It was with gratitude to The Times that I read "The Fine Print of the Insurance Initiatives" along with your article on the five insurance initiatives (Part I, Sept. 11).
Each of the special-interest groups considers only its own profit and not any long-term good it could derive from a cooperative effort. This presents a dilemma: If I choose a trial lawyer or insurance company proposal, by the "fine print" of their measures, I entrench them in possible corrupting or unfair practices, such as secrecy about finances or excessive legal profits or passing a law that is very difficult to change. If I choose a consumer-advocacy group, my pocketbook may be safe, but I might have put the insurance companies out of business and promoted a more highly centralized government not of my choice.
This whole problem of legislation by special-interest groups ought to be rethought. For instance, if consumers were free to vote on points within a package instead of a whole package, there might be a lot more votes. Or if representatives from all sides were required to hammer out their differences and come up with a joint initiative to be added to the other initiatives on the ballot, the average citizen might have clearer thinking on the issue.