Follow the money on fire sprinkler issue
To the editor:
Saturday’s editorial decrying the Las Vegas City Council’s decision to mandate fire sprinklers in all new homes hit the nail on the head. However, there is one more nail and one more strike required: motivation.
Just why did this issue come up? They say for most answers, follow the money. In this case, it is fire sprinkler companies run by former firefighters who benefit. It is sprinkler inspection services run by former firefighters, and fire inspectors, who are current Fire Department employees.
With the primary buyer of fire sprinkler systems — commercial construction — in the toilet, where, oh where, are the retired firefighters to get their income from? From the untapped residential market, of course.
And Tim Szymanski, apologist and water boy for the Las Vegas Fire Department, contradicts previously stated reasons fire sprinklers must be made mandatory. It’s never been to save the building, but simply to give more time for occupants to escape.
Greed is a great motivator, and we’re seeing it in this most recent decision. So long as unions control the city and county governments through the members of the City Council and County Commission, nothing will change.
Mark R. Craven
Las Vegas
Moving violation
To the editor:
What’s happened to the Nevada I grew up in? My wife and I just received a $125 ticket for driving on a dirt road that I’ve been using for 30 years.
Adding insult to injury, the Bureau of Land Management “ranger” with a big gun and a shiny new $50,000 SUV treated us like we’d just robbed a bank, a disrespect that just floors me coming from a public servant.
After researching this “violation,” I find the feds, who own almost 90 percent of Nevada land, have essentially forbidden any public use of all dirt roads surrounding Las Vegas. I was never asked nor alerted about this.
Who makes these decisions? Why is there not public discussion of this government by fiat?
As the Review-Journal editorial pages often warn, we indeed are gradually losing our freedom.
Douglas Hunter
Las Vegas
On the records
To the editor:
In his Saturday letter, “Medical records,” writer Mark Morris is loose with the facts and shows little knowledge of the topic. He does show, however, his dislike of our president and his ability to twist the truth to try to prove his point.
The switch from paper to electronic medical records, whether mandated or unmandated, is being done around the world to improve health care and make it far more efficient. The ability to save lives because of instant access to complete medical information is the ultimate result of this change.
Imagine having a medical issue on a trip to Asia, yet cure is simple with instantaneous access to all of your history.
Of course, progress, saving lives and improving the quality of health care isn’t high on the writer’s priorities. In fact, health care trails most global businesses in digitalization of information. The technology has been proved in the private sector, and the benefits and tremendous cost savings are well-known and accepted.
A quick web search will also disprove Mr. Morris when he asserts that General Electric is one of the largest providers of EMR software. This is not true — GE is mainly a hardware provider. Clearly, another false attempt to disparage the positive efforts of President Obama.
Mr. Morris also attempts to make the ridiculous point that if we convert to digital medical records, all medical records departments’ employees will lose their jobs. This is insane. How do records become digitized in the first place? It takes people to prepare, proof, scan, index and quality control all converted information. These tasks are very similar to the time and effort needed to file paper records. The net result is very little employment change.
The other result, however, is that when information is digitized, it can then be sorted, analyzed and reviewed far more effectively, allowing medical professionals to make far better decisions about every health care issue.
In fact, digitizing medical records can improve the jobs of employees, turning them into information providers from paper handlers.
In addition, this added information can be used to create more positive medical outcomes at a far lower cost.
As a person who has worked in the business of digitalization for decades, I know what positive impacts this can truly bring to health care. The saddest part of Mr. Morris’s letter is that it is another reactionary ploy against progress. It seems many on the far political right are acting on the true definition of conservatism, working to limit change and progress, going back to the past, and resisting change, even if change means better health care for all.
Paul Carman
Henderson
Dead soldiers
To the editor:
The killing of U.S. soldiers as an act of revenge for Quran burning is anti-Islam and satanic. The Quran demands respect of life. There is no justification for the killings. Islam does not approve of it and Muslims do not approve of it. We condemn it.
Aslam Abdullah
Las Vegas
The writer is director of the Islamic Society of Nevada.
