The Fund For Personal Liberty » Editor

3/23/2012 Petition for Rehearing “en banc”

Editor — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:05:39 +0000

Kent Masterson Brown filed the Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc yesterday. Mr. Brown wrote,

Already, the United States Court of Appeals, on its own motion, has directed the Government fifteen days within which to file a response. This is the first indication the Court may well grant our Motion for a Rehearing En Banc. Generally, no responses are ordered to be filed. That the Court has done so – and less than eighteen hours after the Petition was filed – indicates a strong interest in the matter.

This lawsuit continues to demonstrate the difficulty ordinary citizens have in challenging bureaucratic overreach. It was in 1993 that bureaucrats changed the procedure manual used to administer Social Security and Medicare benefits. The changes that force retirees to enroll in Medicare as a condition of receiving Social Security Retirement Benefits, were made without reference to the statutes, nor with public comment. Since then they have had the force of law.

It took 15 years to muster the attorneys, plaintiffs, and funds to pursue this case. October 9, six months from now, will mark the four year anniversary of filing the lawsuit in the United State District Court, District of Columbia.

We thank everyone for your continued interest and support. Please consider making a donation to help move this case forward. DONATE HERE

Text of the Petition for Rehearing: http://thefundforpersonalliberty.org/pdf/120322-Petition-for-Rehearing-en-bank.pdf

2/7/2012 Appeals Court Upholds US District Court Opinion

Editor — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:32:18 +0000

It was with mixed emotion that we received the news that the US Court of Appeals upheld the US District Court opinion finding against Brian Hall and his co-plaintiffs. Brian Hall wishes to not be enrolled in Medicare, Part A, the Hospital Insurance. Unfortunately, he and every other person who enrolls for their Social Security Retirement Benefits will be automatically enrolled in Medicare as a condition of receiving their retirement benefits. Some retirees have sacrificed their Social Security benefits in order to avoid government medical benefits.

The majority opinion answered a question that was never asked. They held that the plaintiffs could not revoke their entitlement. This was never the plaintiffs’ objective, the plaintiffs wished to not avail themselves of their entitlement. This is like a child who is entitled to a public education, but chooses instead a private education. The child never loses the entitlement and would not want to. People want more options, not fewer.

The good news is that the dissenting judge wrote a very clear opinion that did answer our question and gave us reason to believe that she would champion our cause if we should request a rehearing en banc (before the entire 11-judge panel).

We are, therefore, preparing to request a rehearing.

The full text of the opinion is here: http://thefundforpersonalliberty.org/pdf/120207-1356903-Appeals-Court-Opinion.pdf

9/19/11 Oral Arguments October 13

Editor — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:16:32 +0000

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: http://thefundforpersonalliberty.org/email/Update-110919-All-Briefs-Filed.html

9/7/11 Final Appeal Brief Filed

Editor — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:26:03 +0000

Washington, DC – Attorneys for Brian Hall and his co-plaintiffs filed the final document in the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, today. The response to the governments’ arguments makes it clear that Medicare is an “entitlement” and not a “mandate.” As such, retirees should not be forced into Medicare as a condition of receiving Social Security Retirement benefits.

Oral arguments are scheduled for October 13, 2011, in the Washington, DC, US Court of Appeals.

The brief may be viewed here: http://thefundforpersonalliberty.org/pdf/110907-1328046-Appeals-Court-Reply.pdf

And all court documents may be accessed here: http://thefundforpersonalliberty.org/about/medicare-lawsuit/medicare-lawsuit-timeline-with-documents/

7/26/11 Medicare Lawsuit Appeal Filed

Editor — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:58:25 +0000

Washington, DC – The plaintiffs in Hall v. Sebelius, the “Medicare Lawsuit” filed their appeal after a surprising loss in the Washington, DC Us District Court. The Medicare lawsuit challenges the guidelines published in the procedure manual used to administer Social Security and Medicare entitlements. The current procedure forces retirees who receive Social Security Retirement Income to be enrolled in Medicare, Part A, the Hospital Insurance portion of Medicare. This is contrary to the statutes that were signed into law and contrary to the voluntary nature of entitlements.

The brief may be viewed here: http://thefundforpersonalliberty.org/pdf/110726-1320692-Appeals-Court-Brief.pdf

And all court documents may be accessed here: http://thefundforpersonalliberty.org/about/medicare-lawsuit/medicare-lawsuit-timeline-with-documents/

6/30/11 Retirement Freedom Act

Editor — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 21:31:47 +0000

Today Senator DeMint introduced a new bill, the Retirement Freedom Act, which would decouple Social Security from Medicare and allow those entitled to Medicare to enroll and disenroll without pentalty. Their press release: http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=60cc1f52-b794-4b06-b03e-821ebeaac7cc

6/16/11 Anniversary and Court of Appeals Update

Editor — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 04:00:09 +0000

June 16, 2011, marks the third anniversary of our founding. Since 2008 the Medicare Lawsuit has been our focus through which we are fighting to restore your right to opt out of Medicare Hospital Insurance without foregoing your Social Security benefits.

Court of Appeals Update

We have been notified that we must file our first Court of Appeals brief by July 26, 2011. The brief will be a hard-hitting 30 pages challenging the lower court’s opinion that being “entitled” to Medicare created a “mandatory” benefit. Left as a precedent, bureaucratic overreach could lead to ever more mandates forcing us to participate in government programs.

One Goal Met, One Not

We met the June donation goal of $10,000 before the end of the month. Thank you donors! Please keep the donations coming, we need more than $100,000 before the end of the calendar year to cover attorney and court costs.

Some donors reported issues with our online donation system. Please call if you have any problems, I have not been able to reproduce the problem.

Our other goal of doubling our mailing list is about 1% complete! Please ask your friends to subscribe and follow our lawsuit. As you know, we rarely send more than two emails in one month; often an entire month will pass without communication. I promise I will not spam your friends. It’s easy to subscribe and they can opt out any time they want.

Wishing you the best,

Martha

4/12/11 – Another Spending Cut Plan – Thomas Sowell

Editor — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:25:00 +0000

Indirect mention of the Medicare Lawsuit by Thomas Sowell … http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264411/another-spending-cut-plan-thomas-sowell

4/1/11 – Hillyer: Medicare at the point of a gun

Editor — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 23:10:48 +0000

Quin Hillyer of The Washington Times wrote an excellent editorial, “HILLYER: Medicare at the point of a gun – Judge shoots legal and logical blanks” which was published April 1, 2011.

Federal judges disagree with each other all the time. However, it is rare for a judge to disagree utterly with herself and rarer still to do so within a single case. That’s what happened March 16 when Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that senior citizens can be forced to accept Medicare coverage they don’t want.

Full Article: Medicare at the point of a gun

Hillyer gives a clear overview of the Medicare Lawsuit and the judge’s flip-flop of opinion that occurred over the course of two and a half years.

Costs Of “Free” Healthcare — Stossell In The Classroom

Editor — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 19:33:27 +0000

In answer to the question, “Why would someone want to opt out of ‘free’ Medicare,” consider the case John Stossel makes for free market health care.

John Stossel and the Case for Free Market Health Care (Part 1 of 5)

John Stossel and the Case for Free Market Health Care (Part 2 of 5)

John Stossel and the Case for Free Market Health Care (Part 3 of 5)

John Stossel and the Case for Free Market Health Care (Part 4 of 5)

John Stossel and the Case for Free Market Health Care (Part 5 of 5)