Skip to comments.'Meet the Press' transcript for August 16, 2009 (seniors can't get S.S. if they don't get Med.?)
Posted on 08/16/2009 8:02:34 PM PDT by Sun
snip REP. ARMEY: The Medicare law that was written by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and the chief lobbyists of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, voted on without amendment as an amendment to Social Security, first imposes severe sanctions on physicians and medical providers that dont comply with its requirements, and it says to seniors at the age of 65 you can no longer buy the insurance that you bought prior to 65. And now by virtue of an internal memonot a regulation, not a lawthey tell seniors today...
MR. GREGORY: All right.
REP. ARMEY: ...if you dont sign up for Medicare youll lose your Social Security.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Can they do this? Why would they want to have that stipulation when most folks sign up for Medicare when they're 65?
To make Soylent Green of course. Those folks will be rounded up and thrown down the Old Folks Chute. Pol-E-Tisheons are excused from that of course.
This crap needs to be burned or overturned...
“if you dont sign up for Medicare youll lose your Social Security.”
Then, do you get back the money that you put into the system??
Actually, Medicare A is automatic at age 65, and costs the beneficiary nothing, directly.
Medicare B costs most people about $96.00 a month. (It is means tested).
However, my experience is that many are now waiting to retire until age 66 or age 67, and trying to keep their group health insurance plan, while increasing their SS benefits and waiting for their 401K to go back up.
(I sell financial products to the “senior market”).
A smiling Cobra named Obama.
Medicare Part A is no charge for Medicare recipients. Until the 80’s Federal Civil Service were not part of Medicare or Social Security. Then they made Civil Service part of Medicare and you had a choice to stay in the old system CSRS or go into FERS where you paid into social security and Thrift Savings was part of your retirement. At that time, everyone was part of Medicare Part A.
When Civil Service reach SS retirement age, they were given an option of Part B (Doctor) or keep their federal employee health insurance which you have in retirement which would pay the same as Medicare. NARFE recommended the plans that you did not need Part B which includes Blue Cross/Blue Shield PPO plan and several others. They said it would be a waste to pay for Part B.
Under today’s plan no one has to take Part B and IMO if you can still keep your insurance, it would be a waste.
If the plan now says you have to take Part B, I want to slam it in the face of the Federal unions and ask how they like ZERO now? Or are we still exempt from OBAMACARE as a payoff to federal unions? Who knows since there are five different bills.
Medicare was NEVER supposed to be MANDATORY....however, I read something on FR recently about how that got CHANGED (snuck through without public review) some years ago....so, this confuses me.....
Just another scare tactic! Yes, we have to change the Social Security system if we are to survive (with that intact).
That is not the scary part, that comes when the politicians actually come to grips with the problem and do something about it. Not holding my breath...
They have placed us in this position...now let’s see them get us out of it...ha... You know that they will collapse under any pressure from the seniors (and I am one) but they should not!
But this was in an internal memo, which shows you what they plan to do AFTER the bill is signed - IF it is signed into law. Let’s all fight hard to make sure it doesn’t happen.
We don’t want no Trojan Horse. (that might make a good protest sign.)
“I was told that on my 64 birthday I would be dropped from our health insurance because I was required to have Medicare.”
I know someone 65 years old who does not get Medicare because spouse is still working and they get spouse’s Medicare.
But maybe your insurance is private, rather than work related and that makes the difference????
If such a thing ever happened, I think AARP would be forced to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of seniors, the old age pensioners and the elderly and what’s more they would probably sue for damages as well which might reach into the billions of dollars to be distributed to everybody who is getting SS. Bring it on, DC!
bump to the top
I'm one of the many whom will be using SS to exist.
I own my home and land outright, drive a paid for car and my taxes aren't too bad ... I can exist.
But I'd rather keep working to 66 or 67 to collect full SS at a full rate than take an approximate 50% hit at 62.
I really want to discuss this here with anyone with a simular situation.
iF I retire at 62, I have only a few months to decide.
And please ... don't tell me what I fool I am for relying on SS ... Some of us were not capabale of staying in one job for 20 plus years.
I retired from employment with NY State in 2003. At that time, I was receiving a pension from my job, and was covered by an excellent plan. Because I had various health problems, and was in my late 50’s, I was told to apply for Social Security Disability. I got turned down once, appealed the case, and was approved for it. When I got the award notice from Social Security, it said I had an option to take Medicare Parts A & B, and recommended that I contact the pension department to discuss it. Upon calling the State’s pension department, they advised me that I had no option, and that I HAD to take Medicare, but I am still able to keep the health insurance I had with the State. The only difference was that now, Medicare became my primary, and my State insurance plan became secondary. I still have to pay a co-pay.
I believe it changed in the early 90’s (93 or 94) with Clinton. You can’t opt put of Medicare or you’ll lose SS.
“I think AARP would be forced to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of seniors,”
I wouldn’t count on AARP. Seniors take a back seat to liberalism and liberal politicians with AARP.
The plan I paid for notified me that on my 65th birthday that my insurance was canceled.
That was 7 years ago.
It was called pay for part B or have no hospital coverage.
If the govt stopped SS, AARP would be forced by their own members to sue the government optherwise they would risk a mass defection of members and future members IMHO. Money is the name of the game and the vast amount of money AARP gets is from their members just like belonging to any other union.
I hope you’re right.
It makes not sense to me either. Just shows they are little puppets of the Dems. Never could figure why there was a Federal Employees Union and still don’t understand it. It is run by a bunch of jerks who don’t want to work and defend people who don’t want to work a full day for a full day’s pay.
So are you!!!!
I said it was crap because they made you give up your healthcare — that’s what I meant. I think it is terrible that they made you give up your private healthcare to take Medicare.
“I believe it changed in the early 90s (93 or 94) with Clinton. You cant opt put of Medicare or youll lose SS.”
Well I’ll be darned. I took Armey’s comment to mean that it COULD happen, but it has already happened, sadly.
I found this:
“The five plaintiffs, who now include former House Majority leader Dick Armey, are challenging a policy of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) that denies Social Security benefits to anybody who refuses to enroll in Medicare.
Read that again: As the policy now stands, if you want to pay for your own health care rather than let taxpayers finance it through Medicare, government will not let you receive the Social Security benefits for which you have spent a lifetime paying taxes.
Note that nobody is trying to avoid contributing to Medicare. The plaintiffs merely want to decline the tax-funded benefits for which they already have paid. None of them want the bureaucracy, the governmental intrusions into their privacy, and the rationing of care they believe Medicare entails - so they volunteer to let taxpayers off the hook by providing their own health care coverage.
But DHHS won’t let them. Or at least not if they want to receive Social Security benefits. Forfeit Medicare, says DHHS, and you must also forfeit Social Security even if you’ve paid for it for half a century.
This is nuts. Utterly nonsensical.”
I do know, though, that folks over 65 can use their spouse’s employment health insurance (until spouse retires), but maybe that’s an exception.
Precisely why I waited till I was 68 to turn myself in.
But this had more to do with earning money and nothing to do with that 401K crap (which I studiously avoided). Even then I continued to work (and increase my SS benefits) until I was 71.
Now (at 75), as I await the inevitable collapse of the SS system in the next 5-10 years, I no longer need it to survive.
I have a friend who recently retired from the same NY State agency that I worked in. Her husband retired several years ago and is well over 62 years of age. He wasn’t required to apply for Medicare because he was still covered under her plan. But now that she is retired, he will have to sign up for Medicare, even though he will still be covered on his wife’s retirement health insurance. The one benefit we NY State retirees do have, is that the State reimburses us for our Medicare costs. The cost for Medicare is subtracted from our Social Security checks, but NY State reimburses us for it each month.
“”If just 1 percent of current retirees chose not to participate in Medicare, Medicare expenditures would decrease by about $1.5 billion per year immediately and by approximately $3.4 billion per year by 2017.” Certainly a substantial savings for taxpayers.
At least one lawmaker also wants the SSA to change its rules.
This month Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, introduced the Medicare Beneficiary Freedom to Choose Act. This measure would allow seniors to forgo Medicare Part A. It would also allow seniors to contribute pre-tax dollars into a Health Savings Account, so healthy older people could continue saving money they might eventually need to pay for future medical care.”
I didn’t know that and I live in NYS, too. Thanx for the info..
Mercy... You are a bit out of touch...
To begin with, yes, Social Security is a problem and needs correction. It seems like (I’d guess that none of your relatives are on Social Security) you would want to stop SS immediately.. Do yu really know what kind of problems that would cause?
Oh well, let me tell you that way too many people depend upon their SS check just to survive from month to month. Yes, they may get more than that put into the system, but that is and was the way it was set up when they were forced to join.
Not a great system, but unfortunately, workable and requried until Congress works on a replacement. We All know that it is an unworkable system today and needs major changes, but until Congress gets some guts, it will not change. So...either you can bitch about it, or get your Congressman to change the rules. Actually, I think that rules need to be changed - even though I am surviving on SS with no alternative...
That was made possible by the collapse of the stock market. What was a grand retirement turned into a thank you for allowing me to exist - living conditions via SS.
So, for you younger folk... Don’t depend on the market to save you - diversify and hope... SS will not be available when you retire so make your plans accordingly...
“...that is and was the way it was set up when they were forced to join...”
Forced to join is correct. Had I been able to “401-K” or otherwise invest the money I put into SS it would have resulted in millions of dollars during the time that it would have been invested. Had the employer contribution to SS been included in the invested amount, much much more would have resulted. The monthly income from that would have far exceeded what I get from SS. SS has been a rip-off for all of us forced to contribute to it.
You know, that is what I had - millions of dollars (okay maybe only a million or so). The demise of the market cost me over a million and much of that was probably avoidable if I was smart enough to diversify... but that remains the problem...regardless of investments, you can end up broke and worrying about the next check... So..in retrospect, I am glad for SS and actually dependent upon it. Not my plan but that is the way things turn out sometimes...
Now, that does not diminish my desire that SS be scaled back to only those that need it. If it is to be saved, it must be only on a need to be basis...
Yes, I know that even the “RICH” contribute to social security...but today, that had to take on a new meaning... I have no problem with those that can provide for themselves paying their own way - no SS... Not actually against them, but being practical within today’s situation.
How about "We don't want no Trojan Hearse."
Once they start tying things to getting Social Security they will not stop. Just like all the things tied to getting a driver’s license. It seems wrong to take your money for your future security and then refuse to give it back unless you dance to their tune. People need to remember some of the things the government has done to people.
AARP is in the insurance business, homeowner insurance, car insurance, so where are their real interests???
They can do anything they want. This is America!/sarc.
It seems a few in Texas made the right decision???
Just to make sure you understand that what I wrote was specifically regarding retirees in NY State's Retirement System. I worked in Corrections, so did my friend, and we were both in different retirement tiers at the time of our retirements.
The guy went over to the Medical Clinton in Area B and came back to the nurse so mad as she had done the referral. He accused her of calling ahead. It was hilarious as we could hear the exchange (we all went near the door when we heard someone yelling).
Turned out when he walked in complaining back problems were the reason he couldn't work, the physician's assistant dropped a $20 bill and the bad back guy bent to pick it up. He didn't get to even fill out his disability paperwork.
A few months later, I met the PA at our office Christmas Party. He said they do things like that all the time because having a bad back was the #1 issue Civil Serviced used to try and get a disability, #2 was a tennis elbow that affected their whole arm and shoulder and made it impossible to work.
Union stewards were the laziest of the lazy.
I thought you could not get medicare at 62. I do know that if you are on disability you HAVE to go to Medicare. Not only does the gov’t require it, but health insurance companies won’t insure you at that point.
‘How about “We don’t want no Trojan Hearse.”’
That’s more accurate than mine (sadly).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.