Few people prosper under the new health care law

By Ethel C. Fenig

Days after Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was caught admitting that the alleged savings under Obamacare were derived from the prison worthy accounting practice of "double counting" she's back with an op ed at Politico misleadingly titled "Everyone prospers under health law."

And how do they do so?

Let us examine a few of the ways.

Seniors enrolled in Medicare now have the freedom to get preventive care - such as mammograms and colonoscopies - for free.

Free?! Free?!! Sure, seemingly free at the front end but the personnel aren't working for free! The machines aren't free! Other supplies aren't free! So how and who will pay for these procedures? We all will--with much higher taxes than private insurance premiums. And worse service.

Seniors--and others--have the freedom of preventive care such as this for years, most of it covered by insurance plus a low co pay with few problems. The mountainous paperwork and overheard government requires will merely drive up the cost and with little oversight there will be the same type of fraud that exists in Medicare and Medicaid.

Why, just last year these two government funded health care programs dished out $70 billion in "improper payments" according to the government itself.

And all this fraud was free--if you don't count the taxes that underwrote it. Plus many doctors, who don't accept Medicare and Medicaid patients because of the low reimbursement from the government for this free care, limits health care access for many seniors and low income people.

For too long, it's been common for people receive a letter from an insurer announcing a premium increase of 20 percent to 25 percent, with little explanation and no recourse. That's already changing.

For too long it's been common for peoples' taxes at all levels of government to increase with laughable explanations and absolutely no recourse. This is bound to change and intensify under Obamacare.

During the past year, our department has provided states with almost $250 million in funding to strengthen their ability to review, revise or reject unreasonable rate hikes. New proposed rules would force many insurers to justify big increases and post explanations on the Web. States from California to Connecticut have already shown that vigorous oversight can be effective in stopping unjustified premium increases.

Just like that she passed out 250 million tax dollars for the states to play with, providing the people on the state boards examining rates to receive and/or demand "compensation" (bribes) to either "review, revise or reject unreasonable rate hikes" favorably. (Although I'm speaking from my Illinois experience, believe me it will happen in all states, no matter how honest.)

We also know that individuals and small businesses have often had to pay significantly more for health insurance than big businesses, which can use their size to negotiate lower premiums. But in 2014, individuals and small businesses will be able to pool their purchasing power through new state-based health insurance exchanges to bring down their rates. Millions of people will be eligible for tax credits, based on need, to help them afford health coverage.

Nowhere in this apologia does she mention the 1000 and counting waivers offered to big businesses and unions exempting them from wonderful Obamacare. "Tax credits based on need" huh? Uh oh, more soak the rich, (you and me), government inefficiently redistributing money after taking its large cut or welfare by another name.

Today, Americans also have a new Web-based tool that allows them to comparison shop for the best insurance options available in their zip codes.

I've been doing this with my auto and home owners private insurance for years. This is hard to do with health insurance at the moment because federal law mandates that the insurer's health insurance company be headquartered in the insuree's home state.

Nowhere does she discuss the objections the majority of the people have to Obamacare. But why should she?

Speaking of auto and home owner's insurance--why can't I purchase health insurance the way I do the former two? Why should I have to buy health insurance through my employer, a holdover practice from World War ll which ended over 65 years ago? Divorcing health insurance from an employer and ending geographic restraints will do more than Obamacare could ever do--decreasing rates while providing real access for all, plus lower overhead for employers, greater mobility in the work force as workers would feel free to move on to another job or start their own company without worrying about health insurance and many other benefits.

But of course that solution would reduce the government's role in health care and a person's private life while reducing individual dependency on government's so called largesse.