Dear Editor:

I regard to Mr. Gazzaway's recent letter, best I can remember former President George Bush appointed a "Drug Czar" back in his day, and no one criticized that unofficial title then. Everyone figured out that was someone appointed to head up a governmental program. President Obama made similar appointments, and the previously used title "stuck." What's the big deal?

Also, I'm not old enough to remember, but I believe that when Medicare was started, opposition to that plan called it "socialized medicine" and objected strongly. Now, that generation is afraid the new health care reforms will interfere with Medicare and are "rabidly" opposed to this new plan, so history repeats itself.

President Obama's health care plan is not a "government takeover of health care" any more than Medicare was. For the majority of Americans who may be happy with their current insurance coverage, there will be no change. This plan is to help the small minority of Americans who currently can't get health insurance coverage. It seems rather selfish of those who have good insurance to not want all Americans to have coverage.

Currently, patients who have insurance are billed exorbitant fees for health care in order to compensate for those who have no insurance. Case in point, regular run-of-the-mill blood work done at our hospital was billed my insured husband for $854 and to my uninsured sister in-law for $153. President Obama's health care reform will help cut costs for the insured and help the uninsured get insurance.

Also, there are those who fear the cost of this heath care plan—-that it will create more deficit. I want to know where all those nay-sayers were when George Bush squandered Bill Clinton's surplus on an unnecessary war in Iraq. Would you rather have your tax dollars spent on foreigners to rebuild Iraq or on Americans to rebuild America?

Respectfully, Barbara Price Fairfield

* * * * * Dear Editor:

Oak Street . . . Pathetic! Neely Minchew