OPINION:
In 1993, the Clinton administration, without the benefit of a congressional hearing, publication in the federal register or notice of any kind instituted a policy by which senior citizens could be denied their Social Security payments, if they decided to opt out of Medicare.
Since Social Security eligibility begins at 62 and Medicare at 65, many seniors discovered that by the time they decided to opt out of the federally sponsored health insurance the government demanded that all of the Social Security money they had received be paid back.
This was a clear health-care mandate for seniors and an affront to their right to Social Security retirement they had paid into all their working lives.
Three men - Brian Hall of Catlett, Va., Lewis Randall of Freeland, Wash. and Norman Rogers of Miami - decided a few years ago that enough was enough, that entitlement meant entitled to, and a settlement just for themselves would not do. The men filed suit Oct. 9 with the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia (just one step from the Supreme Court) asking the court to submit a judgment declaring this practice unlawful, forcing the feds to cease and desist and repay any money they have taken from seniors under this practice. Good for them.
The Social Security Programs Operations Manual System on Medicare waivers of monthly beneficiaries states clearly: “Individuals entitled to monthly benefits which confer eligibility for HI [health insurance] may not waive HI entitlement. The only way to avoid HI entitlement is through withdrawal of the monthly benefit application. Withdrawal requires repayment of all RSDI [Retirement Survivors Disability Insurance] and HI benefits payments made.”
The policy’s effective date was Aug. 30, 1993, said counsel for the plaintiffs, Kent Masterson Brown. “In 1993, after the whole Hillary Clinton health-care policy commission fiasco, a quasi-mandate was inserted by Hillary Clinton and others after their failure to create health care for all,” Mr. Brown said. “They started inserting this stuff into the regulations and in 2002 the Bush administration reaffirmed it and made it stronger.” This is yet another one the people owe to what might be referred to as the “Clinton-Bush presidency.”
Mr. Brown said his clients are committed to seeing this through to give all seniors the option to manage their own health care which the government has effectively taken from them by holding their Social Security hostage.
Rep. Sam Johnson, Texas Republican, and the ranking member of the House Ways and Means’ Subcommittee on Social Security, went a step further. He introduced the Medicare Freedom to Choose Act earlier this month to remove the mandate, allowing seniors to choose their own doctor in Medicare, opt out of Medicare Part A as they are already able to do with Parts B and D and “contribute pre-tax dollars to health savings accounts when used in conjunction with a high- deductible health plan.”
“If Warren Buffett wants to pay for his own medical care, I say we should let him,” Mr. Johnson said. Republicans have been calling for spending cuts to entitlements for more than a decade now and many followed Mr. Bush’s idea of creating health savings and personal retirement accounts within the system to limit the government’s responsibility. Democrats balked at the idea and to date none have signed on to Mr. Johnson’s bill.
Entitlement spending is out of control and has been for quite some time. The largest contributor to annual increases in entitlements is Medicare. Congress has been terrified for a decade about the effect the Baby-Boomer generation will have on Social Security and the federal budget but even more so with regard to Medicare, particularly after President Bush’s Medicare prescription-drug benefit became law in 2003. If Congress is truly serious about cutting spending it has to be done on the entitlement side and what better way to reduce Medicare costs than by allowing seniors to opt out and use their own money to pay for their health care. There has never been a better definition of a “no brainer.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.