Letters to the editor: Dual enrollment to end at SCF, election ballot questions and health insurance ‘stupidity’

SCF’s bad decision

The myopic decision by State College of Florida to stop offering dual enrollment on high school campuses across two counties negatively impacts thousands of students and their families. In today’s day and age where student debt hangs like Damocles’ sword over present and future generations, the decapitation of a program that helps students earn credit toward a degree or industry certification before graduating college is infuriating.

SCF’s stated reason that “quality inconsistencies related to course rigor, faculty oversight, academic support and guidance were not meeting SCF quality standards,” seems like a poor excuse for a lack of institutional control on their own part if quality and not economic decisions is the real reason. Additionally, their decision to provide dual enrollment only through online programs and on campus seems to fly in the face of Florida statute and established norms throughout the Florida. At the same if you call SCF and ask if a student of any age can attend classes on campus the answer is no. You have to be in the 11th grade, unless you wish to apply for the collegiate school, which has a waiting list.

Not every student will go on to a university degree, but for some dual enrollment will give them the challenge of taking a college level class, for others it may be the first step in a career in law enforcement and for others it may be what gets them an industry certification without having to have student loans follow them to their graves. I encourage concerned citizens to ask the SCF Board of Trustees to walk back this terrible decision and to look for ways that if additional rigor and institutional controls need to be applied that it is done in a way that does not harm our students.

Inaki Rezola

Parrish

Ballot questions

Just got my absentee ballot. Would someone please tell me how in the world do E-Cigs (vaping) and offshore drilling get into the same up or down vote. Who are the idiots who put this most important of things, our ballots, together?

And if you want to know about Amendment 3, just follow the money. Disney and the Seminole Tribe are the ones paying tens of millions for those ads wanting you to vote yes.

Scott B. Scoville

Bradenton

Pre-existing ‘stupidity’

The degree of stupidity some of our elected officials exhibit never fails to amaze me. An example is the attempt by some of our representatives to introduce a bill that would force health insurance companies to provide insurance for pre-existing conditions. They obviously don’t understand how commercial insurance works. One of the first rules a new insurance underwriter learns is that he or she cannot insure a burning house. If forced to do so they would require a premium equal to the house’s worth plus three or four percent for profit. When the Phoenicians created insurance in the 14th century, it was not made available for known losses.

There are two elements of commercial insurance products that are not understood. First, it’s the only “product” for which the seller’s cost is unknown at the time of sale. Not knowing this, he is required to maintain “reserves.” These are constantly evaluated by each state’s insurance department in which they operate. It takes highly trained actuaries to evaluate their effectiveness. Underwriters always explain, “We drive the car and actuaries look out the rear window and tell us which way to steer.”

Secondly, the profits they make from this difficult “product” are very nominal, usually measured by single digits. Breweries easily make 10 times as much.

There is only one way to provide health care coverage to those that have preexisting conditions, something that has been adopted in a few other countries, and that is through a single provider concept such as a government supported national health plan, the cost of which would be borne by everyone. Some of that cost resulting from individual circumstances, such as keeping an elderly person alive, could be extremely high which could conceivably lead to the requirement for the use of “death panels.” Think about that.

Reinhold R. Klein

Bradenton