More

HuffPost Social Reading

Appeals Court Rules Seniors Who Receive Social Security Can't Reject Medicare

Dick Armey Medicare Lawsuit

NEDRA PICKLER   02/ 7/12 12:35 PM ET  AP

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that seniors who receive Social Security cannot reject their legal right to Medicare benefits, in a rare case of Americans suing to get out of a government entitlement.

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey is among the five senior citizens who sued to stop their automatic eligibility for Medicare. But the appeals court ruled in a split decision that the law gives them no way to opt out of their eligibility if they want to keep their Social Security benefits.

Armey, a Texas Republican, and his co-plaintiffs say their private insurers limit their coverage because they are eligible for Medicare, but they would prefer the coverage from their private insurers.

"We understand plaintiffs' frustration with their insurance situation and appreciate their desire for better private insurance coverage," Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a majority opinion joined by Douglas Ginsburg, both Republican appointees. But they agreed with the Obama administration that the law says those over age 65 who enroll in Social Security are automatically entitled to Medicare Part A, which covers services including hospital, nursing home care, hospice and home health care.

The case is being funded by a group called The Fund For Personal Liberty, which says its purpose is to take on burdensome government regulations. Attorney Kent Brown, who argued the case for the plaintiffs, say they want to keep their Social Security because they believe they earned it, but none of them want Medicare Part A.

"To say that you can't decline Medicare Part A and not opt out of Social Security is outrageous," Brown said in a telephone interview from his office in Lexington, Ky. He said Congress never intended that and vowed to appeal the ruling.

Besides Armey, the plaintiffs include two other former federal employees who were covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program – retired Housing and Urban Development employee Brian Hall of Catlett, Va., and retired Navy civilian engineer John J. Kraus of Plymouth Meeting, Pa. – who argue that private insurance covers more than Medicare. The two other plaintiffs are wealthy individuals – E(asterisk)Trade board member Lewis Randall of Whidbey Island, Wash., and Rabbit Semiconductor founder and retired CEO Norman Rogers of Miami – who have high deductible private insurance and prefer to pay for their health care.

The plaintiffs found an ally in Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, a nominee of George H.W. Bush, who wrote that Congress did not authorize the Social Security Administration to penalize an individual who wants to decline Medicare.

Related on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that seniors who receive Social Security cannot reject their legal right to Medicare benefits, in a rare case of Americans suing to get out of ...
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that seniors who receive Social Security cannot reject their legal right to Medicare benefits, in a rare case of Americans suing to get out of ...
Filed by Luke Johnson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 144
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ocrmom59
01:36 AM on 02/13/2012
He feels that he is entitle for SS because he worked forit and don't want the medicare part A, but yet he feels the average people who are SS worked for theirs too or their spouse, parents worked for theirs do not deserves toget it because then it is a welfare program. Can't have it both ways SS for him because he worked and earned and is rich and is not welfare or average wage earner worked for SS, earned it and is not rich and then it is a welfare program that needs to be cut done away with. Let the republicans keep talking now until November and by then all of their followers will have left them and vote for President Obama to be reelected again.
01:02 AM on 02/13/2012
Hey Army walk away from your Soc.Sec dollars, and let the KOCH Bros. pick up or take up the slack.
12:59 AM on 02/13/2012
I'm so happy for the ruling for now it WILL compel politicians to have some skin in the game.

Maybe now they will start doing a much better job at shoring up these social programs.
12:57 AM on 02/13/2012
I am so glad this ruling came down the way it did cuz now these politicians WILL finally have some SKEENS in the game and will start doing a better job at EEMPROVING these social programs.

Thank you,thank you thank you judge for such magnificent ruling.

I sincerely hope Mr Army IS now walking around his streets KIC-KING himself on the tu$h for not having done a much better job at " EEMPRUVING " these programs while he was still reporting to work at the AUCTION CENTER - he only had some 30 yrs to make his move, but chances are, he like most of them political PEEMPS, in D.C., was 2 busy accepting political campaign ca$h, in exchange of tilting bills to favor the highest bider !!!.....; I can't help but to have a $mile or 2 now that things have BHU-MER-RANGGED and is now biting him on the ar$e.

Like Dylan Rany...book calls them all - GREED-DY Ba$tard$ !!!!
11:39 AM on 02/08/2012
Unbelievable NONSENSE. No senior is forced to accept Medicare benefits. One simply has to inform their healthcare provider that they will privately pay for their care. One can use ones own savings or buy a so called health insurance policy from a reputable company/group. Trouble is that there is so much profit in selling "healthcare insurance" that reputable companies are hard to find. I get sick every time I see another ad from the AARP hawking health insurance.
08:29 AM on 02/08/2012
It seems that when the boomers were paying in massive amounts of money, our government could promise us Medicare and Social Security, but now that it is time for them to pay the boomers, they are weaseling out of paying what they promised.
photo
Brian Gilmer
Respect the bunny.
07:08 AM on 02/09/2012
The law suit is about not being able to opt OUT of Medicare if a person takes Social Security.
08:22 AM on 02/08/2012
Armey's position is the position of the anti-healthcare reform lobby. He is a tea party guy.

MS. MADDOW‘s interview with Dick Armey I learned this:

He said in 1995 that “Medicare is a program I would have no part of in a free world.”.

He said in 2002, “We’re going to have to bite the bullet on Social Security and phase it out over a period of time.”
12:11 PM on 02/09/2012
I don't know if he's a tea party guy or not, but it looks like his position argues in favor of heath care reform. Why should he spend Medicare resources when he has a better private insurance plan, or can afford to pay his own bills without Medicare? Why should he forfeit his Social Security monthly benefit because he doesn't want to use Medicare? He would save the taxpayers money.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
shryock
It never is what it is anymore
07:57 AM on 02/08/2012
Given that he was the House Majority Leader, why is he drawing Social Security anyway?
He gets his House pension. Doesn't this make him one of those dreaded "double-dippers"?

And since he wants to opt out of medicare because his private insurer offers better benefits, why didn't he work to fix medicare benefits while he was in the house? Was it because he believed he would never have to settle for medicare benefits like the poor people he was writing laws for?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KDMac
It's called sarcasm, Genius.
08:20 AM on 02/08/2012
He collecting on what he paid into SS when he worked in the real world. Which is why there should be means testing for social security recipients.
photo
Brian Gilmer
Respect the bunny.
07:09 AM on 02/09/2012
It should not be means tested and he is a multi-millionaire who really doesn't need the SS payment to keep him out of poverty.
08:26 AM on 02/08/2012
I have always heard that if you get a government pension you can't draw Social Security too. I suppose they set it up for the elected government so they can draw both with no reductions.
photo
Brian Gilmer
Respect the bunny.
07:14 AM on 02/09/2012
Government employers were allowed to opt out of Social Security. Some did some did not. The tragedy of course is that while there is no such thing as a ghost country there are plenty of examples of ghost cities. Cities promised to pay pensions but did not put money aside to satisfy the obligation. So as a result cities are being bankrupted by their pension obligations and the retirees with significantly less income then expected because they were not put into the SS program by their government employers.
photo
Brian Gilmer
Respect the bunny.
07:40 AM on 02/08/2012
I am still trying to get my head around a e*trade board member and a former CEO needing Social Security but not wanting Medicare Part A. It seems like the limit on private insurance coverage has to be FAR less then the monthly Social Security. The whole construct begs the question of why the court is even listening to people who would not be harmed in any way if they did not accept Social Security if they did not want the Medicare portion that comes with it.
12:33 PM on 02/09/2012
All the plaintiffs paid SS and Medicare taxes and they are NOT asking for a refund. They want to opt out of Medicare -- which saves the Medicare program (i.e. taxpayers) money. How is that hard to get your head around? Why would anyone want to use an inferior government insurance program if they are willing to buy their own private plan? Medicare was constructed to be a "supplement" insurance plan, not a primary one. Both SS and Medicare were originally designed to SUPPLEMENT private retirement and insurance, not replace it.
photo
Brian Gilmer
Respect the bunny.
06:46 PM on 02/09/2012
What is difficult to understand is why would a multi-millionaire need health insurance? For that matter why would a multi-millionaire need $2513 a month and want to pay more for health insurance? This seems like a market problem and not a legal issue. It seems that there is a population that would like to pay for health insurance and not use Medicare so why wouldn't companies offer that product? And no there is no federal law that prevents insurance companies from offering the product.
07:04 AM on 02/08/2012
It doesn't make sense.

In our part of the country, if you have two health insurances, then both pay, but not fully. One of the insurances pay more (usually Medicare) and the other insurance pays the rest.

If someone is eligible for a government pension, then the government reduces their Social Security benefits depending on what the other pension pays.

Unless it is different in different parts of the country, you only have to take Medicare A and that is free.

Medicare A: Helps cover inpatient care in hospitals. This includes critical access hospitals and skilled nursing facilities (not custodial or long-term). It also helps cover hospice care and home health care. You must meet certain conditions to get these benefits. Most people automatically get Part A coverage without having to pay a monthly payment or premium.

Most of the time having a supplemental policy is better than having another full insurance coverage, if you take Medicare A and B. B is the insurance that most pay around $98 for. It is the main insurance in Medicare.

C is the supplemental insurance that pays some of your part of what Medicare approves of, but doesn't pay.

They must plan to cut Medicare a lot if Dick Armey doesn't even want the free part. Maybe his other insurance won't pay as much if he has Medicare A. Both Medicare A and his other government insurance is paid by the taxpayer.

Who cares if he doesn't get full coverage, anyway?
10:44 PM on 02/07/2012
Why doesn't he just refuse his Social Security Benefits?

I am sure he does not need them to make ends meet like so many Americans who worked all their lives in jobs that did not pay them enough money to have PRIVATE PENSION ACCOUNTS and PRIVATE HEALTH CARE ACCOUNTS like Mr. Armey (or Government pensions and Government health care like Mr. Armey gets as a former memeber) of congress

Republicans have been trying to dismantel Social Security since it started.

Be a trailblazer Dick and send your checks back to the gov.

It would be an act of patriotism if rich guys like you gave up something they do not need so that those who need it can have it safeguarded .

How about it Dick!

How about YOU (of Tea Party fame) starting a Tea Partylike movement of rich people like you to send back not needed Social Security Benefits as a act of PATRIOTISM!!
10:45 AM on 02/09/2012
So what you're saying is that the government should be able to force any working person to pay in their own earnings in the form of Social Security contributions, but once they qualify to receive them in the form of retirement benefits, then they should have to either give up a superior insurance plan to take Medicare, Part A, or give up their SS benefits (that they paid for) in order to get out of Medicare. You ignore the fact that they HAD to pay SS contributions as a matter of law, but the government is trying to force them into Medicare (which by law is a voluntary program) not by law, but by a matter of internal policy enacted during the Clinton administration. You also ignore the fact that these seniors would actually SAVE the government money by not participating in Medicare.
01:02 PM on 02/09/2012
I am just suggestion to Armey (and others who think like him) that if HE has issues with Medicare HE should refuse the Social Security check he does not need, to satisfy his need to opt out of Medicare.

Giving up something he had to pay into would be a voluntary patriotic sacrifice - kind of like volunteering for the army and losing you leg or arm fighting for your country

Is that clear enough for you.

SHARED SACRIFICE - what a concept!
10:23 PM on 02/07/2012
How come Armey hasn't been roasted on a spit for his responsibility in the mortgage meltdown?
Clevelandinwi
Progressive is good; regressive, not so much.
10:12 PM on 02/07/2012
armey is still spending the koch's money doing ridiculous things.
10:00 PM on 02/07/2012
Why can't he just pay for and use his own insurance plan? I'm sure there's an insurance company out there willing to write a big fat policy with a big fat premium for this big fat Dick.
photo
Brian Gilmer
Respect the bunny.
07:42 AM on 02/08/2012
Why would someone who is that wealthy need health insurance anyway. The point behind insurance it to protect finances from large unplanned expenses. It is hard to imagine why a multi-millionaire would even consider health insurance.
photo
Front Page
"OMG!! WTF?"
09:57 PM on 02/07/2012
Hey Armey, go get a bus load of some teasheeple who would be happy to go against themselves and join in your fight to get out of Medicare.