FROM OUR READERS: Average tourist already priced off Strip - Opinion

SAVE THIS

EMAIL THIS Print

PRINT THIS Popular

POST A COMMENT

Nov. 01, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

FROM OUR READERS: Average tourist already priced off Strip

To the editor:

The assertion of conservative and libertarian contributors that a 3 percentage-point increase in the hotel room tax will result in doomsday for Las Vegas is overblown.

Most Popular Stories

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: What stops mass murderers? A gun

SHERMAN FREDERICK: Call evil by its rightful name

EDITORIAL: Terrorism on trial

EDITORIAL: A pre-9/11 approach to terror

LETTERS: Harry Reid: Working hard for all Americans

EDITORIAL: They took our jobs!

LETTERS: Public-sector workers are still doing well

EDITORIAL: 'That's the ticket!'

Our politicians are the greatest, all right

EDITORIAL: I believe in free speech, but ...

On a room that costs as much as $200 per night, the increased cost of $6 is not a deal killer. The real issue is that the $200-per-night cost is more than half a week's wages for most people, and the table limits of $10 to $25 are above the means of most visitors.

Casino developers have proceeded with a view that there are more and more people with unlimited resources to visit and play in Las Vegas. With or without the tax increase proposed on next week's ballot, the average visitor has been priced out.

Bill Bethke

LAUGHLIN

Exceptional leader

To the editor:

In your Thursday article discussing the changes that the Clark County School Board will encounter following next week's election, you quoted teachers union President Ruben Murillo describing District C candidate Ronan Matthew as someone who "is not a team player."

During my 16 years as a counselor in the Clark County School District, I had the privilege of working with Mr. Matthew in the trenches, at Western High School and Cheyenne High School. I have never met anyone more dedicated to student safety and achievement than Mr. Matthew. His interests have always been with the students.

He did such an exceptional job as principal in these two positions that he was asked to take over as principal of Canyon Springs High School to deal with serious challenges they were facing. He accepted and was instrumental in bringing stability and safety to that high school.

If being a "team player" means rubber-stamping every request that the superintendent and the teachers union brings before the board, then Mr. Matthew is not a team player. He will be a breath of fresh air and someone who continues to lead with the students' best interests in mind. Isn't that what it's all about?

Ralph Iavazzi

LAS VEGAS

Bottom-up economics

To the editor:

In response to Bill Dirkse's well-meaning letter in Monday's newspaper ("Flocking to the government handouts"), there is a time for Reagan-style, supply-side economics, and that time is not now.

It is true that businesses are vital to our economy. But it is also true, and often overlooked, that consumers are vital to business. In his recent book, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan cited the growing gap between rich and poor as one of the major threats to our economic well-being for the next quarter-century.

When a large chunk of our population becomes too poor to behave as good consumers, business continues to sell to those masses on credit -- until the loans go bad and the economy crumbles from the top down.

One can argue all day long whether it is fair to ask the rich (and yes, often the most productive people) in America to pay more into our system. But it's becoming ever more difficult to argue that tax cuts for the wealthy are working to strengthen our economy. We need to restore our middle class for the benefit of everyone, including businesses. And that may require investment by those who can still afford to invest in our country.

Larry McAllister

LAS VEGAS

Poll doubter

To the editor:

Would someone please explain where all these so called "polls" come from?

I have been voting for 60-plus years. In all that time, I have had one phone call asking which candidate I was voting for.

I think each poll tries to make sure the poll leans toward their candidate.

I also never vote for an incumbent unless he has done something for the people instead of lining his own pockets.

Guess how many incumbents I vote for now.

MARGARET THOMAS

LAS VEGAS

Malpractice injustice

To the editor:

Your Sunday article, "Medical malpractice reforms still divide; Cap on damage awards" reveals the devastating hidden impact of the compensation limits, or "caps," that Nevada enacted in medical malpractice cases.

These caps not only unfairly restrict what legitimately injured patients can obtain for devastating injuries caused by grossly negligent medical care, but even worse, they make it nearly impossible for victims with certain types of injuries or income levels to even find an attorney who can finance a lawsuit.

Attorneys wish they could help, but the "caps" make it financially impossible for them to do so.

In fact, it may come as a surprise to some readers that "caps" apply across the board to all cases, not just frivolous cases. They apply no matter how much merit a case has, or the extent of the misconduct of the hospital or doctor. They apply regardless of the severity of the injury. Indeed, those most hurt are the most catastrophically injured.

These horribly treated patients, left with no recourse, are the forgotten faces in the debate of medical malpractice. We hope that organized medicine realizes the cruel impact of this law and joins with consumer groups to repeal it and fight the real culprit for rising insurance rates: a mismanaged and greedy insurance industry.

Joanne Doroshow

NEW YORK

THE WRITER IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR JUSTICE & DEMOCRACY.

Obama's bad habit

To the editor:

Barack Obama has a problem. It is a problem that might get him barred from employment in 20 states, even for the most menial, low-paying job. Yet it is a pastime enjoyed by millions nationwide and it is perfectly legal.

His problem is that he is a smoker. Although he has done a good job cutting down, according to the November edition of Men's Health magazine, "There have been a couple of times during the campaign when I fell off the wagon and bummed one, and I had to kick it again."

Many anti-smokers see smokers as weak, self-destructive and willfully ignorant. Many employers see them that way, also. Smokers now and in the past have always been some of the best people for the job, period. Consider what World War II would have been like without Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, both smokers and the very best men for the job at hand at the time.

Yes, that was a different era, but a good man or woman who is right for a job, regardless of smoking status, will never go out of style or lose value.

The city of North Miami, Fla., in 1995 banned the hiring of smokers, was sued, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The city won the right to do so. In 2003, they changed their policy because they couldn't find enough qualified applicants without considering smokers, and they also saw no reduction in health care costs.

I have seen Sen. Obama beat up in the media because he's a smoker, but the same freedom that gives the media the right to pass judgment gives Sen. Obama the right to smoke, or quit if he so chooses.

Smokers are just like nonsmokers -- there are very good and very bad people in both groups.

Sen. Obama and smokers in general should be judged only by who they are and what they bring to the job's requirements. Is Sen. Obama the right man for the job, regardless of his smoking status? Millions of voters are being asked that question. Stay tuned for the answer.

Will the anti-smoking Democrats deny him the job if he doesn't quit, just like they have worked so hard to do to the common folk?

Dave Pickrell

KATY, TEXAS

THE WRITER IS PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER OF SMOKERS FIGHTING DISCRIMINATION.

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	39 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. Jerry wrote on November 03, 2008 09:08 PM: Just an FYI as to why we should all support Ronan Matthew! Here are all the folks that endorsed Ronan: 1. Las Vegas Review Journal endorses Ronan Matthew. "The choice here is clear...Ronan Matthew would be a breath of fresh air on the School Board." 2. The Las Vegas Sun endorses Ronan Matthew. "Matthew stands out. Community leaders support him with good reason. He was a stellar principal and, having served for years in the trenches and having children who have been educated in the district, he has a clear view of what the schools need to do to improve. His experience and understanding are sorely needed on a board that has been criticized as being out of touch. The Sun endorses Ronan Matthew." 3. Southern Nevada Labor Council General Sales Drivers, Delivery Drivers and Helpers and Public Sector Teamsters, 4. Police Officers' Association of the Clark County School District, 5.Southern Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, 6.Plumbers and Pipe Fitters and HVAC/R, 7. Technicians Local Union 525, 8.Nevada State AFL-CIO, 9. Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, 10. Sheet Metal Workers Local 88, 11. Shirley Barber, District C Trustee - yes she endorsed Ronan, 12. Virginia Brewster, Former District C Trustee, 13. State Senator Steven Horsford, 14. State Assemblyman Moises Denis, 15. State Assemblyman, Harvey Munford, 16. Former State Assemblyman, Gene Collins, 17. Clark County Commissioner Lawrence Weekly, 18. Las Vegas City Councilman Ricki Barlow, 19. North Las Vegas City Councilman William Robinson, 20. School Namesake, Dr. Carolyn Reedom, 21. School Namesake, Elise Wolff, 22. Cheyenne Principal Dr. Jeff Geihs, 23. Former North Las Vegas Chief of Police Jose Troncoso. WALT - You have Lauren, a person that micro-manages and a person that DICTATES , to thank for the Goldman and Matthew candidacy. If they win, blame Lauren for inspiring them. patrick wrote on November 02, 2008 08:51 AM: Odydog: I have represented insurance companies, I know how they operate. I have represented both plaintiffs and insurance companies and I know how worker's compensation operates. I know that insurance companies are in the business to make money. I know that this means that the greater the difference between what they take in and what they pay out is the PRIMARY way that insurance companies make money. (I will not address here the fact that insurance companies invest in many other areas including mortgages and derivatives. Of course when they lose money in those areas they need to INCREASE their premiums in order to make money, but with that said, they are in the business to make money.) What this means is that they do what they can to decrease the amount they pay out in claims. They will do whatever they can to accomplish this including paying less than a claim is "worth". Many factors weigh into their analysis INCLUDING the plaintiffs financial situation and the likelihood that a plaintiff will accept less than the claim is "worth" BECAUSE the plaintiff needs the money to live. This obviously is not the only consideration, but it is sufficient to say that the "value" of the claim is only one component in the insurance company's calculation. What this all means is that insurance companies benefit when one aspect of a plaintiffs case is diminished whether because of the facts of the case, the plaintiffs personal situation i.e. no job, medical bills piling up, or poor representation, or because they have, through lobbying efforts, made it more difficult for the plaintiff to collect. The fact is that tort reform is the result of insurance companies lobbying efforts effected to adversely impact their "opponent". The playing field is unfair because of it. Odydog wrote on November 01, 2008 11:03 PM: Patrick Insurance companies have attorneys on retainer. They don't hire the best. The reason they have to hire attorneys is because of fraud and excessive verdicts. Your example is a workers comprehensive claim. There are guidelines that are set by NV DOI for settling those claims. The Department of insurance has to approve all increases in premiums filed by the insurance companies. In order to get increases, the insurance companies have to prove that their losses justify the increases. Your hatred for insurance companies is unjustified. The main problem with insurance is the fact that you have to pay for an intangible and you do not benefit from it until you have to use it. You are also required to have it if you drive a vehicle or finance your home or business. odydog wrote on November 01, 2008 10:43 PM: Patrick You need to go work for an insurance company for a few years. I am in the insurance business and let me inform you of a fact. I have been on both sides of the settlement processes and involved in the investigative processes as well. You have no idea how insurance claims are settled. The more you rant, the more you show your lack of knowledge about insurance. patrick wrote on November 01, 2008 08:21 PM: Accept it because you cannot afford to pay your rent. If you don't understand that this is a standard method of adjusting claims you are just ignorant of how insurance companies operate. It doesn't change the fact that the insurance company is in BUSINESS to make as much as it can. patrick wrote on November 01, 2008 08:18 PM: Something: "Lets tell the insurance companies that they can only make a certain amount of money. Lets also include every single business in this country. Do you think that would be fair?" You make my point Something! How is it that you resent anyone being able to tell an insurance company how much they can make, yet you would support the government telling a lawyer how much they can make for representing a Plaintiff? As to the psyciatric care, if you are schitzophrenic enough to be for the insurance companies making whatever they can, but against attorneys making as much as they can, perhaps YOU might need some treatment. Simple: Of course insurance companies would like to settle without paying an attorney, they gotta pay 'em too, and they don't like paying anyone. The question is when it comes to having the upper hand in any legal matter, the sheer volume of experience that an insurance company has, along with the fact that IT absolutely controls the money that will ultimately be paid, shifts the power to the insurance company. They can be, and are in many cases, completely unreasonable KNOWING that the injured person MAY absolutely need the money to live, as opposed to an insurance company that can draw on pratically unlimited resources. A single example may serve to make the point. Imagine that you are injured at work. Imagine that the insurance company, through its superior understanding of the basis to determine how much you will like receive decides to pay you less knowing that you are no longer employed, no longer able to work, and STILL have to pay your bills. When they offer you a "settlement" FAR beneath the true value of the claim, they are basing their offer on lots of factors including the likelihood that you will Something Stinks wrote on November 01, 2008 05:45 PM: To Patrick and Joanne I agree with Simple Facts. You gripe if your insurance rates go up. You gripe when the insurance companies refuse to pay out exurbanite settlements. You gripe because insurance companies make a profit. Why don’t you start your own insurance company or become self-insured. You also could refuse to pay your insurance and take the chance of not needing any protection. No insurance to protect health, life, auto, home, malpractice, bonds, business, trips, etc. The attorneys would then go after everything you own.. Lets tell the insurance companies that they can only make a certain amount of money. Lets also include every single business in this country. Do you think that would be fair? If so, you both need a lot of insurance coverage to help pay for the Psychiatric treatment you so dearly need. simplefacts wrote on November 01, 2008 05:18 PM: Patrick You are wrong about your assumptions with regard to insurance company attorneys, Adam Kutner worked for Allstate. He is not a high dollar attorney. Most companies would prefer to settle cases without attorneys, because of greed, it requires attorneys. There are no laws and should not be any that restrict how many attorneys you can hire or any company can hire. There should be stated settlement guidelines for damages. Rodney King is a great example. 7 million. Ridiculous!!! L have been involved in 8 not at fault accidents in my 50+ years and I have never had to hire an attorney to settle my accident claim. I have settled one of them without an attorney for over $180,000. If you can prove your damages and are reasonable, the insurance companies will settle. But when you hire an attorney because someone slightly bumps into the rear of your car and you want neck and back injuries, you deserve a very hard fight. That is also known as insurance fraud when you did not have any damages. John F wrote on November 01, 2008 04:02 PM: Smoke This, Smoking doesn't cause all lung cancers. What we do know is that smoking and the highly increased incidence of lung cancer are highly correlated. We can't say that any individual case of lung cancer was definitively caused by smoking, but if you do smoke your chances of getting lung cancer are greatly increased. So are your chances of getting emphysema, hypertension, and any number of other diseases. When a smoker contracts one of these, the fact that it MIGHT not have been caused by smoking is pretty small comfort. John F wrote on November 01, 2008 03:53 PM: Brian, Smart people sometimes do stupid things, like smoke. Or choose Sarah Palin. Or say "unrefutable" when they mean "irrefutable." Read All Comments