In 1993, the Clinton administration promulgated rules which said that seniors who withdraw from Medicare Part A (which covers hospital and outpatient services) must forfeit their Social Security benefits.
In 2008, a group of senior citizens sued the government, saying they should be allowed to opt out of Medicare without losing their Social Security benefits. The plaintiffs paid Medicare taxes during their working lives, and they were not trying to get that money back. They just wanted to be able to pay for medical care from their own private savings without losing Social Security benefits. In other words, they wanted to be able to pay for medical care they considered to be superior to that offered by Medicare, without being penalized for that choice.
In the fall of 2009, federal judge Rosemary Collyer supported the plaintiffs. She rejected the Obama Administration's argument that the plaintiffs had suffered no "injury" and lacked standing. She also denied the Administration's request to dismiss the suit, saying that "neither the statute nor the regulation specifies that Plaintiffs must withdraw from Social Security and repay retirement benefits in order to withdraw from Medicare." You read that last part right. The government argued that in order to withdraw from Medicare, you must not only lose your Social Security, but you must repay any retirement benefits you may have received to that point.
Incredibly, last week Judge Collyer reversed herself and dismissed the case. She decided that the Medicare statute does indeed require that Social Security recipients take government health care. According to the judge's newly discovered logic, you are no longer simply "entitled" to Medicare if you are "entitled" to Social Security (as the Medicare statute says), you must accept Medicare if you accept Social Security. In Collyer's current view, if you are entitled to something, you must accept it, or be penalized.
It is difficult to find the words to describe how insane this is. One might think that the government would be thrilled to have some seniors opt out of Medicare, since Medicare is currently a high speed fiscal train wreck that can't be stopped without major changes.
Why, then, would the government insist that seniors must participate in Medicare against their will? Here's a possible answer: the government is less interested in saving money and offering choice to consumers than in herding everyone into the same government health care pen, all in the pursuit of their egalitarian utopia.
I recently offered the opinion that we are less free than we once were. I would like to thank the government for proving my point.
No comments:
Post a Comment