Medicare Lawsuit ->
Filed on Oct.9, 2008, in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Brian Hall, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al. charges the Social Security Administration (SSA) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with improperly adopting illegal and coercive policies that deny otherwise eligible retirees their rightful Social Security benefits if those retirees choose not to enroll in Medicare.
Lead plaintiff Brian Hall and plaintiffs Richard “Dick” Armey, John Kraus, Lewis Randall, and Norman Rogers seek a restraining order and a temporary and permanent injunction prohibiting SSA and HHS from implementing policies that force American citizens to participate in Medicare, the federal government’s voluntary health insurance entitlement program.
In addition to the legal, due process, constitutional and discrimination issues raised in Hall v. Sebelius, the lawsuit also affects the freedom of individuals to choose the medical services that best meet their needs.
The plaintiffs hope to secure that freedom both for themselves and for future retirees by pursuing this legal action. Help them achieve Medicare freedom by donating to support the lawsuit.
About the first major project, Hall v. Sebelius
Our first major project started in 2008 with the Medicare Lawsuit and three plaintiffs.
Thursday, Oct. 9, 2008, Norm Rogers, Brian Hall, and Lew Randall filed suit against the Medicare bureaucracy, in an attempt to establish the constitutional right to pay for their own health care with their own money. An excellent account of the matter appeared in the DC Examiner:
In December the three plaintiffs were joined by two others, Richard “Dick” Armey and John J. Kraus.
- The current procedure evolved during both President Bill Clinton’s and President George W. Bush’s administrations by unelected federal employees and amounts to legislating, a power of government reserved only to Congress by Article I, Section I of the Constitution of the United States.
- Plaintiffs are being denied a fundamental right to determine their own health care or their property interest in their social security in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
- The procedure to enroll for Social Security benefits requires the beneficiary to accept Medicare Part A or forgo both Social Security AND Medicare Part A benefits. This is prohibitive.
- If a person wishes to opt out of Medicare Part A after receiving either Social Security or Medicare Part A benefits, all of the benefits received to date must be repaid to the government. This is punitive.
Reasons to support the first major project, Hall v. Sebelius
The plaintiffs lack the resources for a $500,000 – $1,000,000 lawsuit, so we have taken on the fundraising role for this lawsuit. “Fund for Personal Liberty” is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, and able to receive tax-deductible donations from the public to help with the expenses of the lawsuit.
- The plaintiffs believe the coercive rules deny individuals their civil liberties, violate their right to privacy, and deny them the right to make choices about their own health care.
- We need to stand up for the constitution.
- We need to show that there is a widespread support of seniors’ need and desire for the defense of patients’ rights.
- If a small percentage of Medicare-eligible retirees were to opt out of the financially ailing program, it could save taxpayers about $1.5 billion per year now and $3.4 billion or more per year by 2017.
Please consider making a donation. Even if this isn’t a high priority on your list of philanthropies, we would appreciate contributions of any size. We would also appreciate it if you passed this site along to others who might be interested and willing to help.