Show IDs for the SAT but not to vote?
To the editor:
The testing agencies involved with the SAT and ACT are now going to require a photo identification before a student can take either exam (Review-Journal, Wednesday). Why are they doing this?
According to the two companies, it's to prevent a repeat of a cheating scandal. Imagine, students hiring others to take these all-important examinations for them.
Can you think of any area more important than the SAT and ACT? I can. Yet politicians from one of our political parties are fighting and name-calling to prevent people from having to show photo identification to vote.
If the SAT and ACT are too important to risk compromising, then why aren't our elections?
Michael Dunegan
Las Vegas
Own the people
To the editor:
I have often been quite at odds with Steve Sebelius' columns before, but never to the point to where I felt compelled to write in response (Tuesday Review-Journal, "Did they change the definition of socialist?"). His definition of socialism is correct, but it is not complete.
Socialism is more than the government owning everything. It is also when it controls moral issues, diets, habits, social relations and all business transactions. In short, socialism is when the people in power presume that they (and only they) know more about how people should live their lives than the people know themselves.
Under socialism, the government owns the people. Under democracy, the people own the government. Socialist governments expect the people to view them as their savior.
A question for Mr. Sebelius: Is it possible for something to be socialist in nature without being the total package socialist?
VERLON J. BERKEMEYER
NORTH LAS VEGAS
Insurance mandate
To the editor:
Your Thursday front-page story, "High court hearings conclude," was very interesting. It reflected the political rhetoric that abounds in our government branches and the prime reason why nothing much gets done in Congress.
Paul Clement, the attorney representing Florida and 25 other states objecting to the health care law, said, "It's a very funny conception of liberty that forces somebody to purchase an insurance policy whether they want it or not." But we already have had that concept for many years in all the states.
We are all forced to buy auto insurance, whether we want to or not -- and for a good reason. Without these laws forcing us to buy insurance, the liability costs would be forced on fewer people.
The same thing is happening in health care.
People without insurance are forcing others to carry the monetary load. Hospitals are losing money by accepting patients without insurance who cannot pay. Because of this, health care costs are higher for the people who pay.
Why is there a difference between mandatory auto insurance and mandatory health insurance?
Or are we forever going to be victims of the right and left politicking?
James Rideout
Pahrump
