Health care reform was a top major campaign promise in our last Presidential election. The American people heard loud and clear that promise and the American people responded. By an overwhelming landslide our President was voted into office based on his sensible and sound approach to our health care issues.

The premise was simple. If it works, we keep it; if it needs fixing, we fix it, and we will pay for it by eliminating programs that don't work.

Now many of our Congressional leaders are being the very obstacles to that promise and its progress. And this bickering is about what exactly? The cost? And also that our government should not be running a not-for-profit health care program?

Regarding the cost - the excuse being its too expensive. Our space program is too expensive, foreign aid is too expensive, bailouts are too expensive, our "two" wars are too expensive and on and on. But, by God, low cost health insurance is a basic human right that should not be denied to anyone, anywhere. Period.

Opponents to public health care claim the government shouldn't run it. Nonsense. If other major (and minor) countries can provide their citizens with good and decent coverage, surely we can too.

But senator, I'm concerned regarding the position you're taking in Congress on this subject. You are apparently working on an alternative health care plan other than the public one the "will of the people" mandated.

You are quoted as saying "This really isn't to me a matter of right or wrong. This is the matter of - where are the votes in the United States Congress? I don't think the votes are there." Precisely.

Senator, it is incumbent upon you to convince others who are rejecting the peoples mandate to do the "right" thing and back our President on this critical issue.

We therefore look to you and your fellow Congressmen to give us what we demanded in November - and still do - a public health care option. "Significantly" reducing health care costs depend upon it! Thank you.