Editor:

It was wonderful to see your two part article on local nursing homes ("Vulnerable," Aug. 4 and 11), following up on a story which had otherwise become very low profile.  I was disappointed by the printed letter in a recent issue pointing out that those who work in nursing homes work hard and are, for the most part, very dedicated to those they serve.  I thought your article (perhaps through quotation) was very clear on the distinction between those who work at homes and those who set staffing levels, profit requirements and policy.

Nursing homes aside, there has always been a divide between those persons, generally at the top, who set constraints and those persons, generally at the bottom, who are expected to work under the set constraints.  Over the past 30 or 40 years, this divide has grown alongside and perhaps in step with the growth in income inequality.  I hope the Journal can continue to highlight this issue, and will continue to do follow-up stories on events which would otherwise simply fade from memory.  I'd be interested in additional stories on elder care in our area, focusing on the effect federal and state budget cuts have had and will have on this care.

Good luck, and thank you again.

Mitch Trachtenberg, Trinidad

Editor:

Regarding your article entitled "Vulnerable" (Aug. 4 and 11) it is interesting how Dahlberg saw a positive light in the motives of the lawyers suing the nursing homes. Her statement, "The lawyers who started it all wanted to make a difference."  We should mention how much these well-intentioned lawyers profited from the lawsuit versus what the plaintiffs got.  Yes, it was a difference of an eight-digit number for the [attorneys] versus the $1,500 most plaintiffs received.  I wonder how much of the millions the lawyers made they are going to use to advocate for seniors. They did make a difference- a personal financial difference.

Benjamin Adduru, Fortuna