-
I Try to Explain Debt on CBN News
May 23, 2012 | 13 comments
-
More on Wright
May 21, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Missing the Point on Rev. Wright
May 21, 2012 | 10 comments
-
Exorcise DeGioia and Company From Georgetown
May 19, 2012 | 23 comments
-
McMorris Rodgers Gains Attention
May 19, 2012 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
It is astonishing that this case hasn't gotten more conservative attention (outside of the pages of the Washington Times), but today's Wash Times editorial again reminds people that the government actually claims it can hold hostage people's Social Security payments in order to FORCE those people to accept Medicare enrollment.
The Department of Health and Human Services insists an individual cannot forfeit Medicare eligibility and continue to collect Social Security benefits even after paying into the latter system over an entire career. The plaintiffs have private insurance they consider superior to Medicare and are willing to allow the Treasury to keep the benefits they earned after having paid Medicare taxes for decades. Everybody, including the American taxpayer, wins - except for bureaucrats, who don't want to be bothered to keep track of those who willingly forgo Medicare coverage....
The government's brief isn't responsive to Judge Collyer's demand because no legitimate authority seems to exist for their freedom-destroying fiat. The five plaintiffs merely want the right to pay for their own level of medical care. Denial of that right could endanger their health, or lives.....
One of those previous editorials linked above noted that while most of this case is being fought on statutory grounds, there also is a constitutional (and moral) argument at hand that parallels the legal fight over Obamacare:
The government ought to lose this challenge on statutory grounds alone, but the practical parallels to Obamacare lawsuits make the substance of this case all the more poignant. Despite President Obama's efforts, this is still a free country. Government shouldn't be able to force Americans to accept care they don't care for.
This is a hugely important case. Conservatives should pay heed.
View all comments (16) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/17/mugged-by-medicare
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Wayne | 1.17.11 @ 12:17PM
How is this not communism? We really at some point need a discussion about when we cross the line between capitalism and communism, and this seems like the case that draws that line. We are told that we can no longer be capitalist at 65 and MUST take the states plan, being then forced into communism.
Bayou Babe| 1.17.11 @ 12:23PM
It’s bureaucratic thuggery, Quin, plainly and simply.
Oldefarte| 1.17.11 @ 1:17PM
In a sidebar of sorts, how can the government claim by insinuation/hint of their futuristically withholding SS from wealthy contributors, if what they're claiming in this issue ['.....They claimed the Medicare entitlement "flowed automatically" from the Social Security entitlement and cited a 1965 law that says all Social Security beneficiaries "shall be entitled" to Medicare. That hardly compels use of both. To be "entitled" is not to be "required.....'] is true? Since SS and Medicare are both paid for by claimiants' previous lifetime contributions/payroll deductions into the governmental system for both, how can they in this instance now claim that these claimants are 'entitled' to same? There have been political discussions concerning the MEANS TESTING of SS to possibly exclude same from wealthy contributors as a solution to its underfunding problems, so how can liberal Democrats propose this means testing if these wealthy contributors are 'ENTITLED' by law to same?????????????
AR Ar ar| 1.17.11 @ 2:02PM
The government is clearly out of control.
sooner or later people will put the leash back on but for now it is just sad that we've digressed so far.
Malcolm| 1.17.11 @ 6:47PM
The people will not get the leash back on. This process only works one way, sometimes with blips, sometimes there is a Reagan and the curve goes flat for a couple of years but the direction stays the same.
p-squared| 1.17.11 @ 3:02PM
The sooner we get a conservative president back in the White House, the better. Her/his first directive to cabinet members should be to rip up the gazillion pages of useless and onerous regulations and use common sense. Then it's time to clean out all the career civil (self)servants who perpetuate this kind of stuff through administration after administration.
Spoonman| 1.17.11 @ 8:36PM
No one in the federal government has any commonsense!
GBinPA| 1.17.11 @ 5:07PM
The most obvious cure to the Social Security and Medicare programs is a lessening of demand (fewer recipients). The government may force us to take Medicare, but they'll never force us to accept actual medical care.
Bob| 1.18.11 @ 12:00PM
Not true. By federal law once you have Medicare it becomes your primary insurance. All other insurance is secondary. This is the biggest drain on the country that can be imagined and it is done by law. Imagine that, you can pay for your own insurance, not even want Medicare and it becomes your primary insurer. It covers 80% so you still need to pay for more coverage since 20% of a bill can financially cripple most of us. It is a scam from the word go.
mike| 1.17.11 @ 6:44PM
What can they do if you don't sign up for either one?.....
miss Tess| 1.17.11 @ 7:50PM
This does not make sense!
Surely OBAMA understands that.
What ever happened to the old saying:
"...STAND UP FOR YOURSELF..."
Must we sit back now and allow OBAMA
to run our lives? I do believe OBAMA
owes us an apology for even thinking thus.
annecink| 1.18.11 @ 5:56AM
What a bizarre story! Of course the people should be allowed to do whatever they want for health coverage.
But, I can't figure out why they would forego Medicare. You would think that their insurance company would insist they go on Medicare, while retaining a generous supplemental plan.
Can someone explain why they would do this? Are they just trying to help Medicare?
LakeMechanic| 1.18.11 @ 9:49PM
Lots of doctors refuse to take Medicare patients because of Medicare's low reimbursement rates. & supprise, when you have medicare, your old insurance won't reimburse doctors in excess of what Medicare pays, so by having Medicare, you have significantly reduced the number of doctors that will touch you with a 10' pole.
Marsha| 1.18.11 @ 6:51AM
When you retire, you automatically qualify for Medicare Part A, hospitalization, for which you have paid your entire working life. I can keep my private medical insurance, but Part A becomes the first payor for a hospitalization and my private plan picks up the remainder. I suspect that they want you to sign up for Parts B,C, and D, for which you have to pay premiums.
LakeMechanic| 1.18.11 @ 9:41PM
When Medicare becomes your primary insurance, your old insurance, now your secondary insurance tows the medicare line. If Medicare decides a treatment your old insurance would have paid for is not cost effective, your old insurance won't pay for it anymore. By having Medicare, you have denied yourself access to lots of treatments & procedures. As Medicare devours more & more of the federal budget, expect it to find more & more treatments "not cost effective."
James F| 1.20.11 @ 4:43PM
This is so stupid. Are we really PAYING for these idiot Beaurocats?. Wish I could get a Job being stupid like that