It is amusing and ironic that Gary Pendleton suggested a "moral duty" to keep our state-controlled liquor system despite objecting to governmental control while on the same op-ed page Adam Searing made his plea to not quit on health care reform (Point of View article, Feb. 12). Pendleton's arguments made Searing's case without meaning to do so. That is, as it is suggested that we control liquor to protect our citizens from harm, so, too, does health insurance for all protect our citizenry.

Secondly, the monetary benefits that accrue to the public from liquor sales mirror the benefits that accrue when private for-profit corporations and insurers are deprived of their ability to siphon valuable resources from health care funding for their shareholders' gain.

Thanks to Pendleton for helping make the "moral" case for public, government-sponsored health care so we can protect our citizens from harm and channel health care dollars where they belong - to comprehensively fund health care for all and minimize the draining effects of for-profit health care.

Kenneth D. Zeitler, M.D., Raleigh