Just kill the health bill, please!

[Midnight Marauder]

I only one one person on my Ignore List. Congratulations, Marauder. I can't be bothered with your little games of oneupmanship.

This message is hidden because Midnight Marauder is on your ignore list.

 

[Misty]

There is a forum specifically for healthcare threads.

"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 43% favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats, while 53% oppose it. Those findings include 23% who Strongly Favor the plan and 46% who Strongly Oppose it"

since I'm paying for this bill I think I deserve to have a say in it.

I oppose it on the basis that i don't need it and I don't want to pay for it.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

There is a forum specifically for healthcare threads.

 

[jillian]

I think it's dead.. the only thing more dead are those who vote for it. Assuming they do the legal thing and actually vote...

I don't get why these folks are doing it... a solid majority of the American people DON'T want it... it is suicide. I guess hard core Marxism takes the day.

Since I'm sure you're an expert on Marxism, why don't you explain what the tenets of Marxism are, and how the healthcare plan fits them?

Hey... here's an idea... Google it. But, are you claiming that Marx's views on societal inequalities have nothing to do with this fiasco going on now?

Personally, I feel it has little to do with healthcare and everything to do with nationalizing 1/6 of the U.S. economy.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Oh, and I never claimed to be an expert on Marxism... I only remember what I read of it in college... it sounded fucking asinine then as it does now.

maybe you shouldn't have cut class so much. you might actually understand why what you're saying is totally incorrect.

 

[jillian]

There isn't one, which is my point. You can check out the FAQs in both Social Security and Medicare's main websites, or just Google the words yourself. You will come up with nothing, because this lawsuit is some sort of precedent setting thing. Again, it most certainly does not fall within the purview of the court system because no one has YET been "injured" by not having Medicare as their insurer of choice. Even the DHHS response to the complaint specifies the ambiguity in the complaint.

That's not true. At least five people who are plaintiffs to a lawsuit feel harmed.

The defendants' websites are not a very reliable sources of objective info to the contrary.

The bill isn't law yet. There isn't a case and controversy. The court examines a) whether there is an actual case; b) whether the parties who are suing have standing to sue (i.e., an actual interest in the outcome of the case; and c) whether the case and controversy are 'ripe' for judicial review.

Do you really think this pretend controversy meets those requirements?

 

[boedicca]

This lawsuit concerns the existing rules of Medicare A and Social Security.

 

[MaggieMae]

This lawsuit concerns the existing rules of Medicare A and Social Security.

Within which, there is no penalty stated if someone decides not to use the Medicare benefit.

 

[saveliberty]

This lawsuit concerns the existing rules of Medicare A and Social Security.

Within which, there is no penalty stated if someone decides not to use the Medicare benefit.

Not getting your Social Security check, if you don't sign up fpr Medicare part A sounds like a penalty to me.

Lawsuit Seeks to Unlink Social Security and Medicare - AARP Bulletin Today

"Social Security rules require its beneficiaries to accept Part A at age 65—or give up their Social Security benefits. The rules also require the repayment of all Social Security retirement benefits already collected, if Part A coverage is refused."

 

[MaggieMae]

This lawsuit concerns the existing rules of Medicare A and Social Security.

Within which, there is no penalty stated if someone decides not to use the Medicare benefit.

Not getting your Social Security check, if you don't sign up fpr Medicare part A sounds like a penalty to me.

Lawsuit Seeks to Unlink Social Security and Medicare - AARP Bulletin Today

"Social Security rules require its beneficiaries to accept Part A at age 65—or give up their Social Security benefits. The rules also require the repayment of all Social Security retirement benefits already collected, if Part A coverage is refused."

Nobody has ever NOT gotten a Social Security check because they did not use Medicare benefits. Comprehend? Brian Hall, in the AARP blurb, is not claiming he did not receive SS, and neither is anyone else. The lawsuit is based on a "what if" scenario, period.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So Dick Armey is correct that this is a potential outcome

 

[saveliberty]

Within which, there is no penalty stated if someone decides not to use the Medicare benefit.

Not getting your Social Security check, if you don't sign up fpr Medicare part A sounds like a penalty to me.

Lawsuit Seeks to Unlink Social Security and Medicare - AARP Bulletin Today

"Social Security rules require its beneficiaries to accept Part A at age 65—or give up their Social Security benefits. The rules also require the repayment of all Social Security retirement benefits already collected, if Part A coverage is refused."

Nobody has ever NOT gotten a Social Security check because they did not use Medicare benefits. Comprehend? Brian Hall, in the AARP blurb, is not claiming he did not receive SS, and neither is anyone else. The lawsuit is based on a "what if" scenario, period.

The rules are in place to do just what was suggested. The claim by you that no one has done that is a poor justification for allowing the rules.

"Nobody has ever NOT gotten a Social Security check because they did not use Medicare benefits." - MaggieMae

Using the benefit is not the issue. Having to have Medicare part A or lose and repay SS is the issue.

 

[MaggieMae]

So Dick Armey is correct that this is a potential outcome

You don't file a lawsuit based on some perceived possibility of injury.

 

[MaggieMae]

Not getting your Social Security check, if you don't sign up fpr Medicare part A sounds like a penalty to me.

Lawsuit Seeks to Unlink Social Security and Medicare - AARP Bulletin Today

"Social Security rules require its beneficiaries to accept Part A at age 65—or give up their Social Security benefits. The rules also require the repayment of all Social Security retirement benefits already collected, if Part A coverage is refused."

Nobody has ever NOT gotten a Social Security check because they did not use Medicare benefits. Comprehend? Brian Hall, in the AARP blurb, is not claiming he did not receive SS, and neither is anyone else. The lawsuit is based on a "what if" scenario, period.

The rules are in place to do just what was suggested. The claim by you that no one has done that is a poor justification for allowing the rules.

"Nobody has ever NOT gotten a Social Security check because they did not use Medicare benefits." - MaggieMae

Using the benefit is not the issue. Having to have Medicare part A or lose and repay SS is the issue.

Where does anything say you will? Currently, there IS NO PENALTY imposed, such as "losing your SS benefits" just because you choose NOT to use Medicare. How much more clear can I make that?

 

[saveliberty]

Nobody has ever NOT gotten a Social Security check because they did not use Medicare benefits. Comprehend? Brian Hall, in the AARP blurb, is not claiming he did not receive SS, and neither is anyone else. The lawsuit is based on a "what if" scenario, period.

The rules are in place to do just what was suggested. The claim by you that no one has done that is a poor justification for allowing the rules.

"Nobody has ever NOT gotten a Social Security check because they did not use Medicare benefits." - MaggieMae

Using the benefit is not the issue. Having to have Medicare part A or lose and repay SS is the issue.

Where does anything say you will? Currently, there IS NO PENALTY imposed, such as "losing your SS benefits" just because you choose NOT to use Medicare. How much more clear can I make that?

Slow down just a minute and read these words one at a time. What are the differences between, "Where does anything say you will? Currently, there IS NO PENALTY imposed, such as "losing your SS benefits" just because you choose NOT to use Medicare.

and this:

Having to have Medicare part A or lose and repay SS is the issue.

Hint: Using and having are different.

The rules which you claim don't exist:

Rules and Procedures At Issue
On August 30, 1993, the Social Security Administration added two substantive rules to its "Program Operations Manual" to address the fact that "ome individuals entitled to monthly benefits have asked to waive Hospital Insurance (HI) entitlement because of religious or philosophical reasons, or because they prefer other health insurance." (These rules, while promulgated by SSA, are enforced by both SSA and HHS.)

The first rule reads:

Policy
"Individuals entitled to monthly benefits which confer eligibility for HI may not waive HI entitlement. The only way to avoid HI Entitlement is through withdrawal of the monthly benefit application. Withdrawal requires repayment of all Retirement, Survivors, Disability Insurance (RSDI) and HI benefit payments."

The second rule reads:

Policy
"To withdraw from the HI program, an individual must submit a written request for withdrawal and must refund any HI benefits paid on his/her behalf ... An individual who filed an application for both monthly benefits and HI may:

Withdraw the claim for monthly benefits without jeopardizing HI entitlement; or
Withdraw the claim for both monthly benefits and HI.
The individual may not elect to withdraw only the HI claim."

Nearly a decade later, on May 23, 2002, SSA tightened the noose still further, adding the following substantive rule to its Program Operations Manual:

Policy
" The claimant can withdraw an application for:

RSI [Retirement or Survivors Insurance, i.e., Social Security] cash benefits only
RSI cash benefits and HI insurance coverage ..., or
Medicare [Part B] only
However, a claimant who is entitled to monthly RSI benefits cannot [emphasis added] withdraw HI [Medicare, Part A] coverage only since entitlement to HI [Medicare, Part A] is based on entitlement to monthly RSI benefits..."

http://www.medicarelawsuit.org/about_the_lawsuit.html

 

[immto]

Kill the Bill, Kill the Bill!!!

 

[MaggieMae]

The rules are in place to do just what was suggested. The claim by you that no one has done that is a poor justification for allowing the rules.

"Nobody has ever NOT gotten a Social Security check because they did not use Medicare benefits." - MaggieMae

Using the benefit is not the issue. Having to have Medicare part A or lose and repay SS is the issue.

Where does anything say you will? Currently, there IS NO PENALTY imposed, such as "losing your SS benefits" just because you choose NOT to use Medicare. How much more clear can I make that?

Slow down just a minute and read these words one at a time. What are the differences between, "Where does anything say you will? Currently, there IS NO PENALTY imposed, such as "losing your SS benefits" just because you choose NOT to use Medicare.

and this:

Having to have Medicare part A or lose and repay SS is the issue.

Hint: Using and having are different.

The rules which you claim don't exist:

Rules and Procedures At Issue
On August 30, 1993, the Social Security Administration added two substantive rules to its "Program Operations Manual" to address the fact that "ome individuals entitled to monthly benefits have asked to waive Hospital Insurance (HI) entitlement because of religious or philosophical reasons, or because they prefer other health insurance." (These rules, while promulgated by SSA, are enforced by both SSA and HHS.)

The first rule reads:

Policy
"Individuals entitled to monthly benefits which confer eligibility for HI may not waive HI entitlement. The only way to avoid HI Entitlement is through withdrawal of the monthly benefit application. Withdrawal requires repayment of all Retirement, Survivors, Disability Insurance (RSDI) and HI benefit payments."

The second rule reads:

Policy
"To withdraw from the HI program, an individual must submit a written request for withdrawal and must refund any HI benefits paid on his/her behalf ... An individual who filed an application for both monthly benefits and HI may:

Withdraw the claim for monthly benefits without jeopardizing HI entitlement; or
Withdraw the claim for both monthly benefits and HI.
The individual may not elect to withdraw only the HI claim."

Nearly a decade later, on May 23, 2002, SSA tightened the noose still further, adding the following substantive rule to its Program Operations Manual:

Policy
" The claimant can withdraw an application for:

RSI [Retirement or Survivors Insurance, i.e., Social Security] cash benefits only
RSI cash benefits and HI insurance coverage ..., or
Medicare [Part B] only
However, a claimant who is entitled to monthly RSI benefits cannot [emphasis added] withdraw HI [Medicare, Part A] coverage only since entitlement to HI [Medicare, Part A] is based on entitlement to monthly RSI benefits..."

Medicare Lawsuit - Brian Hall v. Kathleen Sebelius

No matter what your 'proof' states, this matter still goes back to the fact that the people suing for that right do not want to give up their Social Security benefits, which INCLUDE Medicare Part A. If they want to opt out of the whole thing, they're free to do so. Again, anyone can CHOOSE not to have a Medicare claim submitted.

Also, I ran across this interesting piece of information quite by accident (why I saved it, I don't know). It arrived with my annual statement of Medicare benefits paid:

WHEN OTHER ISURANCE PAYS FIRST: All Medicare payments are made on the condition that you will pay Medicare if benefits could be paid by insurance that is primary to Medicare. Types of insurance that should pay before Medicare include employer group health plans, nofault insurance, automobile medical isurance, liability insurance and workers' compensation. Notify us right away if you have filed or could file a claim with insurance that is primary to Medicare.

[Emphasis added.]

So there ya go. End of story. If these people want a private policy to cover Medicare Part A expenses, then they shouldn't be filing a Medicare claim in the first place.

 

[saveliberty]

MaggieMae, your willful stupidy is really beyond measure. The government took by force of law money from these people for social security benefits and medicare. Bad enough they have to pay for a benefit they don't want (Medicare). Compounding it by taking their SS and forcing repayment is just insane.

It just goes to show why letting the government have social programs is wrong. A program which was meant to help the poor live their golden years in relative comfort as corrupted into a system of legally stealing from employees and employers alike. Then, if you don't follwo their rules, you lose your money completely.

You remind me of the people who bitched about the private school my kids went to. That school cost them zero. I on the other hand, paid my fair share for the public schools. No assistance in the form of a voucher. So I took care of your kids while you complained about what mine had.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Kill the bill is right.

 

[MaggieMae]

MaggieMae, your willful stupidy is really beyond measure. The government took by force of law money from these people for social security benefits and medicare. Bad enough they have to pay for a benefit they don't want (Medicare). Compounding it by taking their SS and forcing repayment is just insane.

It just goes to show why letting the government have social programs is wrong. A program which was meant to help the poor live their golden years in relative comfort as corrupted into a system of legally stealing from employees and employers alike. Then, if you don't follwo their rules, you lose your money completely.

You remind me of the people who bitched about the private school my kids went to. That school cost them zero. I on the other hand, paid my fair share for the public schools. No assistance in the form of a voucher. So I took care of your kids while you complained about what mine had.

Sorry, but you still have not made your case.

NOBODY HAS HAD THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS TAKEN AWAY BECAUSE THEY DID NOT USE THE MEDICARE BENEFIT!!!!!!!!!!!

The initial lawsuit, brought by Norm Rogers, Brian Hall, and Lew Randall attempts to establish the constitutional right to pay for their own health care with their own money. None of them have been damaged or injured by losing any benefits at all. They have the inherent R.I.G.H.T to use whatever private insurer they want and simply not take advantage of the Medicare benefit. This is a fucking no brainer.

It's obviously ALSO a bogus attempt by Dick Armey to draw attention to the Social Security issue in general, and I'm sure he has high hopes that the whole program will go up in smoke rather than getting fixed just so he can smugly claim to have won a big one for his adoring conservative extremist fans. You go, 'dick' ...

 

[MaggieMae]

You remind me of the people who bitched about the private school my kids went to. That school cost them zero. I on the other hand, paid my fair share for the public schools. No assistance in the form of a voucher. So I took care of your kids while you complained about what mine had.

Oh whine... As a property owner, I paid for decades into the public school system which educated the children of people who rented and not once did I complain. Personally, I couldn't care less where you educate your kids, and I especially couldn't care less about your whiney bullshit about having to pay for public education and not receiving a subsidy because you picked private schools instead. After all, it's a given that you've got yours so fuck everyone else. A typical attitude of today's generation.