Undermining public education
Florida’s rapid expansion of charter schools is fundamentally reshaping public education — and not for the better. While charter schools were originally envisioned as innovative public options, they have increasingly become vehicles for advancing a narrow set of conservative values, often at the expense of inclusivity and democratic oversight.
Many of these new charter schools, particularly those affiliated with organizations like Hillsdale College, openly promote curricula that downplay systemic racism, emphasize religious perspectives, and present a sanitized version of American history. Strict codes of conduct and selective enrollment practices further exclude students who don’t fit a particular mold, deepening segregation by race, income, and ability.
This movement diverts billions in taxpayer dollars away from traditional public schools, which are left to serve the highest-need students with fewer resources. Meanwhile, charter operators enjoy reduced oversight and accountability, making it easier to prioritize ideology over evidence-based education.
The danger is clear: we are funding a parallel system that undermines the foundational promise of public education — a system meant to serve all children, regardless of background, and to prepare them for participation in a diverse democracy.
If we continue down this path, we risk creating an education system that is divided, unequal, and driven by partisan agendas rather than the common good.
Floridians must demand transparency, accountability, and a renewed commitment to truly public schools that reflect and serve the needs of our entire community.
Paul Howard, Naples
Medicare Advantage works
Florida seniors know Medicare Advantage works. Washington should too. When millions of older Floridians are choosing the same kind of health care, it’s worth paying attention. The Sunshine State is home to one of the largest senior populations in the country, and more than 2.4 million of us have made the choice to enroll in Medicare Advantage – a trusted resource in the senior community.
Across the country, nearly 35 million seniors and people with disabilities are enrolled in Medicare Advantage, and satisfaction is consistently high. In fact, 95% of enrollees say they’re happy with their coverage. That’s because the program goes above and beyond fee-for-service Medicare by including much-appreciated services like integrated dental, vision, and hearing benefits, prescription coverage and delivery, as well as supplemental, wraparound benefits like gym memberships, in-home care supports, and transportation to and from medical appointments.
Medicare Advantage reflects a promise made to seniors to protect our access to the health care we deserve while lowering our daily costs. In Florida, that commitment means stable premiums that cover coordinated care and a focus on prevention over crisis – all resulting in less stress and greater ease in retirement.
With the health care of millions on the line, any effort to reduce funding or limit access to Medicare Advantage would be a serious misstep. In a state where so many rely on this care, cuts would mean higher costs, fewer benefits, and unnecessary disruptions for people who have earned better.
Our Florida delegation in Washington understands the importance of protecting Florida’s retirees. Leaders like Senator Ashley Moody and Representative Byron Donalds must ensure this moment is no exception and move to preserve Medicare Advantage, which is clearly delivering for the people it was designed to serve.
Jane Esser, Fort Myers
Medicaid work requirement
The current version of President Trump’s tax bill would add a new 80-hour-per-month work requirement for nondisabled Medicaid recipients. No such requirement exists for Medicaid under the current law. The bill would require that nondisabled Medicaid recipients participate in at least 80 hours of work per month. Americans could qualify for an exemption, like being a student or caregiver. The bill would also increase the eligibility checks for coverage.
And herein lies my dilemma. I am struggling to understand those who are so upset about the new requirement. Please someone, help me understand why there are those who feel we should provide benefits to those who are perfectly able to work, but for whatever reason choose not to do so. We are not a socialist country. Are those who are so upset also going to challenge the requirement for unemployment benefits that ensures people who have lost their jobs are actively looking for work? “What if they are not in good enough physical shape to travel to work” you say? In today’s world, there are plenty of jobs that can be done from home. I also feel people should take some accountability for their physical condition, including such things as exercise, and eating healthier. In fact, I would take it even one step further, and find “at home” jobs even for those who are disabled. That might provide people with some semblance of self-esteem.
Which leads into my next point. In my lifetime I have seen more and more people qualifying for disability, which is a big reason Social Security may not be around for our kids and grandkids. Too often I have seen people on disability swimming, golfing, boating, working on their cars, carrying in heavy bags of groceries in the house, etc., etc. How frustrating it must be for those who are working hard to see this abuse?
Rita Montano, Cape Coral
Making America less healthy
During the presidential campaign last year, President Trump famously stated that he had a “concept” for a health care plan. He made the vague remark during the debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, but no one followed up by asking for some specifics — neither of the two talking head moderators or the vice president — nor did any of the generally supine media afterwards. He still hasn’t provided any details, but the “Big Beautiful Bill” he espouses does have a plan: slashing Medicaid by some $800 billion over a 10-year period and creating obstacles to its availability in ways that will deny or substantially reduce benefits for an estimated 11 million Americans, including many of the approximately six million recipients here in Florida, who comprise about one-fourth of the state’s population.
Because the “concept” is meeting some stiff resistance from a handful of Republicans in Congress, especially the Senate, and universal opposition from the Democrats, it has yet to come to fruition. But by the time the lawmakers take off for the summer, there undoubtedly will be major cuts to the nation’s largest health care program that serves some 71 million Americans, about 20% of the country, despite prior assurances from GOP quarters that Medicaid would stay intact.The retrenchment is accompanied by a number of obstacles erected by the administration to access to the Affordable Care Act known as Obamacare that the President unsuccessfully, due to the single opposition vote of Senator John McCain, tried to eliminate, with no replacement in sight, during his first term. The latest constrictions seem to be the main features of the president’s “concept” that, in conjunction with the machinations Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., will make America less healthy.
Marshall H. Tanick, Naples
Proposed Medicaid cuts
Are you prepared if your relative is discharged from a health care facility? The proposed federal budget calls for cuts of $880 billion to Medicaid coverage over the next 10 years, significantly affecting the health care of Lee County, particularly impacting small or rural hospitals and nursing homes.
Consider: Millions of individuals could lose their Medicaid coverage, putting immense pressure on their family and communities dependent on community services. Impact on health care facilities: Hospitals will feel financial strain due to reduced funding impacting their ability to deliver quality care. Nursing home regulations: When Medicaid benefits are set to expire a nursing home resident has a limited time frame to arrange private payment or alternative care. Importantly, nursing homes cannot evict residents simply due to expiration of benefits, emphasizing the need for proactive planning for residents and their families. Community consequences: The cuts could lead to increased hospitalization rates and emergency care barriers as families navigate the health care systems without adequate coverage, ultimately affecting health outcomes in Lee County.
It is essential for community policy makers to engage in discussions about mitigating the impacts of these cuts on vulnerable populations and local health care systems. Is this cut in the federal budget being done to give tax breaks to the wealthiest individuals? I am concerned about the health of Lee County!
Kathleen Callard, RNBS, North Fort Myers
Democrats need to get over it
The bombs have been dropped. Trump, in an amazingly secretive way, surprised Iran and the world by taking out Iran’s nuclear capability. It was a quick, decisive and measured strike. No civilian casualties. The last bomb dropped and the Democrats started calls for Trump’s impeachment. The Democrats have quickly forgotten that Obama bombed many Mideast countries without approval of Congress. Ro Khanna and AOC and others showed their utter disdain for anything Trump does. They failed to realize or admit that the reason Iran had the nuclear infrastructure that it did is because of the do-nothing policies of the Democratic Presidents Obama and Biden. Obama sent them pallets of money, billions of dollars and Biden kept a hands-off approach. His envoy, John Kerry, was a total failure and was in fact siding with Iran.
The Democratic Party is drowning in a sea of hatred and they are broke. They lost the election and cannot figure out why. The American people denied Harris/Walz. They chose Trump/Vance. You would think that the Democrats would show their maturity and intellect by joining with Republicans to unite the country. That is not happening. The Democrats are little, old, spoiled brats who have gotten their way all too often. Maybe they should sit in the corner and hold their breath and then come to their senses.
Michael Zubrow, Naples
Global health funding cuts
Over 350,000 people around the world have died so far due to cuts in American global health funding. Millions more have lost access to vital health services. Ibrahim Koroma, a baby born with HIV in Liberia, died just days after a program preventing maternal-to-fetal transmission was eliminated. Nadia Abdulai, a severely malnourished 2-year-old in South Sudan whose household was reduced to one meal a day of sorghum mush, now faces permanent consequences after nutrition funding was cut. Diana Lungu, a 10-year-old orphan in Zambia, lost access to both food assistance and HIV medicine after the orphans and vulnerable children program within PEPFAR was slashed. Yamah Freeman, a pregnant mother of two in Liberia, hemorrhaged and bled to death after USAID stopped supplying fuel for ambulances. These are not unpreventable tragedies; they are a direct result of the choices made by leaders in Washington.
Is this who we are? Is it a sign of strength to let babies, mothers, and orphans die? Yes, USAID programs could use reform, but they cost only 0.24% of our gross national income and save an estimated six lives every minute (Center for Global Development.) For people like Ibrahim, Nadia, Diana, and Yamah, please call Senators Moody and Scott and urge them to vote against the rescissions package that would permanently claw back this funding. I know that these are not the values of our community, and it must be politically costly to make decisions that kill children.
Rosie Poling, Marco Island
Iran’s provocations
I just listened to the Iranian ambassador’s spiel to the UN. I wish I could ask him at that point: Your country has said death to Israel for years and has sent rockets from Iran and Iranian proxies. Iran has also preached death to America for years. Were we supposed to wait for your rockets before striking your nuclear sites?
John Piccolo, Estero
Iran nuclear agreement
President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran: The agreement was made July 14, 2015 and included a series of provisions describing actions that Iran would undertake for specified periods of time. It was co-signed with the U.S., China, Russia and the European Union members. The deal went into effect on Jan. 16, 2016, after the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) verified that Iran had completed steps, including shipping 25,000 pounds of enriched uranium out of the country, dismantling and removing two-thirds of its centrifuges and allowing for more extensive international inspections of its nuclear facilities. The U.S. and many European nations lifted oil and financial sanctions and released about $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets. Some of the deal’s opponents faulted these so-called sunset provisions, saying they would only delay Iran building a bomb while sanctions relief would allow it to underwrite terrorism in the region. Many experts say that if all parties adhered to their pledges, the deal almost certainly could have achieved that goal for longer than a decade. Many of the JCPOA’s (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program have expiration dates. For example, after ten years centrifuge restrictions would be lifted, and after 15 years, so would limits on the amount of low-enriched uranium Iran can possess. In 2018 the U.S. formally withdrew from the agreement. In January 2020, Iran officially announced it would no longer abide by the deal’s limitations, though it stated it would continue to cooperate with the IAEA. The IAEA initially certified that Iran was generally following the main terms of the JCPOA. In early 2023, the IAEA reported they had detected traces of uranium at Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility that was enriched to “near weapons-grade level that Iran claimed was accidental.” It appears that regardless of President Trump, Iran was going to have an atom bomb. Is the world safer with or without Iran having an atom bomb?
Ted Raia, Naples
Perhaps bias is yours
To the writer who complained of this newspaper’s “journalistic bias” and those believing the “mainstream media” conspires to distort facts, I urge you to apply deductive reasoning: Occam’s Razor (the simplest explanation is usually the correct one). Dunning-Kruger (people of lower ability or those less informed tend to overestimate their own intelligence).
You believe tens of thousands of educated, professional journalists working full time within their field of expertise collude en masse to report inaccurate information. Wouldn’t the more logical explanation be a few news outlets that reported differently were not practicing the same journalistic ethics? Especially when a lawsuit determined one such network was negligent and defamatory.
Isn’t it more likely the “12-1 ratio” of letters opposing Trump accurately reflects the ratio of letters received? One might also consider the possibility that certain informed voters (i.e. those voting solely for tax policies) might be concerned how they will be judged by future generations. When your name is published here, it’s in the public domain. You are now forever associated with the politician/policy you championed. Future generations may consider what/who you supported as shameful (as Confederates and Nazis are now).
Before discounting this newspaper, its journalists and our esteemed academics, ask yourself why Trump professes love for the “undereducated.” If you are seeking truth and wisdom, you’ll want to continue reading your daily newspaper. Eventually you may recognize this newspaper provides counterbalance to “click-bait.” Perhaps you’ll discover the “bias” of which you complain is not theirs, but yours.
Paula Blackman Iacampo, Estero
This article originally appeared on Fort Myers News-Press: Letters to the editor for Wednesday, June 25, 2025
Reporting by Letter writers / Fort Myers News-Press
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
