LETTERS: Campaign finance editorial gets it wrong


To the editor:

It’s amazing how on adjacent pages in Friday’s Review-Journal, two articles can take two different stances on one issue, with a columnist showing just how biased an editorial writer is. Steve Sebelius’ column on the campaign finance ruling was well-thought-out and well-explained (“Disclosure all that’s left after Supreme Court ruling”). Mr. Sebelius showed how the political decision of the conservative justices, whose job it is to interpret the law instead of furthering their own political beliefs, now makes the most precious freedom that any American can have, the right to vote, available only to the wealthy.

No longer can a politician defend himself against vicious lies and attacks made by businessmen who have bought and paid for other politicians’ influences unless they, too, succumb to the lure of the almighty dollar and surrender their ethics to a corrupt influence public benefit coven.

However, in reading the opinion of the editorial board (“Victory for free speech”), the Review-Journal apparently believes that money equals votes. The editorial states that, “Limiting donations limits political speech.” How ironic that the editorial mentions “donations” and “free” in the same sentence. In the opinion of the editorial board, the more money you have, the more influence you should have. To the editorial board, this is free speech.

It should come as no surprise, though, as in the past, Review-Journal editorials have supported anything that would help corporations and the privileged at the expense of the common people (abandonment of the minimum wage, denial of health care, reduction of public education, etc.). The last statement in the editorial is probably the most despicable. “Score one for individual, natural rights.” With the floodgates now open for corporate moneys, there is nothing individual or natural about this ruling, as the common man is once again sold out to the mighty dollar.

Is this what the Supreme Court should be about: Protection of the wealthy and the grinding into the ground of the majority?

RANDALL BUIE

HENDERSON

Defending VA hospital

To the editor:

I would like to address the bad press that the Veterans Affairs Medical Center has been receiving lately. First and foremost, it’s quite evident that the journalist who writes bad press about the VA and the VA Hospital really dislikes the VA; however, there are many who are treated by the VA throughout the state, and especially here in Las Vegas, who are thankful for the services they receive.

Yes, there are some issues that the VA needs to address in a more timely fashion, but officials are working on it.

VA volunteer chief Karen Cinnamon has been personally attacked on numerous occasions. One article in particular addressed vouchers for the van drivers that had been discontinued (“Volunteers air complaints about coordinator at new VA Medical Center in North Las Vegas,” March 24Review-Journal). The changes were originally instituted by Ms. Cinnamon’s predecessor. Van drivers and all hospital volunteers who work four-plus hours can and do receive food vouchers.

Someone made comments relating to bodily threats allegedly made by Ms. Cinnamon. However, after a very thorough investigation, she was exonerated.

I have been a volunteer at the hospital for the past 1½ years, and a lead volunteer for the past year. The three main officials in Voluntary Services have always been professional in their dealings with the volunteers and have been helpful in getting issues dealt with in a timely, professional manner. I’d like to see more positive and less negative reporting about the VA.

DEE WOLFF

NORTH LAS VEGAS

Affordable Care Act

To the editor:

I want to share my experience on getting health insurance through the Nevada Health Link website. I am 61, and for the past eight years, I have not had health insurance. Whenever I tried to purchase on my own, I was either denied or quoted an outrageous premium that I was unable to afford.

My experience with the website was anything but smooth, but I was determined to see it through. In November, I registered and chose a plan through Health Plan of Nevada. I had until late December to pay my premium, but because of a technical upgrade, my account was locked and I was unable to pay online. I went to see an Affordable Care Act representative in January, and that person also could not access my account. The representative told me I would have to mail my premium in monthly, which I have now done for three months.

My monthly premium is $107, and I was granted subsidies. And all the hassles were worth it to now to have health insurance and greater peace of mind. What bothers me are the Republican Party’s lies and exaggerations about this law. Why has the House of Representatives voted more than 50 times to change or repeal this law, a move that would deny millions of people access to health care? Americans deserve health insurance just as much as Congress does, so let’s move on to other issues that need to be addressed, such as jobs.

Meanwhile, I thank President Barack Obama and the Democrats for passing this law, so that I don’t die early because I don’t have access to health care.

RITA MARTINEZ

LAS VEGAS

 

Rules for posting comments

Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Stephens Media LLC or this newspaper. This is a public forum. Read our guidelines for posting. If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon next to the comment.