The Dark Side of Obamacare....

Author: Killshot (13040 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:14 pm on Mar 23, 2011

...from a WSJ piece tomorrow. This should leave a bad taste in your mouth...

MARCH 24, 2011

Forced Into Medicare

A federal judge tells seniors to take it or lose Social Security.

This week marks the first anniversary of ObamaCare, and if you are wondering where that coercive law is headed, we'd point to a case in federal court. That's where Judge Rosemary Collyer has ruled that Americans have a legal obligation to accept subpar government health benefits.

It remains a remarkable fact that America obliges most citizens over the age of 65 to take that rickety government health plan known as Medicare. Judging by today's growing number of health-savings options (HSAs, medical FSAs), some Americans would prefer to maintain private coverage upon retirement, rather than be compelled into second-rate Medicare. Yet the idea of patient choice offends many in government, and in 1993 the Clinton Administration promulgated so-called POMS rules that say seniors who withdraw from Medicare Part A (which covers hospital and outpatient services) must forfeit their Social Security benefits.

Several senior citizens in 2008 challenged the government, suing to be allowed to opt out of Medicare without losing Social Security. The plaintiffs paid their Medicare taxes through their working lives and are not asking for that money back. They simply want to use their private savings to contract for health services they believe to be superior to a government program that imposes price controls and rations care. They also dutifully contributed to Social Security and—fair enough—prefer to keep those benefits.

As recently as the fall of 2009, Judge Collyer provided support for the plaintiffs. She rejected the Obama Administration's argument that the plaintiffs were lucky to get Medicare and therefore had suffered no "injury" and lacked standing. She noted the Clinton POMS are simply part of a government handbook and never went through a formal rule-making. She also refused the Administration's request to dismiss the suit, noting 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."

Yet in a stunning reversal, Judge Collyer last week revisited her decision and dismissed the case. In direct contravention to her prior ruling, the judge said the Medicare statute does—with a little creative reading—contain a requirement that Social Security recipients take government health care. The Medicare statute provides that only individuals who are "entitled" to Social Security are "entitled" to Medicare. Therefore, argues the judge, "The only way to avoid entitlement to Medicare Part A at age 65 is to forego the source of that entitlement, i.e., Social Security Retirement benefits."

This is convoluted enough, but Judge Collyer's truly novel finding comes with her implicit argument that to be "entitled" to a government benefit is to be obligated to accept it. This is a startling break with existing legal understandings and raises profound questions as to whether Americans have a duty to accept other "entitlements," say, food stamps or public housing. Or, as the plaintiffs attorney, Kent Masterson Brown, warns: "Anyone concerned with what will happen when the bureaucrats start writing the thousands of pages of rules that will govern" ObamaCare need only look at this ruling. "Nothing will be optional."

That might explain why the Obama Administration fought this suit so vehemently. The government fisc—and taxpayers—would benefit if some seniors pay for their own health care. But for many liberals, the goal isn't saving money or providing choices. The goal is to force all Americans into the same programs to fulfill their egalitarian dreams. The plaintiffs appealed this week to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and we hope for freedom's sake they prevail.


Replies to: The Dark Side of Obamacare....


Thread Level: 2

I have a plan that has been designated a Cadiliac Health Plan.

Author: IndyinIN (2183 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:00 am on Mar 24, 2011

So, my insurance is destined to turn to shit thanks to our f'in President and the rest of those Washington assholes that get free health care for life.

At our last benefit meeting, we were told that if things don't change in the new law, it would be cheaper for my company to drop heath care completely and pay the per person fine than actually offer health care.

Thanks a fucking lot Washington. I hate every one of you assholes.


Link: just one artical about it.

Thread Level: 3

My advice, do your own research on this.

Author: ND_in_ATL (14650 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 12:36 pm on Mar 24, 2011

Not saying what you are saying isn't true, but I know of some companies that have now told their employees that b/c of Obamacare, it's now too expensive for them to insure them, even though the provisions they cite aren't even in effect yet.

When a buddy of mine brought this to the attention of his employer, he was simply told that b/c they anticipate it happening they are going ahead and implementing the change now...BS.

It's a convenient scapegoat for some employers. Cut benefits and deflect blame to the complicated bill that is Obamacare, knowing that it's employees are probably too lazy to see if they are being truthfull. The end result is they are able to cut the pay of their employees without losing morale, since its Obama's fault!

Keep us abreast of what happens; I'd like to know.


Thread Level: 4

Sure will if I remember. I'll bitch about it if goes bad I'm sure...

Author: IndyinIN (2183 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 5:27 pm on Mar 25, 2011

(no message)

Thread Level: 4

Some of the provisions did take effect this year like the change of a child being able to stay on

Author: SWIRISH (691 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 1:15 pm on Mar 24, 2011

the parent's insurance to the age of 25. There may be others. Also I have not know a year since I started with my company in 2000 that we didn't have an increase in premiums and most have been at a range of 5%-12% and my co-pays have gone up 3 times during this period. My company did a webinar on these changes, the first time in 10 years, and blamed all of the increases on the health reform law as if we wouldn't have been taking them if it wasn't for the new law. Of course we would have taken increase this year just like any other year but the insurance company was able to use the law as a scape goat this year and will probably do the same the following year and the year after that.

Cynically I believe just like pensions moving to 401K's the company will push the employees off of their health care rolls because its cheaper to pay the penalties and won't put forth the difference into the employee's paycheck.


Thread Level: 5

We outsource our benefits planning

Author: ND_in_ATL (14650 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 3:22 pm on Mar 24, 2011

And the guy that comes in is a total company schill. Our premiums have basically gone up 10% every year for the last 10 years. Every year he comes in and tries to sugar-coat the increase (which doubles as a pay cut). This year was no different. Of course, he blamed this year's increase on Obamacare.

What about the last 9 years of out of control increases?

Here's a newsflash to everybody: HC costs were spiraling out of control before Obamacare and would continure to sprial out of control without Obamacare.


This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Thread Level: 3

You're company needs to make a political contribution to Obama.

Author: iairishcheeks (7245 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:50 am on Mar 24, 2011

Then you can get a waiver. Isn't crony capitalism fun?

Thread Level: 2

There may be good arguments against health care. This is not one of them.

Author: Chris94 (17243 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 10:11 am on Mar 24, 2011

You really think that lots of seniors are clamoring to get out of medicare? Nonsense. The program is immensely popular. As is EVERY universal health care program around the world. Know how I know that? No major political party anywhere in the world makes getting rid of national health care programs part of their platform. If there was even a sizeable minority that wanted to jettison, say, the British system, one party would adopt it. But there is no such support, no matter what the anecdotes on the Sean Hannity show may suggest.

And doesn't it make sense to say that if you are well-off enough to pay for your own insurance, then you probably don't need social security? I have long thought it should be means tested anyway. Bill Gates does not need it.

None of this matters to the Sean Hannity/Killshot crowd, of course. If it wasn't this, it would be something else to feign outrage over.


Thread Level: 3

Another whiff from Chris...

Author: Killshot (13040 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 3:46 pm on Mar 24, 2011

...please stick to subjects about which you are literate. Many more modestly endowed retirees will opt out of Medicare, especially when they see what's coming. Do you know how much Medicare dumps into the monthly premium? Didn't think so. One can easily take this money and buy very reasonable, high deductible and HSA structured policies that meet the needs of the elderly. Learn a little before inserting your foot. And another nice non sequitur re Hannity. Where do you get your own care? You need more.

Btw, pvt insurance is growing in Canada like the blob. Again, get some info.


Thread Level: 4

Look, you have zero credibility when it comes to anything not handball-related

Author: Chris94 (17243 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 9:33 pm on Mar 24, 2011

You cannot see anything good in democrats. Ever. So there is no point in reading your posts, much less responding to them.

Thread Level: 3

Re: There may be good arguments against health care. This is not one of them.

Author: iairishcheeks (7245 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:46 am on Mar 24, 2011

Thats like arguing that drugs must be good because the addicts keep coming back for more.

Without market forces the costs of socialized programs balloon and eventually bankrupt their societies.


Thread Level: 4

Right....except that they have bankrupted no societies

Author: Chris94 (17243 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:59 am on Mar 24, 2011

No country has been ruined because of health care. In fact, they pay LESS for their health care than we do, overall.

But your political beliefs do not have to match the reality-based world, as we all know.


Thread Level: 5

Check out this list.

Author: iairishcheeks (7245 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 9:56 pm on Mar 24, 2011

Maybe the dominoes haven't begun to fall quite yet but they are close.

Asia must be laughing at Europe and laughing at us.


Link: http://www.crossingwallstreet.com/archives/2010/02/the-worlds-biggest-debtor-nations.html

Thread Level: 5

Uh, Chrissy...

Author: Killshot (13040 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 3:53 pm on Mar 24, 2011

...all the "socialized healthcare" countries are subsidized by the US DOD -- the protection without which all of these countries would have a much higher cost basis for the "free care" you love so much. But, then again, you are a government worker, so I understand your ignorance. Taxes and money simply materialize. Oh, and btw, factor in the napoleonic tort system for medical liability and you have another reason why it's so cheap elsewhere. C'mon, you're better than this, no?

Thread Level: 2

How is this about "Obamacare" your hate for Obama extends beyond the bounds of intellectual honesty

Author: SWIRISH (691 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 7:59 am on Mar 24, 2011

(no message)

Thread Level: 3

If you had ever read the bill and understood the implications of the "exchanges"....

Author: Killshot (13040 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 3:50 pm on Mar 24, 2011

...you would be able to connect the dots -- an activity for which you obviously hold little skill. Actually failure to understand the connection reveals that you are likely in 7th or 8th grade. It'll all make sense in 5-6 years.

Thread Level: 4

Actually I have read the bill and the exchanges and the different levels have yet to be defined...

Author: SWIRISH (691 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 5:52 pm on Mar 24, 2011

further more the exchange has no public option and would only consists of private insurance providers who choose to participate in the exchange. So I ask the almighty KS brain how is somebody that can't opt out of Medicare, a program that Obama had nothing to do with setting up and has made no changes to as of yet, have anything to do with "Obamacare". See my 7th or 8th grade brain hasn't developed to the level of your paranoid old man brain. Maybe in 5 or 6 years I'll develop that paranoid brain you're so proud of and by that time your old man brain would have graduated to a Alzheimer's brain and you'll forget all about who you were afraid of.

By the way I do agree that if a person has a sufficient enough private health insurance plan or is financially stable enough and they want to opt out of Medicare by all means let them.


Thread Level: 2

"Dark"? Racist.

Author: TakethetrainKnute (12684 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 6:49 am on Mar 24, 2011

(no message)

This message has been edited 1 time(s).