The government doesn’t force you to own a car

To the editor:

In response to the Tuesday letter from Sharon Kerber employing the "automobile insurance" scenario as justification for the government forcing citizens to purchase health insurance:

Although this argument has been soundly (in my opinion) defeated ad hominem, for anyone who has missed it, let us address it one more time.

It is my choice to buy or not buy a car. If I buy a car and drive it on public roadways then, yes, I am required to purchase insurance. If I do not own a car, then I am not required to purchase automobile insurance. The government has, as of yet, not seen fit to force me to purchase automobile insurance simply on the premise that I might, someday, purchase a car. This is not a mandate on every citizen.

Now, here is my question for Ms. Kerber. I am 50 years old and healthy. I have $5 million in my bank account. Based on my nonextravagant lifestyle, I have ascertained that I can live more than comfortably for the rest of my life and take care of any health issues using my own resources as opposed to buying health insurance. Should I be forced to purchase health insurance via government mandate?

I say not. It is an infringement on my civil liberties. And if I should not be forced to purchase health insurance, then no one can, because the laws must be applied equally.

Mark D. Traeger

Las Vegas

Matter of choice

To the editor:

In response to Sharon Kerber's Tuesday letter asking if "she's missing something": The answer: Yes, she is.

In using the operation of a motor vehicle as her example, she should've answered her own question. There are two distinct differences between ObamaCare's individual mandate and the operation of a personal vehicle. That being "choice." We who operate vehicles do so by choice, knowing that there are costs associated with making this choice. We must have a driver's license, current registration and automobile insurance.

We all have the choice to not drive and use other means to travel to wherever we choose to go.

ObamaCare, on the other hand, leaves no choice. You must participate, and you must pay. Otherwise the government will arrest you.

Why are people so willing to surrender their choices? If you ask me, this is what people are missing. As one of the appellate court judges stated during arguments on ObamaCare, "If government can mandate health care, what else can they mandate? And where do the mandates stop?"

Sounds like something out of the old Soviet bloc countries.

Rick Clawson

North Las Vegas

Corny idea

To the editor:

The subject of using ethanol to fuel automobiles has again been in the news. This program is purely a political scam.

Ethanol is, at best, an energy-neutral fuel -- that is, it takes as much energy to make ethanol as one gets back when the ethanol is burned. Most of the energy to make ethanol comes from oil. Oil for making the fertilizer, powering all the farm machinery, heating the mash to distill the ethanol, transporting the ethanol to market in tanker trucks, etc. (Ethanol is corrosive and cannot be transported in pipelines, as is done with gasoline).

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., rails against the $2 billion in tax breaks given to the oil industry and says absolutely nothing about the $6 billion in subsidies (i.e., cash payments) given to the corn farmers. If ethanol is so great as an environmentally clean fuel, why has Congress placed a large tariff on Brazilian ethanol made from sugar cane at a considerably lower cost than ethanol made from corn in the United States? The ethanol fuel program is simply another way for the politicians to buy another block of votes.

This program has already raised the price of food. Corn is used to feed pigs, cows and chickens. It is used to make corn syrup, which in turn is used in numerous food products (check the labels sometime). Congress spends more money that it does not have in order to support the corn farmers, and what do we, the people, get? Answer: A fuel that is not as efficient as gasoline and higher food prices -- go figure.

Walter F. Wegst

Las Vegas

Government work

To the editor:

Please tell me that the headline in Thursday's issue of the Review-Journal was in error. It stated, "Pair to lose one week's pay after being on paid suspension since January."

If that wasn't an error, then pray tell where can I get a job that gives me approximately five months paid vacation, in addition to the normal vacation, and all it costs me is one week's salary. I am ready, willing and able to sign on.

Oh, I guess I already know where: only for the government -- at taxpayer expense.

BRYCE LEE

LAS VEGAS

Bus contract

To the editor:

The outrageousness of anyone on the Regional Transportation Commission not voting in favor of First Transit, thus saving the taxpayers $50 million, is outdone only by Clark County Commissioner Larry Brown indicating that he voted against First Transit because he is a loyal person and that Veolia had fulfilled its obligations for years.

Need Mr. Brown be reminded of his responsibility to the taxpayers?

I wonder how many county jobs could be saved or retained over seven years as a result of the county's bus service contract being offered by First Transit?

LAURA McSWAIN

LAS VEGAS