When 'diminished liberty' occurs

The debate over health care in this country is complicated enough without mucking it up with inappropriate comparisons, as David E. Smith (executive director of the Illinois Family Institute) did in his July 12 letter contending that the health care bill "tramples on the liberties of others."

No, the government does not "compel citizens to attend church in the name of religious freedom," but that has no bearing - constitutionally or otherwise - on taxpayer-funded health care. It's the old apples and oranges bit.

But if for some reason Jane Doe cannot afford regular doctor visits and develops diabetes, an inevitable medical crisis will drive our hypothetical Jane to the nearest emergency department for very costly, taxpayer-supported care. Mr. Smith surely realizes that billions of dollars of health care is subsidized, either through higher fees, direct government payouts, or tax write-offs by hospitals. And what if Jane's late treatment results in blindness or loss of a leg? Will that help the free marketplace?

In my opinion, "diminished liberty" results when a significant portion of society remains unproductive, or burdensome, due to inadequate access to preventive and acute health care.

Bruce K. Dixon

Naperville