The pressures of mega-corporate America

To the editor:

In response to the Sunday commentary about Sierra Health’s possible merger with UnitedHealth:

When I first moved to Nevada, Sierra Health was but a mere pre-teen. Like a person moving from childhood to young adulthood, the company had a personality all its own. Like any person, he had some flaws, but his heart was in the right place. As in so many pre-teens, he was idealistic and had optimism for the future.

As Las Vegas grew, so did Sierra. To be sure, Las Vegas is a unique place. As such, it is very difficult to make a go of it in the health insurance market. As an insurance broker for 17 years, I have seen no less than a dozen health insurance companies come into Nevada only to leave when faced with the challenges of our unique city.

Sierra has embraced the challenge of rising medical costs, along with an expanding population. It is currently the only health plan in the individual market that offers a true point-of-service plan. In an era in which insurance companies are cutting back on everything, Sierra remains one of the best values.

The company’s underwriting is more than fair. It has mechanisms in place that don’t automatically decline people for insurance. While Nevada doesn’t have a state risk pool, Sierra currently insures people who would otherwise not be able to get insurance, or have a very difficult time getting it. To be sure, it shouldn’t be Sierra’s burden to bear, but it has stepped up — and we have otherwise uninsurable people enjoying the benefit of health insurance because of it.

This “hometown boy” came into its own and has made a huge difference. Now that Sierra is a “young adult,” its executives are realizing that their talents have value. To be sure, Sierra will benefit from streamlining its operations, reducing its (multiple) redundancies and the promise of a national network. But what will be lost?

Sierra is the last of the “hometown” kids. We may gain more access, but we may be losing our “favorite son.” What I’m afraid of is that UnitedHealth won’t allow Sierra to maintain its individuality — that what makes it unique. In wishing our offspring the best, I guess it’s inevitable that he will leave the nest to go on to bigger and better things.

Sierra holds a special place for me as an anachronism in a sea of uncaring mega-insurance companies. I just hope that this “baby” can withstand the pressures of mega-corporate America and stay true to its ideals.

Dan Heffley

LAS VEGAS

Higher tuition?

To the editor:

I see that the Community College of Southern Nevada has changed its name to the College of Southern Nevada, a move designed to increase the college’s prestige. I assume that the next step is to increase the tuition. After all, one must pay more to attend a more “prestigious” institution.

William C. Cuff

HENDERSON

Judicial discipline

To the editor:

Your July 1 story, “Delays in discipline criticized,” only glances at the over-arching issue of the crass manner in which judges must “run” for their benches. At the very least, lawyers should be banned from making any contributions to a judge or candidate for judge.

Our nation’s forefathers were wise in determining that one branch of the government should be distanced from elections. Even while ceding that the appointment system has its own fault lines, one must conclude justice is less likely to emerge from populist competitions. Moreover, the voting laity rarely understands the nuances of law and the skills needed to preside as a judge; they often rely on the thinly veiled political party affiliations for their choices.

Personally, I’m in no position to determine former District Judge Jeffrey Sobel’s guilt or innocence with respect to the charges via the Judicial Discipline Commission. Yet, at least he had the moxie to state his views openly and to the faces of the attorneys with whom he dealt, even recusing himself as a direct consequence of his bluntness. He could have kept silent, but then who could have successfully challenged any bias in him?

Pat Hershwitzky

LAS VEGAS

In perspective

To the editor:

In a time when we are appalled (and rightly so) at the loss of more than 100 Americans in Iraq last month, I am surprised not to see mentioned in your newspaper the fact that America suffered more than 36,000 killed or wounded in the first four days of July 1863, on the fields of Gettysburg.

Those four days 144 years ago were the bloodiest in the history of our country, yet we do not even acknowledge that terrible loss in any apparent manner. The best figures available indicate that the Union’s losses in the encounter were 17,684, comprising 3,155 killed and 14,529 wounded. For the Confederacy, the total casualty number (as best as can be determined) was 18,750, being broken down to 3,500 killed and 15,250 wounded.

Both sides recorded about 5,000 each of men unaccounted for.

Talk about tragic losses. Doesn’t that rate an article in the newspaper? Isn’t that something to contemplate on Independence Day?

Robert Mirisch

LAS VEGAS