Readers write for Oct. 4, 2010

There's an elephant in the living room of the health care debate that Jason Lewis does not seem remotely ready to acknowledge in his Oct. 1 commentary "Government health care is on the way."

Is health care a right or a privilege?

When he compares health insurance to other forms of insurance (homeowners and auto), the implication is that, in his view, health insurance is a privilege. It would be unreasonable to suggest that owning a car or a house is a human right: Lewis and I would likely agree on that. But let's have the debate about whether basic health care is a right or a privilege.

All other industrialized countries have had this debate and have chosen the former and, regardless of the delivery system, the result has been longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality rates and lower costs per capita than we have in the United States.

Basic health care as a right does not eliminate individual responsibility. As we become further polarized over whether to keep or repeal health care legislation, let's have our elected leaders stand up and be counted on this basic question of right vs. privilege.

HANS LEE, MINNEAPOLIS

• • •

That is what we need for health care for everyone: No questions asked, and no copayments or deductibles for all medically necessary health care, including preventative measures. Then businesses will be free of the burden of choosing providers and individuals will be free to change jobs without fear of financial ruin because of health risks. (Recall the No. 1 cause of personal bankruptcies in the United States is medical bills. And most of those folks had some insurance coverage when the problem began.)

The problem with the "reform" is that it did not go far enough: We need to remove the wasted 30 percent of our spending that goes to the insurance industry but does not reach the providers.

JACK GARLAND, MINNEAPOLIS

The recession has left everyone questioning government spending and whether or not it is fiscally responsible to run such a large deficit. Because consumption was low and record-low interest rates weren't stimulating any investment, the governments' only option for boosting the economy was to increase spending.

It seems now that the only thing left for the government to do is freeze spending and extend tax cuts. Consumption and investment are low; interest rates cannot get any lower, and now the American government faces a huge deficit. In order to combat the recession, the American people must have incentives to consume, and an increase in taxes is certainly not the way to provide these incentives. President Obama was quoted as saying that cutting taxes for the rich was not a "prescription for a better future." Does Obama think that recklessly spending money and increasing the debt, which future generations will have to pay off, is a better prescription?

• • •

I would like to challenge any of those elected to the United States Congress to explain what great hardship would be experienced by a household making $325,000 per year if the Bush tax cuts are not extended. What couldn't they do because of the loss of that $5,400?

Not holding my breath ...

FRED RAU, LITCHFIELD, MINN.

• • •

WALTER THURMAN, ST. MICHAEL, MINN.

I heartily agree with your editorial "Prepare 'Plan B' for Mideast peace talks" (Sept. 30). The good news is there is a plan ready to go.

Following are excerpts from the official translation of the full text of a Saudi-inspired peace plan adopted by the Arab summit, composed of 22 nations, in Beirut in 2002.

It calls upon Israel to affirm:

1. Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967.

3. The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967, in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

1. Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.

2. Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

The plan calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighborliness and to provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity.

I believe that this is the role the United States should play. Since the Palestinians, including Hamas, have agreed to this, we are halfway there.