The sad part is Bob Beers is endorsed by PORAN, which includes the Nevada Highway Patrol.

John,

That mailer against Sen. Bob Beers is a lie.

Bob has the endorsement letter posted right on his Web site.

http://www.beers4nevada.org/08fans/08end...

Best,
Rich

Beers is equally passionate about education, particularly teacher salaries, smaller classes, and ensuring local schools receive funding before some higher education programs.

You might reconsider the cocky comment if watched the debate. She never smiled, not once.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing on issues, but try to be accurate.

To be accurate, the rat infestation in Anthem was a six-year problem.

I don't know Jon.

Libel is untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. If there was no back door deal, then broadcasting that there was would certainly constitute it, perhaps not by the media, but by those legislators you name.

According to site, Beers' outrage seems to have less to do about himself and more to do with the small business employees who could find themselves uninsured over political maneuvering that aims to place Sen. Steven Horsford in the position of state majority leader as the Las Vegas Sun reported is Horsford's want.

Personally, and I believe you feel so too, past campaigns should not set the stage to justify the nasty campaigns of the future. Of course, it would make reporting them, perhaps, not so exciting.

Best,
Rich

I still want to know why someone isn't asking the obvious? Why does Nevada tax health insurance? It has already increased 54.6 percent in seven years, twice as fast as our median earnings.

Rich

With all due respect, in between the string of "what ifs" an colorful word choices such as "slipped" (which seems erroneous given the public nature of the introduction), I think there are several key question that has gone missing.

Did Sen. Bob Beers aim to benefit his former employer or did he see an opportunity to allow small businesses to access better health benefits. And if the latter is true, isn't that what our legislators are supposed to do?

Many small businesses are playing as much as $1,200 per month for health coverage per employee with a family. Therefore, two employees with families can mean the difference of hiring another employee.

But what I really don't understand is why is why our employee health benefits being taxed anyway? Isn't the state supposed to empower small businesses to provide health coverage?

I'm disappointed in that I thought the Las Vegas Sun was on the side of more health coverage for more people, not less.

Rich

Michael,

No, my stepfather did, and several friends. But is it sad that you bring that up since Desai had his biggest customer was UMC. Glad to see you are sympathetic to the issue as well.

My grandfather, btw, would still be alive today if not for being mistreated at a VA hospital ... the closest thing we have to socialized medicine right now. So no, I guess I'm no so comfortable with the government telling doctors what they can and cannot do for their patients. We already have too many insurance companies attempting to do that, which is why KDR is on the right track.

I also have no idea what you brought up Palin as I'm undecided in the presidential election. So if your plight is diatribe, then you stand a greater chance driving me away from your presidential candidate than toward him.

Rich

Michael,

Are you seriously suggesting the socialization of health care?

Rich

Darkhorse ... You mean like Copening getting a contract from a quasi-government agency after she quit the same agency? It amazes how people doubt reporters only when it does not serve their interest.

More to the point ... what I don't understand is if this bill gave small businesses the opportunity to provide better benefits to employees, where is the problem? Aren't all legislators all supposed to be supporting more benefits for working families?