From the Washington Examiner:
A federal judge has cleared the way for consideration of a class-action lawsuit in which plaintiffs - including former House Majority Leader Dick Armey - are asking for a ruling upholding an existing law that declares participation in Medicare and Social Security to be voluntary, not compulsory.
According to Allison Bell, a reporter for National Underwriter, an insurance industry trade publication, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer rejected a motion to dismiss the suit by Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and Michael Asture, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA).
The case is Hall v Sebellius. It stems from an HHS operations manual that requires people opting out of Medicare to also lose their Social Security benefits. The plaintiffs are being assisted with their suit by the Fund for Personal Liberty, a libertarian oriented Washington-state think tank.
"The plaintiffs claim that the operations manual Medicare mandate rules violate a statute that makes enrollment in Medicare and Social Security voluntary. All of the plaintiffs say they want to stay out of Medicare because they believe it is an inferior system and have concerns about its finances, and three of the plaintiffs would be eligible for other, better health benefits programs if they did not have to sign up for Medicare," according to Bell.
Officials at HHS and SSA officials contend their manual accurately reflects the intent of Congress when it created Medicare and Social Security to cover all Americans.Collyer appears to have rejected that interpretation, however. You can read her ruling here. If the plaintiffs win, the federal government will no doubt appeal it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And it is far from inconceivable that the present Congress would pass a new law explicitly requiring forfeiture of benefits when opting out of Medicare,
4 comments:
Am I reading this correctly, or is this judge willing to allow a suit to proceed based not on the Act itself but POMS instructions? It also appears she is willing to do so with no findings of fact as to the individual situations of the remaining three plaintiffs.
For example, Armey was a member of Congress for many years. If he now has FEHB HI coverage, then his Part A Medicare entitlement would serve only as a secondary insurer, if at all. He can disenroll at will from Medicare Part B without penalty and need never have enrolled at all. So, tell me, where's the harm for which he seeks a remedy? How does being entitled to Part A disadvantage him?
Seems to me Armey is saying, "I want this on accounta that's what I want." Well, heck, I want a lotta stuff like HRC single payer, Mr. Armey, and most of what I want is kinda not the law. Of course, there is always the plain fact that if Mr. Armey is willing to trust a private insurer to pay his hospital bills if he really gets sick, he is not thinking clearly.
I hope the lawyers in this audience will show me what I'm missing. I await your analysis.
See above--politicians are a joke,...
Ms. Ortiz
I wont speak for Mr. Armey, but for me there are several reasons I dont want Medicare Part A. Not the least of my reasons is that being enrolled in Medicare made me ineligible for my Health Savings Account by IRS rule. This is documented in IRS Pub. 969.
With regard to your first question,maybe you should read or re-read the judge's opinion.
Brian Hall
As a disabled person of 20 months I will soon be forced to join the medicare system because I can only give up part A if I give up my disability payments that I worked and paid taxes for over 30 years, I have better and cheaper insurance that I purchase on my own but once I am struck into medicare it is illegal for an insurance company to sell me the same policy I have now. I have had a lung transplant and take many medications that will end up costing me around 4000.00 dollars more a year on medicare that is why I want out of part A.
I dont think it is right for the government to force people onto medicare as long as they have and keep insurance, then they want to penalize you 10% per year for each yer you do not sign up, so I cost them 0.00 and they want to penalize me that sound like the ignorance of the US government.
Post a Comment