Published Friday, March 19, 2010 12:05 AM

Letters for March 19

Here is what's wrong with our current health care system:

* Insurance companies can refuse to insure you for even minor pre-existing conditions.

* When you need them most, they can drop you.

* If you lose your job, you lose your insurance.

* The cost is too high for low income families.

* On average, 770,000 families go bankrupt each year from inability to pay medical costs.

* Rates have increased every year, putting undue stress on many families and small businesses.

* There is no control and accountability of the rate structure.

The current health care bill under consideration corrects most of these conditions in contrast to what the naysayers tell us.

I do not believe, as some suggest, in starting over again. The same hoards of lobbyists would descend on Congress, the same special interests would spew out their objections, the same naysayers would resist.

The time is now, for there is a terrible moral question here: Eleven million children are without health care. Would you like to take your sick child to an emergency room and wait for hours to see a doctor? There is no medical record for the child, so the doctor has to guess what's wrong.

Is this not a tragedy for the so called wealthiest nation in the world?

ABRAHAM CLEARFIELD

College Station

Obamacare should not become law. Polls show the public doesn't favor it. We need health care reform, but no bill should pass affecting 16 percent of our economy that doesn't have enough public support, has little bipartisan support, requires corrupt, unfair "favors" to acquire votes even in the political party promoting it, may require misused rules to pass it, and is poorly understood as to content and cost.

Who knew, until this week, that there is an "add on" to the bill? The federal government would make student loans directly rather than banks.

No retiring congressman should vote for this bill because he/she doesn't have to worry about constituents opposing his vote for it. Why worry if the constituents were for the bill? There is troubling arrogance and contempt for the will of the people here. Reform our health care system, but not this way. Why pass a bill, so marginally supported, that requires such methods?

This bill creates more federal control of our liberties and earned money. It will create federal control of health insurance; that is the supporters' goal. They say you have choices, but say you have to have insurance, like it or not.

They can't or won't control federal spending. The federal debt is escalating. They have borrowed $2.9 trillion from the Social Security Trust. This means they borrowed your savings, spent it elsewhere, and can only pay it back by increased taxation; you pay yourselves back.

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Postal Service are government controlled programs nearing insolvency. How can we trust our government with control of health care? We should elect people with integrity and respect for the public will; then do the reforming.

FRED G. ANDERSON

Bryan

The editorial (Eagle, March 14) marks the first time in more than 30 years that I have completely agreed with the Editorial Board. When I saw the headline "Scrap health care bill and start over," my eyes focused on the authors and was amazed to see Eagle Editorial Board. I read further until I got to "unknown cost of the bill" and I had to go to the first page of the paper to be sure I was reading The Eagle.

Yep, right paper. I read further. When I got down to the suggestions such as tort reform and allow insurance companies to sell across state lines, I had to stop again.

Was this the same board with whom I have disagreed with so many times before? Curiosity made me look for the names of the board members at the top of the page. Nope, same board members.

By the time I finished reading the editorial -- which made so much common sense -- I found myself smiling and thinking, "Great job, gentlemen. Keep up the good work."

MARLA CALVIN

Bryan

---