Unfortunately, the ‘system’ did indeed work
To the editor:
Upon reflection, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s statement that the “system worked” is true:
1. Government gathered data that it did not use.
2. Government did not understand the problem.
3. Government did nothing to solve the problem (but notice that, thankfully, an individual did).
4. Government tried to “spin” its incompetence (i.e., the “system worked”).
5. Government is now instituting a series of meaningless responses to what happened on the Christmas flight to Detroit, such as no bathroom breaks within an hour of landing. If this policy had been in place prior to this incident, the failed terrorist would have tried to blow up the airplane while flying over Cleveland instead.
Do you feel safer now?
Yes, she’s right, the “system” worked.
Roberta F. Lenzie
LAS VEGAS
Be careful
To the editor:
In response to your Sunday commentary reprinted from The Wall Street Journal:
The author of “A regulatory iceberg,” Richard Epstein, vehemently expresses his displeasure that forcing people to carry health insurance is a most unjust form of coercion, and then he goes on to attack other measures that will compel insurance companies to enroll all comers, forcing them to take business measures that are likely to have an adverse effect on their bottom-line profits.
It is interesting to note that a second item in Sunday’s Review-Journal, “Hit in the ring, hit in the pocket” cites a case of a boxer with inadequate insurance costing the public $450,000 in uncovered medical bills, with the costs still rising. As the article goes on to report, “Taxpayers get the bill when boxing insurance falls short.”
Connecting the dots, it is not difficult to see that when individuals lack medical insurance, the public often gets stuck with the bill. If we are to emphasize personal responsibility, we are also allowing people who are not extremely wealthy to opt out of health insurance, giving them the liberty to saddle the taxpayer with extraordinary medical expenses.
Great efforts have been made by the health care industry and others who oppose a public option, or health care reform in general, to scuttle any meaningful action to extend coverage to the uninsured.
As the old adage says, “Be careful what you wish for.” Because the uninsured represent a huge potential public liability if their need for regular health care goes unacknowledged.
Eric Stefik
LAS VEGAS
Still a gap
To the editor:
In his Friday letter, Gerry Hageman takes issue with a letter published earlier from John Tobin on the Senate’s health reform bill, arguing the plan “closes the gap to prescription drug coverage for all on Medicare.”
Well, a reading of the bill online indicates that the gap “closing” involves a 50 percent discount on the way brand-name drugs count toward the gap and will only be available to middle- and lower-income Medicare recipients.
There will still be a gap. Better for some, but still onerous for all.
BOB LIEBERMAN
LAS VEGAS
Money matters
To the editor:
Can someone please explain the thought process of Nevada Rep. Dina Titus?
I get this hugely overpriced mailer/survey — courtesy of the ruling class franking privilege — extolling all her accomplishments. One of her survey questions is, “If you support an increase in the number of troops, do you support or oppose increasing revenue to pay for that increase?”
This, of course, is the economic genius who has supported every one of these crazy spending bills creating the largest budget deficit in history (by far), but then votes against raising the debt ceiling. When you spend money you don’t have, where does she believe it comes from?
Douglas Hunter
LAS VEGAS
Right-leaning Harry
To the editor:
Conservative political commentator Chuck Muth recently opined that “Harry Reid is no conservative under any definition.” I checked thatsmycongress.com, and they rate Harry Reid the 46th most conservative of the Senate’s 60 Democrats, way down the list from Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania at 15 and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana at 28.
His score ties him with “Blue Dog” conservatives Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Tom Carper of Delaware.
“Harry Reid is no liberal,” Las Vegas CityLife Editor Steve Sebelius wrote in 2006. “We wish he was a liberal. We wish he’d take a single liberal stand and dig in his heels. But just because you oppose President George W. Bush doesn’t make you a liberal.” Mr. Sebelius’ assessment fairly reflects Sen. Reid’s record. He believes that “marriage should be between a man and a woman,” and he voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act. He favors overturning Roe v. Wade. He voted to ban partial-birth abortion.
Sen. Reid also favors the death penalty. He’s the Senate’s staunchest supporter of hard-rock mining on royalty and pollution issues. He wants to give oil companies $15 billion in tax breaks. He voted for the liberation of Kuwait and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Unlike a certain governor, he’s an observant Mormon and isn’t a skirt chaser. Unlike a certain senator, he doesn’t have to pay hush money to any former mistresses.
Face it, Harry Reid is a bit on the conservative side, though not under any definition known to Chuck Muth.
Rich Dunn
CARSON CITY
