High court rejects Medicare challenge

[n2doc]

Source: AP

The Supreme Court has turned away a challenge from former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and other Social Security recipients who say they have the right to reject Medicare in favor of continuing health coverage from private insurers.
The justices did not comment Monday in letting stand a federal appeals court ruling that held that there is no way for people who receive Social Security to reject Medicare benefits.

Armey, a Texas Republican, and two other former federal employees say private insurance covers more than Medicare. Two other plaintiffs are wealthy individuals who have high deductible private insurance and prefer to pay for their health care.

The case was funded by a group called The Fund For Personal Liberty, which says its purpose is to take on burdensome government regulations.



Read more: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-01-high-court-medicare.html

[montanacowboy]

1. Good!

that fat POS -

Sure dicky, take Medicare away from the rest of us because we can go out and pay $2000 a month for private insurance

Take your $8 million you got from your ass kicking and shove it up your fat ass

[blueclown]

2. They have a right to reject financing Medicare through FICA taxes?

Is that the basis of this petition?

This article is very poorly written

From what I have always understood, you actually have to enroll in Medicare to receive its benefits. So, if you don't enroll in Medicare, you can essentially reject it.

[madokie]

4. I'll be 65 in march

and have been getting solicitations for supplemental as well from Medicare trying to get me to sign up. I'm perfectly happy with my VA heathcare so I've not returned any of the sign here and send it back in offers. Hopefully I'm not breaking the law

[SoapBox]

5. JUST make sure that you register with them

by the time they say...if you don't and you (or better yet, anyone else out there without VA benefits) later decide to get coverage via Medicare, you will pay a penalty.

Just say'n...

[JDPriestly]

22. Medicare always asks me if I have any other insurance or coverage.

I do for specific problems, so I list that. I still have Medicare.

[Hoyt]

9. Good point. You don't have to use Medicare when eligible, but you can't opt out of paying

Medicare tax.

[former9thward]

18. Bad point.

The case is not about taxes. You do have to use Part A. See court's opinion: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/890596479218E0818525799D00548389/$file/11-5076-1356903.pdf

[former9thward]

14. That is not what the case is about.

No one is trying to reject financing of Medicare. In this case the petitioners wished to decline Medicare Part A coverage. The court said that SS is written so that if you get SS then you have to take Medicare part A whether you want it or not. If you take part A then your other insurance limits your coverage since you are on Part A. The plaintiffs wanted to reject being covered by Medicare and continue being covered by their own insurance.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/890596479218E0818525799D00548389/$file/11-5076-1356903.pdf

[JDPriestly]

23. They are better off taking Medicare A.

What a silly idea. They paid for it. It's theirs. They can always pay the value of what they get from Medicare back in extra taxes if they don't want to take money from Medicare for moral reasons.

That lawsuit was a waste of the courts' time.

But they are running their organization to save public money???

Makes no sense. They are just trying to get attention.

[former9thward]

25. Private insurance provides better benefits than Plan A.

That is why they have it. Why do you want wealthy people to use Medicare benefits when they can be using their own insurance? Who are you to say what is better for them? I think they know what is covered by each.

[JDPriestly]

30. If they have so much money, the monthly charge for Medicare Plan A is so tiny, they shouldn't care.

The lawsuit will cost them far more than just paying for Medicare Plan A.

These types of lawsuits waste the time of the courts and the money of the taxpayers. What nonsense.

[former9thward]

31. You have no idea what this case is about.

Your continued posts make that clear. This case is not about either paying medicare taxes or paying medicare fees. None of that was mentioned in the case. If you get SS you are eligible for Part A. Private insurance will not cover you if you are eligible for Part A. So they wanted to court to declare them free from part A so that their private insurance would give them coverage. Why you demand the rich use Medicare resources is beyond me. Why should Medicare have to pay for Romney and Buffet?

[JDPriestly]

32. The law that should be changed is the law permitting insurance companies to deny coverage

that is in addition to or separate from Medicare. If you pay for the insurance with a private company, your contract with the private company should guarantee that the coverage you pay for privately is provided to you no matter whether you have Medicare or not.

If you don't use your Medicare, Medicare does not pay anyone. It is a pay for service program.

In fact, my mother had it for years but thanks to her good health, did not use it.

This is a silly problem.

As I explained, certain of my health problems are paid by a source other than Medicare. Medicare could care less. I could care less. It is all a matter of your agreement with that other source of medical care.

Lots of seniors opt for alternative medicine and don't use Medicare say for back problems or other conditions. This is just a lot of noise about nothing.

[Bandit]

19. I believe you are automatically enrolled to Part A but the rest you have to ask for..

At least that is how it worked for me...

[Sekhmets Daughter]

27. No...You are automatically enrolled in Parts A & B...

you can make a request to drop B. I received my information in late Nov. I will be 65 next month. "Summary of Decisions You Need to Make:"

(1) Decide if you want to keep Part B.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

26. Nope...

If you are collecting Social Security you are automatically enrolled in Medicare when you turn 65. I received my card In Nov. (I think) I will turn 65 next month. The benefit becomes effective Feb. 1st. However, I can opt out of Medicare Part B, so I don't know what the purpose of this whole suit could be. Other than to make some stupid political statement. It's nice to see the SCOTUS not furthering this nonsense.

[judesedit]

3. They squawk about everything, until they want big bucks from Uncle Sam themselves for their pork

[SoapBox]

6. + 1,000

Exactly and simply said.

[still_one]

7. Do the tea party people who are on Medicare realize that their founder are trying to kill them?

[leftyohiolib]

10. they're not smart enough - you tell them their foot is trying to raise taxes then hand them a gun

and they'll shoot off their foot

[still_one]

20. Lol

[wishlist]

8. Medicare payroll tax is mandatory but no one has to apply for benefits

Author of article does not make it clear that enrolling in Medicare benefits has always been totally voluntary but the payroll tax is mandatory. Federal employees under old Civil Service years ago did not pay the Medicare payroll tax until sometime in the 1980's I believe. Many Federal employees will not ever need Medicare because of their Blue Cross or other Federal employees plan that usually costs more in their premiums but covers more than Medicare. Most Feds have paid thousands into Medicare but will never enroll in the program due to either Federal employees benefits or VA.

[former9thward]

15. You are wrong.

Part A is mandatory if your are on SS. See the court's opinion. http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/890596479218E0818525799D00548389/$file/11-5076-1356903.pdf

[Sekhmets Daughter]

28. You are automatically enrolled in Parts A & B, you can request to drop Part B.

[happyslug]

11. Here is the website of the Plaintiff, I suggest skipping it, it is classic right wing clap trap

http://thefundforpersonalliberty.org/2012/08/8242012-we-petitioned-the-supreme-court/

[Journeyman]

12. Dick Armey, who extorted $8 million in severance from the Teabaggers, now wants to dictate . . .

the who and how of Medicare coverage for all the "little people." As if. . .




edit: typo

[enough]

13. Whoever wrote that article for the AP needs to work a little harder.

The first sentence mentions "Dick Armey and other Social Security recipients who say they have the right to reject Medicare in favor of continuing health coverage from private insurers."

Everybody already has the right to reject Medicare in favor of continuing health coverage from private insurers. All you have to do is not sign up for Medicare and not pay the monthly premium.

I suppose they meant that they wanted to stop paying the tax to support Medicare, but you wouldn't know that from the article.

[former9thward]

16. The tax has nothing to do with it.

Part A is mandatory if you are on SS. See the court's opinion. http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/890596479218E0818525799D00548389/$file/11-5076-1356903.pdf

[happyslug]

17. Here are the Petitions filed in this case:

Here is the Government's brief for the Court NOT to hear this case:
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2012/0responses/2012-0262.resp.pdf

Here is the Petition for the Court to hear this case:
http://thefundforpersonalliberty.org/pdf/120824-SCOTUS-Petition-for-Writ.pdf

[Erda]

21. I just went through the enrollment process in July . . .

My understanding is that I had the right to not enroll in Medicare and not pay the monthly $100 premium, but if at a later time I decided to enroll, my monthly premium would be higher each month (as an example $110 a month or $120 a month, depending on the number of years I had previously opted out). I have opted out of Medicare Part D without any problem. If I wish to opt back in, the same will be true -- I will pay a higher monthly premium than someone who had opted in immediately upon reaching eligibility age.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

29. That's Part B....Part A is mandatoy and costs you nothing.

[democrattotheend]

24. This is a dumb ruling

And Congress should change the law.

With Medicare facing projected shortfalls, I say anyone who wants to opt out of receiving benefits (not of paying in) should be allowed to do so. Why waste precious Medicare resources on people who don't need it and don't want it?