Health care reform is one of the hotbutton topics in the nation right now, arousing strong opinions from all sides of the issue.

The Examiner asked local residents their views on health care reform, and how best to address it.

Millstone's Evan Maltz: When you take into consideration the primary reason the president is pushing this national health plan — to reduce the cost of health care — I find it hard to believe no one is talking about curtailing the trial attorneys. One of the primary reasons health care costs are skyrocketing is the outrageous malpractice insurance costs that hospitals and physicians are forced to pay to protect themselves from the trial lawyers. Perhaps the president should look into a federal program to help the medical professionals with these costs and curtail the trial attorneys.

Allentown's Jerry Rovner: Major tort reforms must be a part of the bill. I think public option needs to be taken off the table because all that will happen is bigger government and more lifetime entitlements.

Millstone's Michael Novellino: The problems are vast and include the following: micromanagement of doctors by insurance companies, skyrocketing prescription drug costs, huge malpractice insurance costs due to many lawsuits, doctors performing unnecessary procedures/testing just to avoid lawsuits, cost shifting by health care providers to those who can afford or are willing to pay, huge numbers of uninsured who have no coverage at all, and skyrocketing costs for those who do have coverage. A comprehensive plan that makes progress on addressing all of these problems would be my prescription.

Upper Freehold's Bryan Scheff: We need to go back to the drawing board and incorporate what has been learned from the debate and from all of the local town hall meetings held throughout the country while eliminating the components people don't want, particularly the public option. Better regulation, tort reform, reduction of fraud, phasing in various parts of the reform act would allow continued evaluation of what is working and what is not. Seems like this is a better idea than change for the sake of change.

Roosevelt's Neil Marko: We need to address the issue of health care for all Americans in a way that focuses on quality, not who can make a profit. Here is an idea: free health care for all, rich and poor, in a clinic setting. What you give up is choice, but you won't have to worry about going broke. Staff the clinic with doctors and nurses who have been given free education. Don't like a clinic and can afford it, then buy insurance or pay for service.

Millstone's Michele Kanatous: Pinpoint the waste in government, re-direct funds to health care. All citizens in this country should be able to have health care as a matter of right, not choice. Too many people have died only because they were either turned away from their insurance carriers or can't afford care in the first place. That is a damned shame and we ought to be ashamed of ourselves for allowing this to happen. All Americans deserve the same health care we give our elected officials. We pay for their coverage yet go without for ourselves? Enough is enough!

Millstone's Ron Harning: President Obama and his staff took the time and energy to create a well-detailed, self-sustaining health insurance plan for the uninsured minority, and presented this plan to the combined houses of Congress. The response from the Republican side of the room was appalling, disrespectful and disgraceful. Clearly (and unfortunately) there are partisan members of Congress that have chosen not to participate in meaningful discussion.

Upper Freehold's Joe Mauer: Before Congress and Obama create another disaster, they should revamp the current aid programs to eliminate their shortcomings — for example, Medicare, Medicaid, payments to Acorn, etc. Once these programs are audited, the Congress should then restructure them based on the accepted concepts of the reformed health care system. Only then, if the above programs are proven products, the concepts should be applied to the health care system. Under the proposed plan, we will be forced to seek the government health insurance since employers will more than likely drop coverage due to costs. America, wake up and smell the coffee.

Millstone's Patrick Whalen: I believe our country needs a single-payer system (i.e., universal health care). The fear that this would be somehow a step towards socialism is misguided. Instead, it would be a step towards fairness and balance. Public sector employees, including politicians, teachers and law enforcement, all have such benefits paid for by the public, and the wealthy or those lucky enough to be employed by large corporations can already obtain excellent benefits. Those of us in middle and lower income strata should have access to equivalent healthcare. Finally, the added benefits of such a move would include letting doctors focus on the practice of medicine instead of fighting with insurance carriers and it would eliminate the insurance middlemen who stand between doctors and their patients.

Allentown's Elizabeth Trent: In this post-industrialized, technologically advanced society, every American citizen should have access to medical treatment and good care.

Millstone's Chris Post: Tort reform is why doctors pay hundreds of thousands each year in malpractice insurance. How much of a patient's visit is the doctor's insurance overhead? Address the 20 percent or so that are uninsured. Leave the 80 percent that are satisfied with their coverage alone. Facilitate the concept of competition by allowing inter-state competition that is currently not legal.

Millstone's Steve Morelli: Allow consumers to purchase health insurance across state lines to generate real competition. Offer tax credits to families to help pay for health care. Implement legal reform to lower malpractice insurance and reduce the need for defensive medicine. Create independent health courts to resolve malpractice disputes and encourage people to start unlimited health savings accounts. The American people need to look at themselves and the free market to make the health care system affordable and available to all who wish to participate. Government has no place standing between you and your doctor.

Upper Freehold's Anthony Muscente: While an optional government-run program may be a necessary or appropriate alternative in some limited circumstances (for example, to ensure that quality coverage can be secured by some individuals in certain hardship situations), we need to avoid the creation of a national health insurance program that might ultimately cause a government-run element of the program to be our only viable option. From most accounts, if we end up primarily with only a government-run and controlled health insurance program, there will be much less choice as well as the potential not only for a rationing of care but also for long delays in obtaining essential medical care and treatment. This is a scenario that many of us may prefer to avoid but which could occur if the wrong types of reforms are enacted. Nor do we need a program that is more costly to taxpayers and businesses or which creates more unnecessary governmental bureaucracy.

Millstone's Mike Kuczinski: Without question, health care needs to be addressed, however as to accessibility and affordability only. Otherwise, our healthcare system is fine, in fact the finest in the world. Provide tax credits for individuals who want to buy their own coverage. Expand health savings accounts and reduce the restrictions that come with them. Expand on employersponsored flexible spending accounts or simply allow all medical costs to be an above the line deduction on your tax return, with no floors or caps or itemizing required. Tort reform is critical to controlling costs — enforcement with severe penalties and mandatory jail time, even for first offenders, of medical billing fraud or manipulation. Allowing health insurance to be purchased across state lines to broaden accessibility and promote competition between companies would allow small, individual businesses to associate with others to gain access to the generally lower, large group rates. Finally, instead of punishing companies of any size for not being part of their plan, provide tax credits for any company that provides health insurance to their employees, in addition to the current tax deductibility. This would not only make it more affordable but it would also foster economic growth rather than stall it, as their current proposals surely will. Then, or in conjunction, if we still need to provide for others that are not insured, we can create a federally financially assisted low or no cost state program that provides complete medical, dental, eye and prescription care services to anyone who wants to apply even with preexisting conditions.

Upper Freehold's David Meirs: I'm not enthused about the government having a larger role than it already does. I was struck by an editorial written by former Democratic Sen. Bill Bradley in the New York Times, stating that it would be a smart tactical move for the Democrats to throw out a bone for tort reform. I feel that is extremely important. I share the pain with people in the medical profession, having been on the end of a few lawsuits, and so many are totally unjustified. In human medicine, they must play cover-their-backside all the time. Juries pass judgments on highly technical medical decisions, based on emotion.