We’re all sheep to be bled dry by our utilities

To the editor:

Public utilities are granted monopolies with guaranteed profits. What do we the public, having agreed to this non-competitive system, have a right to expect in exchange? We should receive water, natural gas and electricity as cheaply as possibly with the agreed-upon profit margin without the utility padding the expenses. Those profits and expenses are supposed to be overseen by the Public Utilities Commission, which answers to our elected officials.

Examples of padding expenses would be buying and operating a park that is supposed to be a tourist destination. This doesn't meet the mission of providing the cheapest product.

How about including a nice, glossy envelope stuffer with your bill every month? Surely that is well worth the money.

Another would be making campaign donations. They make an assured profit. Why do they need to influence politicians, and how will it benefit the public?

I support a variety of charities, but I don't need my utility companies to charge me a higher rate than necessary so they can make donations with my money.

More than 35 years ago, my utility company would send me a postcard with blank dials on it, and I would draw in the dial positions on my meter and send it to them. They would send a meter reader out once a year to catch any mistakes. It was cheap - a lot cheaper than $10 a month.

This gets by the PUC, and you don't hear a peep from the politicians. I guess those campaign contributions really do come in handy.

Isn't there anybody looking out for the general public, or are we just sheep to be bled dry?

ROBERT SPRIESTERBACH

LAS VEGAS

Fiscal cliff

To the editor:

There's a lot of talk that the fiscal cliff America is facing come January will primarily affect the rich, but all of us will feel some pain if we fall off. When you combine all the pending tax increases, middle-income families could end up paying about $2,000 more next year.

Some of the so-called rich are actually small business owners who set up their firms as flow-through enterprises, which are not subject to the corporate income tax. Instead, the small business owners include their revenues in taxable income under the individual income tax rates.

In Nevada, there are about 212,600 small businesses employing more than 440,000 workers. That represents around 95 percent of all employers and 42.3 percent of all private-sector employees. The vast majority of these businesses are set up as flow-through enterprises, so raising individual rates will hurt a majority of businesses in Nevada.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, jumping off the fiscal cliff will cost 3.4 million jobs, increase unemployment by 2 percent and slow economic growth by 1.3 percent. According to a study by Ernst & Young, the expiration of top tax rates alone would cost 710,000 jobs.

In Nevada, the fiscal cliff means a loss of 6,100 small business jobs and a drop in gross domestic output of $1.7 billion.

The time has come for Congress to show us that it can come to the bargaining table and solve this crisis.

Small business is central to Nevada's economic health and critical to our state's economic recovery. Falling off the cliff will severely hurt Nevada's small businesses, and it will be slow climb back to the top.

Our representatives in Congress can help Nevada's economy by supporting the current tax rates and reforming the tax code. This will give our employers and investors the confidence they need to invest in our economy.

RANDI THOMPSON

RENO

Randi Thompson is Nevada state director for the National Federation of Independent Business.

Nothing's free

To the editor:

In response to Tom Pacileo's insurance overview (Nov. 30 letter) about "free" health care:

He closes out his letter by saying, "Raise taxes if you must." That is exactly what is about to transpire, starting next month.

The misnomer that "free" health care" exists in Canada is also inaccurate. Canada has a federal tax rate and provincial/territorial tax rate, and it has a value-added tax and a goods and services tax. So health care in Canada isn't really "free."

In the United States, health care travel by Canadians currently generates $4 billion annually, depending on which report you follow. These dollars are being spent here by Canadians who are financially independent and who seek immediate medical attention and refuse to wait six to nine months for services such as MRIs. They also come here for critical medical services.

The new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not all we believe it will be. For starters, everyone will pay for health insurance, either through the newly formed insurance exchanges or as they have before. You have to buy coverage, and the IRS will collect a penalty if you don't buy a plan.

The biggest difference will be the various "Qualified Plans" being offered. On numerous occasions, clients have come to me requesting catastrophic coverage or, as you might know them, high-deductible plans. Under the ACA, the maximum deductible that is considered "qualified" is $2,000. This is a direct hit against our freedom of choice. And if you see all the new taxes and fees that will be assessed, the only place rates can go is up. Where are our options to control insurance premiums?

Regarding "access to care" and "access to physicians": Currently the United States has a physician shortage, and because of this law we are losing many of the physicians currently practicing. The main reason is the cost of doing business vs. revenue from practicing medicine. Over the last several years, we have seen more and more "mega-practices" acquiring smaller practices. And if we continue to cut Medicare reimbursements, more practices will stop seeing Medicare patients.

Based on this brief analysis, how affordable is "free"?

PATRICK A. CASALE

LAS VEGAS