Isn't health a vital part of our freedom?

According to Max D. Persels (Fence Post, Nov. 8), the list of "outs" during the future presidency of Barack Obama will include the loss of "freedom, health care choice and quality," the "second amendment" as well as our "freedom of speech."

There are questions if individual free will even exists, but I am glad that the Bill of the Rights in the U.S. Constitution protects us from any president taking away our important freedoms.

Of course, there have been examples of suspension of civil liberties during the presidencies of Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush, but I don't think Obama will make "freedom" disappear forever. No one is that powerful.

Regarding the fear of European socialism and universal health care, please examine that issue more fully.

Let's not forget that Margaret Thatcher privatized many nationally-owned enterprises and industries throughout Great Britain while also increasing competition with the National Health Service.

In today's Britain, a growing variety of private health care and alternative treatments are available, yet the country still gives its citizens a right to a healthy life.

Is it right that the U.S. is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide some form of universal health care?

At the same time, the U.S. spends more on health care per person than any other country.

I have lived without health insurance and know many people in the same situation. I want to know why Mr. Persels is so worried about "freedom."

How can we protect this country from terrorists but at the same time not protect the health of all U.S. citizens?

After all, doesn't the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution state that the country shall "promote the general welfare" of its citizens?

Rachel Freundt

Schaumburg