LETTERS: Nevada Health Co-op didn’t get a fair shake

While the editorial on the Nevada Health Co-op ("Sick system," Aug. 28 Review-Journal) dovetails nicely with the Review-Journal's hackneyed anti-union views, some important information was left out in both the editorial and the report on the co-op ("Nevada Obamacare insurer fails," Aug. 27 Review-Journal). Readers didn't hear from the people insured by the co-op.

If the R-J were actually a good newspaper, Jennifer Robison's editor would have insisted that she talk with some of the members insured by the co-op to get their side of the story. Unfortunately, all readers got was news on high salaries, the union bogeyman, the brokers who purposely steered clients to other insurers and the late payments to one provider. There was nothing about the great policies at competitive prices, all the on-time payments to providers and the excellent customer service.

I've been insured over the years by the entire laundry list of medical providers. I joined the co-op in 2014, and it is far and away the best provider I've had in almost 40 years of carrying medical coverage. In 2014, enrolling though the Nevada Health Link was a complete mess, and almost all the information sent by the Health Link to the co-op was wrong. The co-op fixed all of it. The co-op covered and paid claims for my prescriptions, office visits, etc., for the three months I was supposedly uninsured, according to the exchange.

In fact, after I exhausted all avenues with the health link to make that one tiny change of correcting my start date, it was people at the highest level of the co-op who stepped in on my behalf in August and hounded the exchange until the change was made and sent. That's going to bat for your customer. I can't imagine any other carrier doing that.

In my two-year experience, the co-op has been fair and paid my providers on time. The customer service people were friendly, knowledgeable and were empowered to make decisions. Despite claims to the contrary, I found their network plenty large enough and didn't have to change any of the providers I used with my insurer from 2013. The truly sad part is that maybe if the co-op hadn't been badmouthed in the media and shunned by insurance brokers, it could have enrolled enough people to make a go of it.

Brad Zucroff

Las Vegas

Gun background checks

During my time as executive director of the Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, I've met many women at risk from abusive partners. I've learned that women are five times more likely to be killed if a gun is present in these situations.

So I was pleased to read a line in the Review-Journal's editorial that I've tried to explain for decades: "Background checks can help prevent tragedies, particularly when they keep guns out of the hands of domestic violence offenders." ("Background noise," Sept. 16 Review-Journal). Indeed, in states that require background checks for all handgun sales, 46 percent fewer women are shot to death by intimate partners.

At the same time, I was disappointed to see the editorial repeat a common misconception. As an advisory board member of Nevadans for Background Checks — a coalition working to pass a ballot initiative in our state in 2016 that would close the loophole that allows guns to be sold online and at gun shows with no background check — I want to set the record straight.

Contrary to the editorial's claims, criminal background checks on all gun sales will not "clamp down" on law-abiding citizens. The measure would simply level the playing field for background checks on gun sales, no matter who the seller is.

Nevada ranks fifth in the nation for women killed by men, and more than half of these homicides are committed with guns. No law will stop all domestic violence homicides, but knowing that states with background checks on all sales see a reduction in these crimes, we must support this change.

While I agree that improvements are needed to the offender database, this is not a justification for inaction. Background checks can and do make a difference. If we can save just one life from senseless gun violence, the effort is worth it.

Sue Meuschke

Reno

ESAs in religious schools

On its face, the Education Savings Accounts law seems like a good idea, but putting ESAs to work will be a different thing. Won't it require a new level of bureaucrats to administer and police the program? That's a big expense that will educate nobody.

Additionally, if any taxpayer funds find their way into the treasury of religiously affiliated schools, that should be unconstitutional.

Ray Byrom

Las Vegas