With certain reasonable exemptions, of course

To the editor:

In the wake of Obama’s re-election, the cover-up of the murders of our ambassador and three others in Benghazi, the Hamas rockets fired into Israel and the over-the-top mainstream media coverage of the Petraeus affair, I was desperately searching the pages of the Review-Journal for a rainbow when I came to Page 5B of the Nov. 19 edition.

It appears the city of San Francisco is “fed up” and ready to vote for an ordinance banning public nudity. Not that the ordinance means much in itself, except perhaps that the pendulum has reached its apogee and is beginning to swing back to a rational place where I can live, too.

The ordinance would “make it illegal for a person to expose his or her genitals, perineum or anal region on any public street, sidewalk, street median, parklet or plaza” or while using public transit.

I felt good for about five seconds, thinking I might visit Fisherman’s Wharf without being forced to see things (other than seals) that I don’t want to see. But my relief was short-lived. The article continued to explain that, of course, “Exemptions would be made for participants at permitted street fairs and parades, such as the city’s annual gay pride event and the Folsom Street Fair, which celebrates sadomasochism and other sexual subcultures.”

Well, heck yeah. What good is it to have a parade if you can’t expose your genitals to everyone? And how is one supposed to have a street fair without naked people? Sure, it just makes good sense to have these exemptions.

So now I’m back to thanking Metro for keeping Las Vegas from degenerating into Sodom and Gomorrah … and perhaps hoping the Mayan calendar is accurate and this will all be over soon. In the meantime, I’ll keep looking. Perhaps I’ll find something positive in the obits.

RONNIE GARNER

HENDERSON

It’s only fair

To the editor:

Wow, did County Commissioner Tom “Let them eat cake” Collins get it right. (“Officials: Tax boosts needed,” Nov. 17.) What a great politician he is. It’s not just anybody who’d call for a raise in the property taxes in one of the hardest hit areas of America, where housing is concerned.

Why shouldn’t our taxes go up? I mean, the County Commission worked hard on saving us money on the RTC contract. We could even raise the sales tax. Oh, wait, we did that already.

It seems only fair that our taxes go up. After all, our gas prices doubled, food prices increased, water went up, power went up, why not our taxes? Last time I checked my assessment, I only had 22 government entities with their hands in my house. Why shouldn’t their share go up?

Tom “let them eat cake” Collins for president.

FORREST A. HENRY

NORTH LAS VEGAS

Been there, done that

To the editor:

Regarding Ed Vogel’s Nov. 17 article, “Tax boosts needed”: Was this meeting intended to be a rerun of the 1957 Organized Crime Summit in upstate New York?

EDWARD R. DUFFY

LAS VEGAS

Ingrates

To the editor:

In his Nov. 21 column, Steve Sebelius argued “Nevada’s needy would give thanks for Medicaid.”

Baloney. Nevada’s “needy” would not give thanks, at all. They would just feel entitled to it. Everyone would figure the federal government would pay. The “government” is all the rest of the taxpayers who are forced to provide these benefits for those receivers who will absolutely believe they have a right to it. There will be no “thanks” to the people who have to pay for it.

The only “thanks” given – if at all – is to the political party they see as Santa Claus. I doubt that is going to be the party of Gov. Brian Sandoval.

ALICE COULSON

LAS VEGAS

Expand Medicaid

To the editor:

To argue that Gov. Sandoval should not expand Medicaid because Nevada does not have enough doctors is like saying the casinos should not accept more customers because their hotel rooms are full! That’s simply ridiculous.

Expanding Medicaid will not create a new burden to the state. The fact is that these 71,000 Nevadans who might qualify for expanded Medicaid are already using the emergency rooms and being treated by doctors that are not charging them or are charging much less for their services than they would normally charge.

So, what do we do? Keep ignoring the fact that they need preventive services? That some of them might need desperately to see a doctor because of all these years without health insurance and no primary care? Are we OK with letting them keep using the emergency rooms for non-emergency treatments? Or worse, for real emergencies that could have been prevented at less cost if they could have gotten the care they needed much earlier?

Geoff Lawrence of the Nevada Policy Research Institute suggests that Nevada should not get “the poor” excited about having health insurance if they are not going to get the care they need anyway. It seems that he should be more focused on trying to figure a way to entice medical personnel to move to Nevada, instead of denying medical care to Nevadans.

Nevada needs to expand Medicaid, not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because a healthy community creates a better economy and living experience not just for “the poor” but for all Nevadans.

ANNETTE RAVENEAU

LAS VEGAS

The writer is Communications Director for Know Your Care/Protect Your Care, an outfit dedicated to “helping shape Nevadans’ opinion on the Affordable Care Act.”

Stutterers

To the editor:

While I live outside Nevada, I want to commend Paul Harasim’s Nov. 11 column about speech therapist Adrien Pettit, “Therapist’s similies delivers smiles.”

I belong to an e-list of parents of children who stutter, and your article received positive comments from people from all over the U.S. and in many foreign countries. It is unfortunate that the subject of child speech problems receives such little media coverage while other ailments and disabilities receive almost celebrity status.

These days, private speech therapy for children can be too expensive for some families; even families who have employer-based health coverage are complaining. But the U.S. public is largely unaware that for almost 40 years every child in the U.S. has had the guaranteed right to free speech therapy, mandated by federal legislation. The best explanation of this unknown gem in our national health care system is the brochure “Special Education Law and Children Who Stutter,” available for download on the website of The Stuttering Foundation (www.
stutteringhelp.org.)

Adrien Pettit’s work typifies the work of a school speech therapist and underscores the importance of these unsung heroes of the health care profession.

EDWARD S. HERRINGTON

LONGMEADOW, MASS.

20 jobs

To the editor:

Does Harry Reid really believe the solar plant that will be built on the Moapa Indian Reservation is “a true opportunity to transform Nevada’s economy?” (“Moapa solar plant deal signed,” Nov. 21.)

The plant, when operating, will create 20 permanent jobs, tending to a bunch of glass panels that are soaking up the sun. Twenty jobs! Harry could cover the entire state of Nevada with solar panels and there would probably be fewer jobs in the industry than one major casino on the Strip.

I think Harry has been smoking too much funny tobacco from the peace pipe.

VICTOR MOSS

LAS VEGAS

Just wondering …

To the editor:

Reporter Keith Rogers (Nov. 21) keeps referring to “‘a company that will build nearly 1 million photovoltaic panels on tribal land.” I guess you could “build” a solar farm, but who is manufacturing the panels? Could it be China?

Just wondering who the next bankrupt solar panel manufacturer might be.

DAVE MURPHY

LAS VEGAS