Audio: 3/15/2010 Radio – Freedom’s Phoenix with Ernest Hancock, Guest: Martha de Forest

Ms. Moss-Coane:

     When I called WHYY this morning and pointed out how the Social Security Administration (SSA) REQUIRED that monthly benefit recipients also enroll in Medicare Part A, Mr. Walker made the erroneous statement that Medicare Part A and Social Security are both mandatory.  What is mandatory is the payroll tax for these two programs, not participation in their benefits.  He went on about the Medicare Part A “premium” payments being deducted from monthly SS benefits, when it is Medicare Part B that requires a premium payment for coverage.  He certainly should have known these distinctions from his time in government. 

     My point about the, “REQUIREMENT”, to be enrolled in Part A in order to collect monthly retirement benefits is that it is merely a statement in the SSA’s Program Operations Manual System, (POMS), section HI 00801.002, (http:/policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/links/0600801002).
It is not a requirement found anywhere in legislation, U.S. Code, or other regulation.  It is thus not a legal requirement, since it was not promulgated through the legislative process.  However, the SSA continues to require Part A enrollment as a condition of receiving monthly retirement benefits, but not vice-versa.   With Medicare facing insolvency in the near future, why must we sue the federal government to remove ourselves from Medicare coverage without losing monthly SS benefits?  We are not asking to recover the Medicare taxes paid, only to not be forced into Part A coverage.  Furthermore, why must we sue to not have to pay back all monthly benefits collected up to the time that we want to subsequently withdraw from Part A? 

     The law suit has been given coverage in the media nationwide.  We have so far had a favorable opinion on the suit’s merits from the D.C. Federal District court, but the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) continues to waste taxpayer money by having the Justice Department pursue further appeals, presumably in the hope that we plaintiffs will be defeated by exhaustion.  The details of the court action are found at:

http://www.thefundforpersonalliberty.org

     I hope that you or another appropriate NPR venue address this issue by having someone from the SSA, the HHS, or Justice appear to explain why these agencies continue to oppose this action.  MY guess is that they will decline to do so.  As this suit enters its third year, we are still at a loss to understand why they continue to oppose being able to unconditionally remove oneself from Part A coverage.  Wouldn’t the Medicare program benefit by not having to pay medical procedure reimbursements for those who do not want to be in the program?

Thank you,
John Kraus
Plymouth Meeting, PA    

John Kraus is a plaintiff in The Fund for Personal Liberty’s Medicare Lawsuit.  Marty Moss-Coane is host of Radio Times on WHYY, an NPR affiliate in Philadelphia.  David M. Walker is President and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/07/thermopylae-for-health-care/

“I personally do not believe the Congress has the authority to enact an individual mandate requiring a person to purchase a product from a private seller,” said Kent Masterson Brown, lead counsel with The Fund for Personal Liberty. “I don’t think the power is there. This is not regulating anything.” 

He said his group would be joined by the Washington Legal Foundation in filing suit against the health care bill. 

“This thing may be stillborn, even if it passes,” he said.

Full article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/22/health-care-face-string-legal-challenges/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528FOXNews.com+-+Politics%2529

Wishing everyone a safe and healthy holiday season.

~ Brian Hall

Dear Donors and Subscribers,

Brian Hall, the lead plaintiff in the Medicare Lawsuit, is on his way to regaining his freedom to contract for health insurance.  Mr. Hall’s health freedom was taken by government workers who wrote procedures for administering Social Security and Medicare that prevent him from opting out of Medicare unless he repays all Social Security and Medicare benefits received to date and foregoes his future Social Security benefits.  Those procedures act as law, contrary to the intent of the legislation Congress enacted when creating the Social Security and Medicare programs.

FIRST HUGE WIN

The Hall v. Sebelius lawsuit saw a huge win on September 29, 2009, that will help all plaintiffs suing the government.  The government routinely argues that plaintiffs must exhaust administrative remedies before they are allowed standing in the court of law.  Judge Collyer of the US District Court in Washington, DC rejected the government’s Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that exhaustion of administrative remedies would be futile.

Judge Collyer’s Memorandum Opinion (decision) was influenced by documentation presented by co-plaintiff John Kraus that his case had been ignored for three years until he was a plaintiff in the Medicare Lawsuit.  In the ruling, Judge Collyer states, “In Mr. Kraus’s case it appears that blame for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies lies with the SSA, not with himself.”

CAPITOL HILL BRIEFING

On October 13, 2009, lead attorney Kent Masterson Brown and CATO scholar Michael Cannon spoke on Capitol Hill at the Rayburn House Office Building.  Their video may be accessed on the CATO website under “Event Archives”.  Brown and Cannon discussed how Medicare, a voluntary entitlement, became a mandatory program without congressional approval.

During the question and answer portion of the briefing an audience member asked, “How much has the government spent to fight letting the plaintiffs leave the system?”  We have no idea, but during the May 22, 2009, hearing the government’s General Counsel for both Social Security and Health and Human Services were present as were about six other government attorneys.

Another audience member, Jenifer Healy of Representative Sam Johnson’s (R-TX) office, said that Ross Perot asked her congressman why he should be forced to participate in Medicare when the government is clearly running out of money for the program and he can pay for his own services.

The driving issue is freedom to contract, a fundamental right in a free society.  It does not matter whether Medicare is better or worse than any other insurance program, what matters is whether we can choose.  After all, a bird in a golden cage is still not free.

WHAT’S NEXT

Brian Hall and the other four plaintiffs will have to be patient.  The Medicare Lawsuit timeline can be found on our website at http://thefundforpersonalliberty.org/about/medicare-lawsuit/medicare-lawsuit-timeline-with-documents/, or by clicking on the timeline link in the lower left hand corner of every web page.  After all of the paperwork has been filed, the judge will schedule and conduct a hearing, then render an opinion.  It may take until May – August of 2010 to receive a final ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment.

Fortunately, there will not be a trial because the facts of the matter are not disputed.  Both the plaintiffs and the government agree to what is written in the legislation and the procedural manual.  It will be up to the judge to make a ruling on the law.

After the final ruling in the US District Court, the losing side is likely to appeal to a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals.

Regaining retired citizens’ health freedom to contract for their insurance will be a long and difficult road and, in the words of co-plaintiff John Kraus, “They have our money to fight us with.” 

IRS DETERMINATION LETTER

After waiting 472 days, we received the valuable IRS determination letter that establishes we are exempt from Federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.  Past and future contributions to FFPL are deductible under section 170 of the Code.  FFPL is also qualified to receive tax deductible bequests, devices, transfers or gifts under section 2055, 2106, or 2522 of the Code”

A copy of the letter and our fiscal year 2008 tax return are accessible on the website

            www.thefundforpersonalliberty.org/about/corporate-documents/

Not only have the plaintiffs had to be patient, so too have the administrators and donors to this lawsuit!

FINAL COMMENTS

Thank you for helping Brian Hall, Lew Randall, Norm Rogers, John Kraus, and Dick Armey.  Our health freedom is at stake and a win for the five plaintiffs will be a win for all Americans who value the freedom to contract for the health insurance that best suits their personal needs after they pass the age of 65.

Remember, the plaintiffs are not asking for one penny from the government and taxpayers; they are only asking to have a past freedom restored.

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Martha de Forest
Executive Director
(360) 830-6842
martha.deforest@TheFundForPersonalLiberty.org

PS  During our first fiscal year ending May 31, 2009, 93% of spending was for the Medicare Lawsuit and 7% was for administration and fundraising combined.  Thank you again for helping us litigate for your health freedom.

Donate securely online using PayPal at: http://www.TheFundForPersonalLiberty.org/donate/

To donate by mail, please make check out to:      THE FUND FOR PERSONAL LIBERTY
                                                                        c/o Brett Wilhelm, Secretary
                                                                        PO Box 940
                                                                        Freeland, WA 98249

Give seniors a choice
Rep. Sam Johnson

Seniors who want to collect their Social Security benefits and opt out of Medicare won a court victory recently that hopefully will pave the way for them to be able to do just that.

Medicare straitjackets seniors into a government-run health program even if they don’t want it and thwarts their freedom to take control over their own health care decisions. Specifically, Medicare mandates that seniors enroll in Medicare if they want to receive Social Security benefits. Medicare even forces well-off seniors, like Ross Perot, who want to opt out of Medicare into the government-run program.

In the recent court opinion by the U.S. District Court in Washington, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer denied a motion to dismiss filed by the secretary of health and human services and the Social Security administrator. The plaintiffs in Hall v. Sebelius, formerly Brian Hall et al. v. Michael Leavitt et al., claim the federal government has no right to force them into Medicare while holding their hard-earned Social Security benefits hostage. I agree with them. This new decision hopefully will fast-track the court case that would give seniors the power to choose the health plan that best fits their needs.

Ironically, the federal court system may be moving faster than Congress. Earlier this year, I reintroduced the Medicare Beneficiary Freedom to Choose Act, H.R. 3356. It would produce real taxpayer savings by allowing seniors to opt out of Medicare Part A when they become eligible, usually at age 65, if they don’t want to receive the taxpayer-funded benefit. (Part A covers hospital and skilled nursing home care, among other things. Presently, seniors may choose not to enroll in Medicare Part B or Part D, but not Part A.)

If Mr. Perot wants to pay for his own medical care, we should let him! If just 1 percent of Medicare beneficiaries chose to keep the health insurance they have and opt out of Medicare, it could save as much as $1.5 billion a year.

The bill also would put seniors in control of their health decisions by giving them the independence to choose their own doctor in Medicare. Believe it or not, under current law, if a doctor enters into a private contract with a Medicare patient, the doctor must leave the entire Medicare program for two years. The bill would remove the Medicare red tape that makes it unlawful for seniors to visit a health care provider of their choice.

Ask any senior who has tried to find a general practitioner willing to accept Medicare, and you’ll know why seniors want, need and deserve better medical options. As the Democrats in the House push their costly government-controlled health care plan, H.R. 3200, on the American public, my primary objective is to make health care more affordable, more available and more accessible.

While President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi say their health reform bill will let you keep what you have if you want, the reality is that anytime the government gets involved, real choice goes out the window. Why should seniors have to sue the federal government so they can keep the health plan they have and like? If the Democrats think allowing the government to take over health care truly will result in freedom of choice, we only need to examine the Medicare program to know that is not true.

Though I am encouraged by the recent court decision to give seniors the right to say, “Thanks, but no thanks” to a government entitlement program, I hope Congress moves to pass H.R. 3356 to extend this freedom to choose to all of our nation’s seniors.

Unlike the Democrats’ key talking point, which rings hollow, I believe in word and deed that if you like the health coverage you have, you should be able to keep it. Hopefully either Congress or the courts will give America’s seniors the freedom to make their own health care choices.

Rep. Sam Johnson is a Texas Republican.

The article in the Washington Times:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/18/give-seniors-a-choice/

Lead Attorney Kent Masterson Brown and CATO policy analyst Michael Cannon discuss the Medicare Lawsuit, Hall v. Sebelius.