Heller correct on benefits for veterans
To the editor:
I want to respond to Doug Fleckner’s Aug. 24 letter criticizing Sen. Dean Heller for backing a bill that would offer a tax break to veterans who travel a distance for medical treatment:
Sen. Heller is right. Veterans are first.
Before Mr. Fleckner complains about veterans, why don’t we take on illegals? Illegals get food stamps and free medical and dental for themselves and families. Meanwhile, low-income veterans cannot get free medical and dental for their families.
While Sen. Harry Reid is powerful, he would rather support illegals.
The Southern Nevada homeless veterans are the third largest in the nation, thanks to Sen. Reid and Rep. Shelley Berkley. They would rather support foreign aid to other countries. While Americans and children are starving, the government supports children in other countries.
As a combat veteran and disabled veteran, I believe we veterans earned our benefits.
DENNIS C. DICE
HENDERSON
Entitlement reform
To the editor:
In his recent article comparing the two candidates for the 2nd Congressional District, reporter Ed Vogel writes about Republican Mark Amodei, saying “In May, he did praise a plan by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., that would cut Medicare and Social Security benefits.”
This is a fabrication. Rep. Ryan’s proposal would not cut Medicare benefits for either current or future recipients. He proposed permitting eligible citizens be given the opportunity to shop around for their own coverage, which would be subsidized by the government. This proposal gives seniors choice in their medical decisions and would create competition among providers.
Rep. Ryan’s proposal does not address Social Security at all.
William W. Moreland
Henderson
Energy plans
To the editor:
This week, several high-level members of the Obama administration, including Vice President Joe Biden, will be here in Las Vegas to discuss our region’s clean energy future. While we welcome the new jobs and economic benefits that will come from increased wind and solar power in Nevada, it is important that they don’t come at the expense of our most treasured lands, wildlife, heritage resources, and the tourism and outdoor industries that they support.
That’s why it’s critical for U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to finalize his agency’s plan for solar development here in the West to ensure that any new development is balanced with our need to protect our natural and heritage resources.
Mr. Salazar recently announced that his agency is revisiting an original draft plan from last year after an exceptional amount of feedback from stakeholders. Many of the areas left open to development and transmission in the Bureau of Land Management’s preferred alternative of that plan could cause major habitat conflicts, impact local water resources, and cut off access to quality hunting and fishing areas.
Conservationists and sportsmen continue to support a strategy that focuses clean energy projects in specific appropriately-sited zones as a way to plan effectively and reduce risk to habitat. We also believe that there is a role for local voices to play in helping the BLM to locate and modify these zones and come up with additional zones based on Nevada’s experts local knowledge. With appropriate designation of these zones, the Interior should address methods to further protect our special places.
Mr. Salazar has shown a commitment to responsible energy development on our public lands. We urge the secretary to move quickly to put a solid plan in place for meeting our clean energy needs while protecting our water, wildlife, and Nevada heritage.
Greg Seymour
Las Vegas
The writer is renewable energy coordinator for the Nevada Wilderness Project.
Congressional addicts
To the editor:
Regarding the proposed balanced-budget amendment:
The Winehouse family maintains that Amy died of withdrawal symptoms from drug addiction. I fear a similar fate awaits members of Congress if they should ever have to curtail their spending habits.
Thomas Kueny
Kingman, Ariz.
By mail
To the editor:
Your Saturday article (“Mail-order drugs, those left in hot cars lose potency”) falls victim to a red herring drugstores use to scare people into visiting their stores instead of having prescriptions mailed to their homes.
The truth is that mail-service pharmacies adhere to all Food and Drug Administration rules, ship those prescription medications that may be adversely affected by extreme heat in refrigerated packaging, and notify patients to make sure those packages have been delivered properly.
The irony is that drugstores often have their own drugs mailed to them.
Home delivery is popular with patients because it offers 90-day prescriptions that are less expensive and more convenient than picking them up at the drugstore every 30 days. If drugstores want to stop patients from using mail, they should try lowering their own prices.
Charles Coté
Washington, D.C.
The writer is assistant vice president of strategic communications for the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association.
