Court decides seniors can't reject Medicare

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reba

Reba

Retired Terp
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
54,903
Reaction score
1,518
Appeals court: Seniors can't reject Medicare right

BY NEDRA PICKLER
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that seniors who receive Social Security cannot reject their legal right to Medicare benefits, in a rare case of Americans suing to get out of a government entitlement.

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey is among the five senior citizens who sued to stop their automatic eligibility for Medicare. But the appeals court ruled in a split decision that the law gives them no way to opt out of their eligibility if they want to keep their Social Security benefits.

Armey, a Texas Republican, and his co-plaintiffs say their private insurers limit their coverage because they are eligible for Medicare, but they would prefer the coverage from their private insurers.

"We understand plaintiffs' frustration with their insurance situation and appreciate their desire for better private insurance coverage," Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a majority opinion joined by Douglas Ginsburg, both Republican appointees. But they agreed with the Obama administration that the law says those over age 65 who enroll in Social Security are automatically entitled to Medicare Part A, which covers services including hospital, nursing home care, hospice and home health care.

The case is being funded by a group called The Fund For Personal Liberty, which says its purpose is to take on burdensome government regulations. Attorney Kent Brown, who argued the case for the plaintiffs, say they want to keep their Social Security because they believe they earned it, but none of them want Medicare Part A.

"To say that you can't decline Medicare Part A and not opt out of Social Security is outrageous," Brown said in a telephone interview from his office in Lexington, Ky. He said Congress never intended that and vowed to appeal the ruling.

Besides Armey, the plaintiffs include two other former federal employees who were covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program - retired Housing and Urban Development employee Brian Hall of Catlett, Va., and retired Navy civilian engineer John J. Kraus of Plymouth Meeting, Pa. - who argue that private insurance covers more than Medicare. The two other plaintiffs are wealthy individuals - E*Trade board member Lewis Randall of Whidbey Island, Wash., and Rabbit Semiconductor founder and retired CEO Norman Rogers of Miami - who have high deductible private insurance and prefer to pay for their health care.

The plaintiffs found an ally in Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, a nominee of George H.W. Bush, who wrote that Congress did not authorize the Social Security Administration to penalize an individual who wants to decline Medicare.
Click to expand...
Appeals court: Seniors can't reject Medicare right - Florida Wires - MiamiHerald.com
 
Oceanbreeze said:
Maybe not, but you can bet that if they are eligible for it, they use it. They also have a TON of supplemental insurance, though.
Click to expand...

What supplemental insurance?

I'm trying to visualize billionaires eagerly preferring medicare over the quality of care they can get with private insurance. Hm, yeah, just can't picture it.
 
This brings back nightmares from my pharmacy days, trying to figure which drugs got billed to what insurance for customers. Some customers have 3-4 different companies. Some cover certain drugs other give discount cards for other meds.

RR at least here in Calif, you can have supplimental insurance with your Medicare. My mom has Kaiser which covers her doctors and prescriptions for a monthly fee. It is pretty good coverage. I do not know about your state. Insurance can be a nightmare to figure out.
 
We are retired military, and one reason my husband stayed in was so we would always have insurance for our daughter with multiple disabilities.
When she turned 21 we learned that she *had* to be on medicare. If we refuse Medicare, Tricare drops her from the system. We have no choice.

This has translated into less care for her, because both companies argue over who is responsible, and if one won't cover something, neither will the other, even if it is something they would otherwise have covered.

We also are docked almost a hundred dollars a month for the medicare program participation that we do not want, do not need, and cannot choose to opt out of.
 
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that seniors who receive Social Security cannot reject their legal right to Medicare benefits, in a rare case of Americans suing to get out of a government entitlement.
Click to expand...

Interesting.
 
Grayma said:
We are retired military, and one reason my husband stayed in was so we would always have insurance for our daughter with multiple disabilities.
When she turned 21 we learned that she *had* to be on medicare. If we refuse Medicare, Tricare drops her from the system. We have no choice.

This has translated into less care for her, because both companies argue over who is responsible, and if one won't cover something, neither will the other, even if it is something they would otherwise have covered.

We also are docked almost a hundred dollars a month for the medicare program participation that we do not want, do not need, and cannot choose to opt out of.
Click to expand...

Isn't that ridiculous. The whole concept of being forced to pay for an insurance program you don't want, and getting worse coverage because of it, just makes no sense to me.
 
DeafCaroline said:
What supplemental insurance?

I'm trying to visualize billionaires eagerly preferring medicare over the quality of care they can get with private insurance. Hm, yeah, just can't picture it.
Click to expand...
That was the point of their suit. No matter how rich a person is, no matter what private insurance one has, one can't reject Medicare coverage. That was the court decision.

Everyone who is Medicare eligible must use the Medicare coverage first. They can only use other private insurance as a supplement.
 
Reba said:
That was the point of their suit. No matter how rich a person is, no matter what private insurance one has, one can't reject Medicare coverage. That was the court decision.

Everyone who is Medicare eligible must use the Medicare coverage first. They can only use other private insurance as a supplement.
Click to expand...

Forget it. This is getting ridiculous.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Forget it. This is getting ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. That's the point that Reba is making, that it is ridiculous.

Everyone who works pays into Social Security. Even rich people. So even rich people are entitled to their benefits when they reach the appropriate age.

You can postpone receiving benefits until age 70, if you want. But you have to - HAVE TO - apply for Medicare at age 65, or pay a penalty for each year you delay. And now the Supreme Court takes it even further and says you absolutely cannot decline it, even if you do not want it and it provides a worse benefit than your private insurance, which you are already paying for!

Aagh. Bad decision, in my opinion.
 
Reba said:
That was the point of their suit. No matter how rich a person is, no matter what private insurance one has, one can't reject Medicare coverage. That was the court decision.

Everyone who is Medicare eligible must use the Medicare coverage first. They can only use other private insurance as a supplement.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That was my understanding, too. Here's a section that gets me wondering:

But they agreed with the Obama administration that the law says those over age 65 who enroll in Social Security are automatically entitled to Medicare Part A, which covers services including hospital, nursing home care, hospice and home health care.
Click to expand...

The enrollment part. Nothing is readily explained to parents of newborns about SS# and trouble it could cause. It's an accepted practice, the box gets checked automatically and get your free SS#!

Next time, parents can say "No" to SS# for their kids and do something to protect their future.

How I Said No to the Automatic Social Security Number | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty
 
DeafCaroline said:
Forget it. This is getting ridiculous.
Click to expand...

In America every American over a certain age gets Social Security. It's not means-tested. The amount is loosely based on your years in the work force and your contributions to the program.

So, yes, in America, billionairs get Social Security if they are old enough. That's all that matters, really, their age.

Are you thinking of SSI? That's different.
 
DeafCaroline said:
What supplemental insurance?

I'm trying to visualize billionaires eagerly preferring medicare over the quality of care they can get with private insurance. Hm, yeah, just can't picture it.
Click to expand...

Medicare alone? No, you're right. That's why I said supplemental insurance, but yeah, if someone was eligible for medicare they would probably be using that as well.
 
Reba said:
That was the point of their suit. No matter how rich a person is, no matter what private insurance one has, one can't reject Medicare coverage. That was the court decision.

Everyone who is Medicare eligible must use the Medicare coverage first. They can only use other private insurance as a supplement.
Click to expand...

Right. I, for one, don't think it should be forced on someone, but that's just what I think. I don't like the idea of the government telling someone what they can/cannot do in this instance. Medicare is a mess, so why should someone be forced to use it if they can afford better benefits?

I think the more benefits someone has, the better.

Just my .02
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top