As I sit down to write this, it is a given that some folks will disagree with my take on the recently-passed national health care legislation that proved to be so divisive over the past year. I favor the health care bill and certainly expect that it can use some revisions.

The bill is a start toward changes that have needed to be made in the way health care is delivered. It’s not perfect, but it’s not all bad.

How great would it be if the parties supporting the legislation and those opposing it could just sit down and do some fine tuning? Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening. Combative stances are still being taken.

For example, town hall meetings scheduled by U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, who represents Freestone county in Washington, D.C., are being referred in press releases as discussions of “Obamacare.” That is a term designed to set folks on edge and we have been on edge enough. Any “Obamacare” meeting is guaranteed to draw the folks who oppose the legislation, and there won’t be much discussing of pros and cons.

I visited with the Congressman about health care before the bill was passed on a party line vote. We don’t agree, but he brought up some good points on changing the way the medical profession operates. Whether those made it into the final bill, I don’t know. But if Barton’s ideas are there, I doubt that he received credit.

For those who hate the whole thing, does that include provisions to prohibit insurers from rejecting insurance based on pre-existing conditions? The bill does not prevent insurance companies from charging higher rates for some pre-existing conditions, it says they have to provide coverage. That’s sort of like going into the high-risk auto insurance pool because you have too many tickets.

But, flat-out denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions has been taken to extremes by companies who work hard to deny claims. For example, my wife delivered our son by C-section when the doctors decided natural childbirth was not going to happen after 28 hours of labor. Shortly after our son was born, we looked at changing hospitalization insurance and were told that if we had another child, the bill would not be paid if a C-section was required. My wife did not choose to have a C-section, but had no choice. The insurance company labled this a pre-existing condition.

What’s so wrong about getting to keep dependent children on your hospitalization policy until they are 26 years old? It helps them get a leg up when starting a career, or gives you peace of mind while your child may still be in college, or graduate school. What difference should it make to an insurance company if the premiums are paid as part of an existing family policy, or a new policy? Except, they may get more money for a new policy even though the risk doesn’t seem any greater than covering a 19-year-old.

I can’t remember if I read about a single fee schedule as part of the legislation or as a suggestion. The single fee schedule would require hospitals, for example, to submit one bill for a procedure to an insurance company for payment instead of separate bills from anyone remotely connected to the procedure. If you have had an operation, or visited an emergency room, separate bills arrive from the hospital, doctors, the guys who knock you out, the guys who look at the X-rays and a multitude of others. A single bill makes sense, and the insurance company can argue about the amount.

I have no fear of the government telling me where I can go for medical treatment because that is no different from the situation we face today. Insurance companies already tell us who to see for treatments. The code is whether a doctor or hospital is in-network or out of the network. A bill from a doctor outside the network, or not preapproved, will not be paid. I am currently in an argument with a doctor outside the network, who was practicing at an in-network hospital. I have no problem paying the doctor an innetwork fee, but not a dime more.

U.S. Rep. Jeb Hensarling, in whose district Freestone county used to reside, voted against the health care bill. He doesn’t like the cost. I don’t fault Hensarling because I think he is sincere. He does not like any costs and is one of the few congressmen that does not seek extra money for his district through earmarks. Now, I don’t always agree with him, but I do admire his consistency.

Cost is the biggest hangup with me on the health care bill. How much will it cost? It depends on who has your ear. Supporters say that the legislation will wind up reducing the budget deficit, and opponents claim it will drive us to the poorhouse. My belief is that we all are going to pay more taxes. How much more is anybody’s guess.

My thought is that when everybody has to participate in health care by getting hospitalization insurance, the cost of medical care will come down because providers will get paid for more of their work. Hospitals won’t have to write off millions of dollars each year because uninsured patients show up in emergency rooms for ailments that would not be as dire if they could have afforded a visit to a doctor’s office.

The one thing I regret is that I am not old enough to remember the battle over Medicare, now seen as a God-given right. Our family doctor posted a sign in his office that he would not see Medicare patients. After a couple of years the sign disappeared and our doctor eventually retired comfortably.