Dear Editor:

We are associated with the Tea Party advocates who marched in Washington D. C. in September. The reasons for our displeasure of the Medical Health plan include several that have not been addressed in this bill. Unless there are some major changes in the costs that are already seen in Medicare and Medicaid, we can't see how including the entire population in similar programs will take care of those continuing financial problems.

Eliminating the private sector competition only accelerates the government's expenses It appears from this bill that private competition will ultimately be eliminated and government indebtedness will be a worse problem than it already is. This is proving to be so in those countries that are attempting to make their systems work.

One glaring omission in this bill is Tort Reform. One of the leading costs in our area has been (before some reform) and still is in other areas, the high cost of lawsuits resulting in high insurance premiums for physicians leading to higher medical expenses. Taking care of this would result in cost savings.

Individual medical health care savings accounts would probably keep some from abusing the free ticket of visiting the doctor unnecessarily and would bring security to those investors without increasing government expense. Also a payment of something by everyone who visits a doctor would discourage the running to a doctor at the slightest provocation. Unnecessary tests are not only run by doctors (some from fear of tort cases) but by requests from people who do not feel the pinch of any financial responsibility. A little financial responsibility no matter how small should be mandatory.

The primary reason for any health program is supposed to be to assist everyone to have adequate health care. The citizen should be the first concern along with how to pay the bills. Little in this bill allows for human differences. It is a health form that is to be adjusted to fit all. The physicians also find themselves faced with the problem of being paid by mediocre standards. One price fits all. This does not bode well for either the patient or the doctor. We are bound to have fewer people choose to become doctors or will prod some to leave the system to enter some other country (if there are any left) that are not suffering the same constrictive legislative regulations.

An open end bill, such as this appears to be, will be molded and changed over time, but the public has had little say about what they want without taking it to Town Hall Meetings and bringing it to public attention. What assurance is there that the usual spreading of government tentacles will not result in total government run medical care leaving the average citizen with no recourse and no voice? Once this bill is passed, it will be too late to return to any other course. This is too important a step to be done in haste.

The name calling and the finger pointing of the various member of both parties and particularly by the president has done nothing to give the average citizen confidence in the operation of the government. So many rushing to put this bill through without full knowledge of it themselves is not a furtherance of confidence. Rather than taking a leaky tire and putting patches on all the weaknesses and leaks, we, as American citizens, would like to see a carefully written bill that will meet the needs and not sacrifice the freedoms we enjoy.

Norma Christian

Raymondville