LETTERS: Rice raises ceiling for UNLV basketball; give him time to succeed

To the editor:

There have been several letters to the editor complaining about UNLV men’s basketball coach Dave Rice. In most cases, the authors have used comparisons with Lon Kruger and Steve Fisher to make their point about Mr. Rice’s coaching ability. So let’s compare.

In his first four years at UNLV, Lon Kruger won 91 games and went to two NCAA Tournaments. Mr. Rice won 88 games and also went to two NCAA Tournaments. Mr. Rice has two wins over teams ranked third or higher and had a player drafted No. 1 overall, two things Lon Kruger didn’t accomplished in his seven years here. In Mr. Rice’s first four years of coaching, he has a slightly better winning percentage (65.4 percent) than Steve Fisher has compiled in 16 years at San Diego State (64.7 percent).

Mr. Rice has actually been the victim of his own success. He has recruited at a level not seen at UNLV in 25 years. With that success comes high expectations he has yet to meet. Although I always looked forward to the start of each season when Lon Kruger was here, I was never excited. While the last two seasons’ results have been disappointing, I prefer to anticipate each upcoming season with excitement, knowing the ceiling is now much higher than ever before.

MIKE MORGAN

LAS VEGAS

Annual smog checks

To the editor:

Kudos to Patrick Everson for his commentary regarding mandated smog checks (“Smog checks becoming little more than smokescreen,” March 19 Review-Journal). This state-sanctioned requirement of yearly checks has been dying a slow death for years due to improved emissions in our autos. The law should be altered to fit the times.

The shouts of “no” by those who own smog stations are not sufficient to sustain this practice in its present form. These people merely want to protect their self-interests and profits. The state Legislature should, and must, bring this antiquated practice into line with today’s emission realities and accordingly reduce the annual requirement.

RON NOWICKI

HENDERSON

Medicare Advantage

To the editor:

It would be difficult to find any physician, locally or across this country, whose practice hasn’t felt the acute impacts of baby boomers joining Medicare. With 10,000 new beneficiaries turning 65 every day, physicians who manage chronic diseases that often come with aging are working diligently to care for this rapidly growing population.

Patients with multiple chronic conditions such as diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart disease pose many challenges, particularly since they depend on multiple specialists whose individual care and findings are crucial to patients’ overall health. My patients with Medicare Advantage plans have a unique leg up, thanks to the fact that a key tenet of their coverage is coordinated care among their various physicians. Medicare Advantage’s coordinated care has proven that it saves money by helping to eliminate inefficiencies and ensure providers work together in the total care of the patient. It’s the type of smart, cost-effective collaboration our health care system needs.

Unfortunately, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is considering altering reimbursements for doctors who provide this care. Coordinated care, while great for my patients, requires significant resources in order to work effectively. Without sufficient payments from Medicare, my ability to offer care for this vulnerable patient population could become jeopardized.

I hope our elected officials in Washington, D.C., will talk to their constituents who enjoy the benefits of Medicare Advantage plans and urge CMS to keep us moving forward by making smart decisions when it comes to funding. Tell Congress to stop Medicare Advantage cuts at ProtectMyMA.com.

DR. SUNITA KALRA

LAS VEGAS

The writer is a family practice physician with HealthCare Partners.

Solar incentives

To the editor:

Thanks to Jennifer Robison for the excellent article on solar panels (“Let the sunshine in? Maybe,” March 22 Review-Journal). I would like to add a couple points of clarification.

First, the article stated, “If your roof faces north, forget about it.” I am aware of a solar owner who was not getting optimal sunlight on his north roof installation, so his installer came back and used a different racking system, so that the panels were pitched at a better angle. The results were excellent.

Second, Stacey Kusters of NV Energy said, “Absent the net-metering subsidy, rooftop solar doesn’t make sense.” I assume she is referring to the incentive limits mentioned in the previous paragraph of the story. However, her statement is false. Without the incentive, it will simply take a couple more years to pay off the panels.

If a homeowner pays cash, gets the 30 percent federal tax credit and has panels that generate enough to match the amount one was paying for one’s electric bills, the homeowner earns 10 percent a year on the investment. Those savings can be used to pay down the investment in anywhere from five to 10 years, after which the generated electricity is free except for the approximately $15 monthly connection fee to NV Energy. If one has an electric vehicle, driving turns out to be a free added benefit.

Clearly, our country should be moving to energy independence with clean energy. Even natural gas-fired plants give off emissions, not to mention the methane lost in the process of harvesting natural gas. I have heard that the owner of NV Energy, Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, is a fan of renewal energy. Thus, NV Energy should be supporting those who want to install solar panels. Mr. Buffett, a wise investor, recently sold all his Exxon holdings. Clearly, renewable is the way to go.

GARY MUSSER

LAS VEGAS