I, Like Ms. Fluke, Am Denied Free Access to Preventive Care

Dear  HHS Secretary  Sibelius:

After viewing Ms. Fluke’s testimony on her right to free access to contraception, I wish to bring to your attention that I am also being denied free access to vital preventive health care. Medical studies prove the reduced health-care costs of  senior citizens, who engage  in  moderate daily exercise in a proper facility under supervision of a physical therapist certified in geriatric care.

Medical research has clearly demonstrated that I – as a 71 year old male -- will have fewer hospitalizations and need fewer prescription medications as a result of daily moderate supervised aerobic and other exercise. I provide in the attached appendix actuarial calculations that demonstrate the discounted present value of health-cost savings over my projected lifespan exceeds the cost of the vital preventative medical care that I hereby petition.

I base my claim on HHS paragraph 13.1 - Medicare Policies (Rev. 71, 04-09-04), which clearly states that:

“The National Coverage Determinations (NCDs) are developed by CMS to describe the circumstances for Medicare coverage nationwide for a specific medical service procedure or device. NCDs generally outline the conditions for which a service is considered to be covered (or not covered) under §1862(a)(1) of the Act or other applicable provisions of the Act. NCDs are usually issued as a program instruction. Once published in a CMS program instruction, an NCD is binding on all Medicare carriers/DMERCS, FIs, Quality Improvement Organizations (QIOs, formerly known as Peer Review Organizations or PROs), Program Safeguard Contractors (PSCs) and beginning 10/1/01 are binding for Medicare+Choice organizations. NCDs made under §1862(a)(1) of the Act are binding on Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) during the claim appeal process. (See 42 CFR 405.732 and 42 CFR 405.860).

I am confident you will agree with my reading of HHS paragraph 13.1, rev. 71,04-09-04, that I am entitled to free access to this vital preventive medical care.

go to forbes.com 

Free to Choose Means Less Freedom: Obama on Birth Control

The Times The Freedom to Choose Birth Control convolutes common language and fails to comprehend fundamental economics. It says that “free access (to birth control for any woman), along with the ability to receive family planning and preventive health services, was at the foundation of health care reform.”  I did not know that. As I recall, Obama did his best to dodge that issue during the non-debate over his health care reform.

Most of us interpret “free to choose” in Milton Friedman’s sense. In a market economy, we are free to choose among alternatives. As long as we are prepared to pay the market price, we can buy whatever car, food, movie ticket, laptop, or anything else we want. No one can dictate to us how to choose among alternatives. That is our business, and Friedman considered this the cornerstone of economic freedom.

Obama, apparently, understands “free to choose” differently. In his version, free to choose means getting goods and services without paying. Even though birth control is a regular non-catastrophic expense, probably not higher than feeding a daily coffee habit, women are not free unless they have it free.

In Obama’s mind there are certain goods that must be supplied to us free of charge in order for us to be free. Insofar as no business can afford to part with its goods and services free, the state must dictate an arrangement that provides them to the customer at no out-of-pocket cost.  The state can only do this by mandates that force providers, insurance companies or anyone else involved to do something they would not do on their own.

The freedom to choose birth control (at a zero price) represents a loss of freedom.

Why stop at birth control? We should have the freedom to communicate. We should receive cell phones with unlimited minutes for free. Until we have Obama’s grand public transport system, we should have the freedom to move freely between point A and B. The state should dictate that every person get a free car, as long as it runs on electricity. The same applies to food, electricity, and gas. Why not? Why not admit those lacking in communications, gas and food “freedom” unlimited access to Wal-Mart. After all Wal-Mart exploits is employees and deserves it. Just throw open the doors and shut down the cash registers.

The freedom to have life’s essentials free of charge represents a loss of freedom. I assume Obama understands this and is doing it deliberately.

In my Essentials of Economics classes I used to ask students to consider what would happen if we gave things away free. The correct answer was chaos, followed by state rationing. I think the New York Times editorial board would flunk my exam.