SCOTUS Snubs Citizens Whose Social Security Will Be Confiscated If They Refuse Medicare

[Lucille]

Supreme Court Snubs Citizens Whose Social Security Will Be Confiscated If They Refuse Government Health Care
http://www.cato.org/blog/supreme-co...ty-will-be-confiscated-they-refuse-government

Some of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most significant decisions are those declining to hear a case. Two weeks ago, the Court made such a momentous non-ruling in refusing to hear a lawsuit, Hall v. Sebelius, challenging government policies that deny otherwise eligible retirees their Social Security benefits if they choose not to enroll in Medicare. (I previously wrote about the case, and Cato filed a brief supporting the retirees’ petition for Supreme Court review.)

Despite having paid thousands of dollars each in Social Security and Medicare taxes during their working lives—for which they never sought reimbursement—the five plaintiffs were told by officials at the Social Security Administration and Department of Health and Human Services that they had to forfeit all of their Social Security benefits if they wished to withdraw from (or not enroll in) Medicare. This determination resulted from internal policies that were put in place during the Clinton administration and strengthened by the Bush administration. The plaintiffs sought a judicial ruling that would prohibit SSA and HHS from enforcing these policies, which they believed conflicted with the Social Security and Medicare statutes. A sharply divided U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit eventually upheld them. By its decision not to hear the case, the Supreme Court let that controversial ruling stand.

At this point, one might ask why someone would want to give up Medicare. The answer is that some people would prefer to keep their existing (private) health insurance, but that for various regulatory and economic reasons insurance companies are wary of insuring people already covered by Medicare. Talk about the prototypical case of government programs crowding out the private sector!

In any event, the troubling reality of the Supreme Court’s non-ruling is twofold: First, the government now has full authority to force citizens to participate in a financially troubled program (Medicare) that was originally intended to be—and operated for almost three decades as—a wholly voluntary program. If they refuse, SSA and HHS can deny them their Social Security benefits. If they seek to withdraw from Medicare, SSA and HHS can not only deny them future benefits, but force them to repay all benefits received from both programs. Second, the Supreme Court’s unwillingness to address the issue raised here allows federal agencies to bypass Congress with impunity when drafting and implementing their own rules.

More at the link

 

[Zippyjuan]

Just a bit of info. If a person is elgible for Social Security, they are also elgible for Medicare. Enroling in Social Security automatically enrolls you in Medicare. They are "entitled" but not required to use Medicare. By not issuing their own ruling in the case, they upheld the lower court ruling which said:
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2012/0responses/2012-0262.resp.pdf

The court of appeals explained that, under the statutory scheme, “[c]itizens who receive Social Security benefits and are 65 or older are automatically entitled under federal law to Medicare Part A benefits.” Pet. App. 2a-3a. As the court observed, that does not mean that citizens so entitled have “to take the Medicare Part A benefits.” Id. at 3a. Indeed, the court continued, petitioners already “can decline Medicare Part A benefits.” Id. at 5a (citing Claims Manual, ch. 1, § 50.1.5). The court recognized that petitioners “want something more,” i.e., they want to “disclaim their legal entitlement to Medicare Part A benefits.” But, the court concluded, “the statute simply does not provide any mechanism to achieve that objective.” Id. at 4a, 5a. The court therefore held that, because petitioners’ “position is inconsistent with the statutory text[,] * * * the agency was not required to offer [petitioners] a mechanism for disclaiming their legal entitlement, and its refusal to do so was lawful.”

The court ruled that the plaintifs were not forced to use the Medicare benefits- that they don't have to give up their Social Security benefits if they don't want to use Medicare benefits.

Now to completely dis-enroll from Medicare they would have to also disenroll from Social Security (which would also require paying back any SS money they already received) but again, to avoid simply using Medicare- which was the claimed goal- they would not have to disenroll.

 

[Lucille]

Just a bit of info. If a person is elgible for Social Security, they are also elgible for Medicare. Enroling in Social Security automatically enrolls you in Medicare. They are "entitled" but not required to use Medicare. By not issuing their own ruling in the case, they upheld the lower court ruling which said:
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2012/0responses/2012-0262.resp.pdf

The court ruled that the plaintifs were not forced to use the Medicare benefits- that they don't have to give up their Social Security benefits if they don't want to use Medicare benefits.

Now to completely dis-enroll from Medicare they would have to also disenroll from Social Security (which would also require paying back any SS money they already received) but again, to avoid simply using Medicare- which was the claimed goal- they would not have to disenroll.

So it's all good then, eh, Zippy?

The plaintiffs want to keep their private insurance, but will not be allowed to do so if they receive Medicarehttp://cfif.org/v/index.php/comment...ongress-should-act-against-mandatory-medicare. The feds say they cannot refuse those public benefits: The government argues that a law saying a citizen shall be “entitled” to Medicare benefits effectively means that he should be “required” to accept them. This, of course, is nonsense. Hence the lawsuit.

In any event, the troubling reality of the Supreme Court’s non-ruling is twofold: First, the government now has full authority to force citizens to participate in a financially troubled program (Medicare) that was originally intended to be—and operated for almost three decades as—a wholly voluntary program. If they refuse, SSA and HHS can deny them their Social Security benefits. If they seek to withdraw from Medicare, SSA and HHS can not only deny them future benefits, but force them to repay all benefits received from both programs. Second, the Supreme Court’s unwillingness to address the issue raised here allows federal agencies to bypass Congress with impunity when drafting and implementing their own rules.

 

[Zippyjuan]

It seems to be their private insuranace company making the decision to drop them- not the government forcing them to.

The plaintiffs want to keep their private insurance, but will not be allowed to do so if they receive Medicare. The feds say they cannot refuse those public benefits: The government argues that a law saying a citizen shall be “entitled” to Medicare benefits effectively means that he should be “required” to accept them. This, of course, is nonsense. Hence the lawsuit.

The court ruled that they CAN refuse to use the benefits- they are not "required to accept them". They are elgible but not forced to use them- the article is not correct.

 

[Lucille]

Being the statist shill that you are, I'm not surprised you see it that way, and have no problem with any of this.

[done]

 

[Zippyjuan]

Just showing what the court ruled- they are not forced to use Medicare (but they are elgible to) and the government is not forcing their insurance company to drop them. Nothing says that people will have Social Security confiscated if people don't want to use Medicare as the headline in the post claims.

 

[Lucille]

Um, Zippy, the court argued its ruling using misrepresentations.

Also, being the government-run medical care-obsessed statist prog that you are, I know you want to make this about a private insurance company dropping people when they're forced by the government to enroll in Medicare, but that's not really what this is about. It's about federal agencies writing laws, penalizing people who would rather get their medical insurance outside of the state's glorious program, and being owned. Sorry you missed it.

Back in 2008, Republican U.S. Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas introduced a bill to correct this bureaucratic abuse. It would allow seniors to opt out of Medicare hospital benefits, allow doctors to enter into private contracts for such care and allow seniors to continue building their Health Savings Accounts. This is an eminently sensible bill, and it should prove quite popular if congressional supporters put even a tiny amount of political effort into explaining it. Congress ought to resurrect this bill and pass it forthwith.

As Johnson said when he first introduced the bill, with reference to the famous billionaire investor, “If Warren Buffett wants to pay for his own medical care, I say we should let him.”

Basic fairness demands such a bill. Wise management of the public fisc demands it. And, considering the procedural abuses that created the awful policy at issue, the cause of the due process of representative democracy demands it as well. Nobody ought to be coerced into accepting “benefits” they don’t want, especially when the public never was allowed to weigh in on the policy to begin with.

 

[Zippyjuan]

. It's about federal agencies writing laws, penalizing people who would rather get their medical insurance outside of the state's glorious program,

If I may again ask, how is the government denying people the ability to get their medical insurance outside "the state's glorious program"?

Let me quote from your latest link:

Henderson also writes, without any contrary assertion by Kavanaugh, that “The relevant language of both statutes, 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(a) and 426(a), reads identically in that they both provide that an individual ‘shall be entitled’ to benefits if he meets certain qualifying conditions. Neither statute requires an ‘entitled’ individual to accept the benefits.”

By analogy, just because the First Amendment entitles me to express my opinion doesn’t mean it requires me to express my opinion. Everybody has the right to keep his opinions to himself. The choice rests with the person being entitled; compulsion never enters into the equation.

Instead, they argue something much more fundamental, i.e., that there is no statutory authority for the POMS’s edict that an individual who declines Medicare, Part A coverage is required to forego/refund [Social Security benefits].

And from the ruling:

3a. As the court observed, that does not mean that citizens so entitled have “to take the Medicare Part A benefits.” Id. at 3a. Indeed, the court continued, petitioners already “can decline Medicare Part A benefits.”

 

[Zippyjuan]

Found an official copy of the ruling:
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/890596479218E0818525799D00548389/$file/11-5076-1356903.pdf

To be clear, plaintiffs already “may refuse to request
Medicare payment” for services they receive and instead
“agree to pay for the services out of their own funds or from
other insurance.” MEDICARE CLAIMS PROCESSING MANUAL,
ch. 1, § 50.1.5 (2011). So they can decline Medicare Part A
benefits.

But plaintiffs want something more than just the ability to
decline Medicare payments. They seek a legal declaration
that Medicare Part A benefits cannot be paid on their behalf –
a declaration, in other words, that they are not legally entitled
to Medicare Part A benefits. But the statute simply does not
provide any mechanism to achieve that objective. If you are
65 or older and sign up for Social Security, you are
automatically entitled to Medicare Part A benefits. You can
decline those benefits. But you still remain entitled to them
under the statute.

What plaintiffs really seem to want is for the Government
and, more importantly, their private insurers to treat plaintiffs’
decision not to accept Medicare Part A benefits as meaning
plaintiffs are also not legally entitled to Medicare Part A
benefits. But the problem is that, under the law, plaintiffs
remain legally entitled to the benefits regardless of whether
they accept them.

Third, plaintiffs acknowledge that they can escape their
entitlement to Medicare Part A benefits by disenrolling from
Social Security and forgoing Social Security benefits. From
that, plaintiffs contend that entitlement to Medicare Part A
benefits has thereby been made a prerequisite to receiving
Social Security benefits, in contravention of the statute
governing entitlement to Social Security benefits. But
plaintiffs have it backwards. Signing up for Social Security is
a prerequisite to Medicare Part A benefits, not the other way
around.

 

[The Free Hornet]

If the "private" (*snarf*) insurance company wants to boot these people, perhaps they should say when one is "eligible" for medicare they are booted. Perhaps there was another lawsuit for why it can't be that way. No doubt, they don't want to insure old people who may need the product they bought.

 

[erowe1]

Not giving something to someone that is not theirs is not confiscating something from them.

 

[Lucille]

Don't be deliberately obtuse, Zippy.

If a person refuses to enroll in Medicare, they automatically forfeit their SS and, furthermore, have to pay back whatever SS benefits they received. An unelected bureaucracy made it up out of whole cloth. Can't wait to see what Barry's Big Fascist Medical System has in store for us.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/entitled_to_chains_tqyOh9TXW49SLG5xwS3kvJ

http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/137971

 

[acptulsa]

Just a bit of info. If a person is elgible for Social Security, they are also elgible for Medicare. Enroling in Social Security automatically enrolls you in Medicare. They are "entitled" but not required to use Medicare. By not issuing their own ruling in the case, they upheld the lower court ruling which said:

The court ruled that the plaintifs were not forced to use the Medicare benefits- that they don't have to give up their Social Security benefits if they don't want to use Medicare benefits.

Now to completely dis-enroll from Medicare they would have to also disenroll from Social Security (which would also require paying back any SS money they already received) but again, to avoid simply using Medicare- which was the claimed goal- they would not have to disenroll.

Note you have to give back what benefits you received, but the government does not have to give back the decades worth of payments you made into the system. When they take it, your SSI is 'insurance premiums', and when it comes time to make a claim, it's all non-refundable tax.

Also, yes it means little at this point--all you have to do is not use Medicare. However, you'll notice that Medicare now comes in several forms, and if none of them cost extra yet you can bet that (especially in the face of Obamacare) some of the more deluxe versions soon will. Eventually, of course, they'll incrementalize us into paying out of our meager fixed incomes for any version of Medicare. That's why it was important to them to get this ruling now, because the days of Medicare premiums are not far off.

 

[Luciconsort]

you can't confiscate something that doesn't exist lol

 

[pochy1776]

eliminate medicare