In response to “Does Congress really think it can get away with it?” by Arthur J Madden in the Nov. 4 Examiner, I would like to make a few observations. Mr. Madden makes several statements that are much in debate.

In response to “Does Congress really think it can get away with it?” by Arthur J Madden in the Nov. 4 Examiner, I would like to make a few observations. Mr. Madden makes several statements that are much in debate.

I do not feel the majority of the voters in this great nation feel that the “latest version of health-care legislation from the House” is an assault on anyone. I would expect any legislation that would make any real change in an industry that comprises one-sixth of the nation’s GNP would have to be voluminous. In addition the language would have a great deal of legalize, which would add to its length. So many issues have to be addressed. Why would anyone expect that such legislation would be brief?

Yes, I do believe that if the legislation is enacted, more present health-care dollars will be available for direct medical care for all. There are many reasons for this and most of them are on my blog site. As stated in my posts, the health-insurance industry essentially has a monopoly. Its continues to compensate top executives extremely well and maintains high returns for stockholders.

I want to address Mr. Madden’s statement that “the government has shown a poor record of cost containment over the years. Private businesses are held accountable for their costs by the investors.” I am aware of instances of inappropriate behavior, waste and corruption in government. However, if one looks at the big picture, I believe our government has generally served us quite well. It seems that when something goes wrong, it is sensationalized and exaggerated. This leaves a somewhat false impression about our government in the minds of citizens.

I would also remind Mr. Madden that the private sector has not always been pristine in the way that it conducts business. If we could trust private industry, there would be no need for regulation of any industries. The profit motive is a conflict of interest when it comes to the health-care insurance providing payment for its clients. Cost-cutting by the health-care insurance industry as they “are held accountable for their costs by the investors” is often to the detriment of those who need coverage.

I do believe that “the current Democratic legislators” consider themselves “accountable to the American voter.” They are being accountable to me, for one, and the many others who voted them into office so health-care reform could happen. Again, the verbiage being used in Mr. Madden’s guest column is motive. I do not believe the “czar” would determine if an insurance company’s cost of providing coverage is too high. Competition from a public option would, hopefully, do that. I challenge anyone to look at my post that addresses how the health-care insurance industry negotiates with the health-care providers. This contributes to inflated health-care costs. Therefore, I take issue with Mr. Madden’s assertion that “the cost of health coverage through private insurance companies promises to be higher than it otherwise would be.”

Government would not restrict competition. It would increase competition with a public option. My understanding is that tort reform was added to the proposed bill. Why does Mr. Madden state that the legislation would block tort reform? I don’t believe that the government is trying to put anything over on us, the American people. I believe that the health-care insurance industry is and Mr. Madden is a pawn in their attempt.

I don’t believe the legislation tolerates unethical acts or requires un-American behavior. What I see as unethical is the behavior of the health insurance industry. It is unconscionable that we as a nation can not, or will not, provide for the health-care needs of all of its citizens. This legislation is not about being un-American. It’s about meeting the health-care needs of all Americans and nothing else.

There is no bullying. This is another example of motive verbiage. We as American citizens need to remain actively involved in the political process. This is the only way to protect our freedoms. Denying anyone the health care that they need is not denying anyone of any freedoms. This is why the health-care legislation should pass.