Dear Editor,

So the deal is that we must make a selection between "Ineffective solutions versus real choices." That's from the Aug. 6 letter to the editor by Rob Means. I have been learning more and more about the vaunted ObamaCare health care program in the last five weeks because I'm affected directly. I have a health plan that my employer provided since 1960. It has carried me through 32 years of employment and 14 years of retirement with the same provider. In that time our family has used it for three births, a vasectomy, breast cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes, asthma, hernia repair, detached retina, as well as educational programs to deal with these difficulties and a host of other preventive care issues. Now tell me, should I dump all that professional care to the government that can't even run a Cash for Clunkers program?

I don't think the writer of that letter knows what he is writing about. He is not mentally equipped to exist in the real world. He would be the first candidate to become Soylent Green.

After the opening paragraph he goes into a tirade about "big corporations." I've heard that from the DNC playbook for years and it is just not true. His map must be from a box of Cracker Jack because there is not a ring of truth in his statements. I think his map is distorted since the statistics quoted are not attributed. That doesn't mean much to me. I've read a statistic that says 67 percent of Americans are happy with their health coverage, so



If the writer felt left out of the game he could incorporate and lap from the pool of wealth. The only problem is that to do that you need to be very inventive.

If Mr. Means would just rid his mind of thinking that American business is out to screw him I think he would wake up in the morning with a better view of life. Of course big corporations do all in their power to externalize costs. Why should they carry government mandates placed on them on their balance sheet? As a good businessman you to would want to deflect those costs for which you are not responsible.

I am a laissez-faire capitalist. I believe the government should act only as a policeman that protects man's rights. What we have today is a government that wants to dictate man's rights. In the coming days it will use force for retaliation to the citizenry's actions. We see it now as congressmen return to their districts and are faced with irate citizens exercising the freedom of speech rights being thwarted by government thugs. This is not my America.

I want to make those folks who are affected by the health care bill currently being debated aware of some of the terms that will be part of the American scene if that legislation becomes law. The more egregious are:

n Page 16: Your private health care will be canceled.

n Page 30: There will be a government committee that decides what treatments/benefits you receive.

n Page 29: Care will be rationed; you will only receive a certain amount of care each year.

n Page 42: The health care commissioner will chose your health care benefits for you. You will have no choice.

n Page 59: Government will have access to your bank account for health care fund transfer.

These are bad enough but there are many more caveats to the health care government plan that will directly affect you in the years ahead.

I'll close with this question, "Why did Congress vote down a bill requiring all congresscritters to enrolled in the health plan they want to shackle us with?"

I'll close with another question, "Why does Congress need six G5 corporate jets?" Isn't commercial travel in first class good enough?" Of course, those jets weren't good for the corporate execs when they came to testify before Congress, were they? Arghhh-h-hh.

Richard Ruth