Thursday, May 25th, 2017

9/19/11 Oral Arguments October 13


Great news! All of the Medicare Lawsuit briefs have been submitted to the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, and we are on track for oral arguments on October 13, 2011. Our lawsuit argues that “entitlements” are not “mandates” and that retirees should be able to receive Social Security Retirement benefits without being forced to enroll in Medicare Hospital Insurance (Part A).  Reading: First Brief (73 pages) and Reply Brief (32 pages)

The most common question I’m asked is, “Why would someone not want to participate in a free program after paying a taxes for decades?”  Terry C. of Nevada wrote:

I would like to share my own unique reason for wanting to opt out of Medicare.I am 64 and retired, having started receiving SS at 62.  My wife and I live 10 months a year in France and 2 months in Boulder City, Nevada.  I am healthy and because of our visa for French retirement, we each have a high deductible health insurance policy and HSA‘s from which we draw cash to pay for our medical care as needed. This practice has served us well for years. Next year I will be 65 and under the present SSA policy, I will be forced to take a Medicare card.  The problem for me is that Medicare will not pay for my care outside the U.S. where I live!

It is useless for us to have Medicare. It is worse than useless in fact because just having Medicare makes me ineligible for my HSA which actually serves me well.

Like co-plaintiff John Kraus, Terry’s HSA is “moribund.” By mandating participation in Medicare,  retirees who set aside funds for future medical expenses lose their ability to freely direct their health care dollars.  We argue that this is unconstitutional.

For the entire update:

Comments are closed.