Seniors would starve without the government

To the editor:

In his letter of April 2, Jerry Fink bemoans the fact that he was forced to participate in Medicare and Social Security, having funds for both taken from his paychecks.

This poor guy doesn't realize what a good deal he has gotten -- really -- all those years. For instance, our government has protected this portion of his retirement money from being lost in one of the many stock market crashes that have occurred. It protected him from a poorly thought-out or merely unlucky business investment or from throwing it all away on the "good life." Now he won't starve in his old age.

Does Mr. Fink know without a shadow of a doubt he would or could have saved this money by himself? Well, Social Security has done it for him without a shadow of a doubt.

Oh, he can scoff and say something like, "I could have invested my money better than the government." Well, the operative words here are "could have," which always leave a possibility of "didn't do."

Now we come to an even bigger lifesaver "foisted" on him by the "dastardly" government -- Medicare. Mr. Fink complains about paying $100-a-month premiums for this "terrible" program. Now, if he can tell me where in the private market he, at his age, could find comparable coverage such as Medicare for the same cost, I will formally admit he is right in everything he says. I dare say he couldn't find a private policy for less than 10 times that amount. Give it up, Mr. Fink. This is an argument you can't come close to winning!

I suspect that a lot of these "tea partying" types have some financial or emotional connection to the gouging, care-denying insurance industry, and those senior citizens among them are part of the "I've got mine" crowd with Medicare, so they couldn't care less about those younger people who aren't lucky enough (up to now) to have such a program available to them. The just-passed reform bill is better than nothing (which is what many younger people have now).

DANIEL F. OLIViER

BULLHEAD CITY, ARIZ.

Doctor pay

To the editor:

I was a little surprised at Sen. Harry Reid's dismissive attitude toward "bartering" with doctors and paying them cash for treatment ("Lowden leads GOP pack," Sunday Review-Journal). I'm only a couple of years older than Sen. Reid and remember clearly that's the way we paid doctors when I was a kid in the '40s and '50s.

I have to believe that it was common in Searchlight as well. It was a simple system that served the country well for the first couple of hundred years of our existence.

So why does Sen. Reid think he's improved our health care by making the IRS a major consideration when choosing medical insurance? Or when deciding whether or not to insure at all? Why did Sen. Reid push so hard to move us farther away from basics, common sense and personal choice?

Maybe Harry Reid has forgotten the values he learned as a boy in Searchlight.

Robert R. Kessler

Las Vegas

No racist

To the editor:

In response to Dale Pitney's Saturday letter, "Lying GOP":

Again, someone decides to paint anyone in opposition to this president, his politics and his policies as racist. I am politically a moderate -- neither side ran anyone in my own comfort zone. So because I disagree with Barack Obama, I'm labeled as being against a black president. Well, had Colin Powell ran (for either party or as an independent), with Condoleezza Rice as a vice presidential nominee, I would have contributed financially to that ticket and would have volunteered my time.

I am hardly a racist. I simply do not like this president's agenda and his radical policies. Period.

By the way: I'm a white male.

Rich Callen

Las Vegas

Selling assets

To the editor:

A headline in Friday's Business section caught my eye: "Station proposes asset sale." In short, Station Casinos wants to sell off some of its stuff to cover outstanding obligations. Good. It's a responsible action.

Many of us -- you know, regular people -- are selling off assets in these difficult times. Not very pleasant, but necessary.

So, why not government? It has assets, too. Maybe if the various government entities sold off excess supplies, property and equipment, they could cut down on layoffs and save some jobs.

For those of you who might doubt that government has assets, I invite you to look over the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports listed on the Web sites for the state of Nevada, Clark County, the city of Las Vegas and the city of North Las Vegas.

Bruce Feher

Las Vegas

10th Amendment

To the editor:

Do only constitutional lawyers have the intellect necessary to be able to interpret the U.S. Constitution? Perhaps the news media feels that is the case.

The article "Fight over health care lawsuit," in the Nevada section of the April 3 Review-Journal, points out the difference of opinion between Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and Gov. Jim Gibbons about the 10th Amendment. I submit that article would have been more complete had it included the actual wording of the part of the 10th Amendment that is in question.

That way each reader could decide for himself who is right and who is wrong.

VERLON BERKMEYER

North LAS VEGAS