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 don’t 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 memo—not a regulation, not a law—they tell seniors today...
MR. GREGORY: All right.
REP. ARMEY: ...if you don’t sign up for Medicare you’ll lose your Social Security.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
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.
That’s crap!
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 90’s (93 or 94) with Clinton. You can’t opt put of Medicare or you’ll 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.”
excerpt
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed102108c.cfm
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.
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.