I attended the Patients First "Hands Off My Health Care" Bus Tour Wednesday at the Vigo County Airport.

I heard a lot of people speak out against the legislation being proposed in Congress, the effects that it might bring and how good intentions could lead to unintended poor results.

A recent immigrant from Ireland related a comparison of how the government-ran medical service operated there as opposed to the free-market system here. It was a bleak picture. Comparisons were also offered between the Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration and the private sector.

Of course, the costs of providing health care was an issue, as was the cost of providing insurance coverage. Also at issue is whether providers would be forced to offer abortions and/or sterilization procedures or that taxpayer money would be used to fund these procedures. It was suggested that putting caps on malpractice suits would allow the free-market system to lower medical costs through competition.

One person pointed out that the numbers of the uninsured and under-insured being quoted in Washington was skewed by several million people who can afford health care insurance but choose not to carry it, such as healthy young people who see no need for the expense or the "rich" who have the money to cover their forseeable medical expenses "out-of-pocket."

Medicaid and Medicare were used as examples of government programs that contribute to the medical expenses of insurance companies and cash customers by under-paying what they are billed.

Basically, I came away with a lot more questions than I did answers.

Additionally, I read through what is proposed at Rep. Brad Ellsworth's online office. What I saw there calls for the establishment of more bureaucracy at the federal level. Wow, if I had printed that out and highlighted everything I found questionable in it, starting with a brand new highlighter, I would have ran the thing dry before I got through it. That is as it was first proposed and before the various committees started making changes.

Is adequate and affordable health care a part of the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," that is our unalienable right? How do we make it both adequate and affordable? I have to ask, what is the difference between a life filled with pain and one that is not? Why should a person be denied the opportunity to be pain-free for the lack of money?

On the issue of the procedures that some providers object to, why should it be mandated that they will perform them? Conversely, why should a person be denied them at another facility that does offer them? As to the use of taxpayer's money to pay for them, do you know how your individual tax dollars are spent or do they get all mixed up into the large pool that is spent to fund what Congress chooses to fund?

If it were possible, I could earmark every dollar collected from me in taxation into what I want it to be spent on. Do I want to fund cable service in our prisons, bullets and bombs that accidently are used to harm innocent people, or "bridges to nowhere?" The answer is a resounding no.

I want my money to go to something worthwhile.

I see putting caps on malpractice awards as protecting people who have made errors and caused harm to others from justice. I would be in favor of limiting the amount that a lawyer could collect as his fee to the cost of work done plus 10 percent. That would reduce the caseload of the courts and put more of the money into the hands of the people who suffered, but I haven't heard anyone in government suggesting anything of the like.

I imagine that everyone that watches television has seen an advertisement by an attorney offering to represent people with a Social Security claim. Have you ever wondered why you do not see attorneys advertising to represent veterans with VA claims? It is perfectly legal to do so. However, could the reason be that Title 38 of the U.S. Code limits fees to 25 percent of the past due amount of benefits. After three years of dealing with the bureaucracy of the VA, I received $65,000 in past due benefits. An attorney's share of that would be limited to $13,000.

In a Social Security claim, Title 42 limits fees to 25 percent of past due benefits or $4,000 but contains a loophole that allows for an increase. It was my experience that an agreement on my part to that increase was asked for and signed before an attorney started work on my case and, believe me, I saw several attorneys before I settled for one. I see a need to limit what an attorney can collect in these malpractice suits, without a loophole.

A large disparity can be noted in what is being charged by different doctors and hospitals for the same service or procedures. I have also noted that there is a difference in cost determined by your method of payment.

I have been given a discount for paying in cash, charged the billed price when my insurance was paying and when the government pays, the provider has accepted what the government offered to pay.

So, the question becomes, "what is the right price?"

One question that pops into my mind comes straight from Business 101. That being, just how much profit is being made in the health care industry?

Is that part of the problem with health care costs or is the problem all on the side of costs to the health care industry?

Unless the government, perish the though, takes over the health care industry, they must make a profit. If they are losing money due to underpayment, then the only way to restore profit margins is to charge other payers more.

It looks to me that the prices and payments should be investigated and equalized.

These and many other things need to be discussed by the public before anything is done in Congress.

Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public, get informed and get involved before the Congress critters decide just what you and your descendants are going to get stuck with.

What say you?