I would like to clear up some misconceptions in the letter by Elizabeth Benton Mencia. First of all, I never said we did not need health-care reform; matter of fact, I agree that we do. But I believe we do not need to destroy the whole system when just a few changes will work.

For example, states with tort reform have seen a decrease in the cost of health insurance by 25 to 35 percent. Also, small businesses should be allowed to pool together to get better rates, and we ought to allow companies and individuals to buy insurance across state lines. All of these would do more to lower the cost of health care than what is now on the table.

As for me not wanting others to have what I have, well, that is just not true. Matter of fact, I would like to see everybody have what I have, but you must be willing to earn it by serving 20-plus years in the military, fight in two wars, be deployed and away from home and family for months at a time and miss important years of your children growing up. Now I am not complaining, nor do I want sympathy, for it was, after all, my choice. I believe I earned what I have, but contrary to popular belief, I still have to pay for my insurance. Also, I do not get to pick my own doctor. For years, I had to drive to Raleigh to find a doctor who took my insurance.

In 2000, on my way to work, I had a heart attack and went to the nearest hospital emergency room, where I found out I needed to have bypass surgery. About a month before, my doctor wanted me to have a cardiac-catheterization performed, but my insurance would not cover it in any of the hospitals he worked in. So on my way to work, I have a heart attack and go to Wilson Memorial in Wilson. The doctors there said I needed bypass surgery, but UNC was the only hospital that my insurance would allow to perform the surgery, and all of their beds were full. After a week in the hospital, my doctor found out that Pitt Memorial in Greenville was also on the approved list.

To keep this from being to long, I will stop here, for I could also tell you about my grandson, who might not be alive today if Obama's health-care plan had been in effect when he had his liver transplant six years ago. But I hope you get the point.

David Speckhardt

Selma

Let's consider alternatives

With the debate over health care heating up, it is important to look for alternatives to those being presented. President Obama said he would entertain any ideas; he is disingenuous at best. With a compliant Congress and media, the administration has been attempting to ram through a plan that a majority of Americans oppose.

Voices of dissent or alternatives are being shut out. This is wrong. There are a number of viable free-market ideas that would make health coverage more affordable for everyone.

First, allow insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines. This would allow consumers a huge array of plans to choose from.

Next, allow individuals to deduct the full cost of their insurance from their taxes each year. In addition, give people true tax-free health-care-spending accounts to cover routine health expenses. Current plans require the funds to be exhausted by the end of the year, or you lose the money to the Internal Revenue Service.

Remove state mandates from health coverage. These mandates are sops to special interests requiring health insurance to cover certain services. People should be able to purchase health insurance like car insurance. There would be no need for a single man to purchase OB/GYN coverage. Consumers would be better off buying catastrophic coverage; after all, insurance is for emergencies, not routine services. You don't purchase auto insurance to change your oil.

Get employers out of the business of supplying health coverage. Patients need to become consumers of health services.

Most people have no idea what an actual office visit costs, and doctors charge what they can because they get paid. If people were consumers, doctors would be more likely to be price-conscious. Lasik surgery is a prime example. Costs came down as technology improved and doctors needed to compete for business.

The crux of this debate is not about health care but about power. The president is unwilling to use free-market reforms because they give the power back to the patient and take it away from government. Government never delivers services in a timely or cost-efficient manner.

Social Security and Medicare are on the verge of bankruptcy, and yet President Obama insists we must spend trillions more or we will go broke. The "logic" of this is flabbergasting. The time has come for voters to hold the Congress accountable and demand that our elected leaders listen to those they represent. There is no need for an inefficient government-run health-care plan when there are better alternatives. Again, this is about power, not health care.

Tom Imler

Clayton