his/her own fatal accident) to be the same regardless whether marijuana was present in the deceased driver or not. Alcohol, by contrast, correlated strongly with driver responsibility.

I agree with Fay that insurance companies should do their own research to determine if drug-free clients merit lower premiums. And if they are serious, they should also do a cost-benefit analysis of random Breathalyzer testing as their clients' employees punch in for their shift.
-- John Chase, Palm Harbor

Let homeowners assess the risk

The Florida government has determined that hurricanes and tornadoes have the power to damage or destroy residential housing. To help potential victims, the government has decided that new houses have to be built stronger. Windows have to be made stronger, and shutters have to be added in threatened areas.

What does government know about construction? Do government officials know more than architects and building contractors know?

What government doesn't seem to know is that people have to face economic reality. Government doesn't.

Free, sovereign citizens usually buy or build the best houses that they can afford. They are aware that there are dangerous, violent storms. Free people accept the risks that go with low-cost housing. They don't want to lose their homes, but they have to choose between what they can afford or nothing.

The best thing that government can do for the people is to stop interfering in their lives, including how and where they build their homes.
-- Charles Derer, Hudson

Political conventions remain important

I read where ABC, NBC, and CBS are planning to cut back their coverage of the national political conventions in August because of the poor ratings they received in 1996. This is a shameful reality in the United States today.

It's true that the long primary system has made this year's conventions mere coronations for Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush, but that fact is a poor excuse to ignore this unique exercise in American freedom every four years.

Why does each candidate usually improve in the polls after his party's convention? It's because all of America gets to see the party's celebration of its nominee for president. Whether that holds until November is unknown.

Personally, I'd rather watch a great exercise in American history for the future than find out if a common man wins a million dollars in a ridiculous game show.
-- Barry Sleesman, Spring Hill

The better bay area

Re: Bay-to-bay move has its trade-offs, June 5.

I really enjoyed this article, especially since my husband and I recently moved to the Tampa Bay area from the San Francisco Bay area three years ago for precisely the reasons revealed in the "Tale of Two Bay Areas" chart!

It is such a pleasure to drive to work and watch the dolphins in the bay instead of suffering the horrendous California traffic jams for hours on the freeway going 5 miles per hour!

I love being able to afford a nice house with a swimming pool and lots of land for under $120,000! Love the taxes also! When I paid my yearly car registration in California, it cost me $440 per year. I pay $40 here! We don't mind waiting 20 minutes for prescriptions because we love the pace of life. We feel we will live longer and healthier lives by slowing down a bit!

Why did we move to this bay area? Why live any where else?
-- Cheryl and Len Abate, Largo

Share your opinions

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 e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.

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.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.