Posted on 08/16/2009 8:02:34 PM PDT by Sun
snip REP. ARMEY: The Medicare law that was written by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and the chief lobbyists of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, voted on without amendment as an amendment to Social Security, first imposes severe sanctions on physicians and medical providers that don’t comply with its requirements, and it says to seniors at the age of 65 you can no longer buy the insurance that you bought prior to 65. And now by virtue of an internal memo—not a regulation, not a law—they tell seniors today...
MR. GREGORY: All right.
REP. ARMEY: ...if you don’t sign up for Medicare you’ll lose your Social Security.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Can they do this? Why would they want to have that stipulation when most folks sign up for Medicare when they're 65?
To make Soylent Green of course. Those folks will be rounded up and thrown down the Old Folks Chute. Pol-E-Tisheons are excused from that of course.
This crap needs to be burned or overturned...
“if you don’t sign up for Medicare you’ll lose your Social Security.”
Then, do you get back the money that you put into the system??
Actually, Medicare A is automatic at age 65, and costs the beneficiary nothing, directly.
Medicare B costs most people about $96.00 a month. (It is means tested).
However, my experience is that many are now waiting to retire until age 66 or age 67, and trying to keep their group health insurance plan, while increasing their SS benefits and waiting for their 401K to go back up.
(I sell financial products to the “senior market”).
A smiling Cobra named Obama.
touche’!!
Medicare Part A is no charge for Medicare recipients. Until the 80’s Federal Civil Service were not part of Medicare or Social Security. Then they made Civil Service part of Medicare and you had a choice to stay in the old system CSRS or go into FERS where you paid into social security and Thrift Savings was part of your retirement. At that time, everyone was part of Medicare Part A.
When Civil Service reach SS retirement age, they were given an option of Part B (Doctor) or keep their federal employee health insurance which you have in retirement which would pay the same as Medicare. NARFE recommended the plans that you did not need Part B which includes Blue Cross/Blue Shield PPO plan and several others. They said it would be a waste to pay for Part B.
Under today’s plan no one has to take Part B and IMO if you can still keep your insurance, it would be a waste.
If the plan now says you have to take Part B, I want to slam it in the face of the Federal unions and ask how they like ZERO now? Or are we still exempt from OBAMACARE as a payoff to federal unions? Who knows since there are five different bills.
Medicare was NEVER supposed to be MANDATORY....however, I read something on FR recently about how that got CHANGED (snuck through without public review) some years ago....so, this confuses me.....
Just another scare tactic! Yes, we have to change the Social Security system if we are to survive (with that intact).
That is not the scary part, that comes when the politicians actually come to grips with the problem and do something about it. Not holding my breath...
They have placed us in this position...now let’s see them get us out of it...ha... You know that they will collapse under any pressure from the seniors (and I am one) but they should not!
But this was in an internal memo, which shows you what they plan to do AFTER the bill is signed - IF it is signed into law. Let’s all fight hard to make sure it doesn’t happen.
We don’t want no Trojan Horse. (that might make a good protest sign.)
“I was told that on my 64 birthday I would be dropped from our health insurance because I was required to have Medicare.”
I know someone 65 years old who does not get Medicare because spouse is still working and they get spouse’s Medicare.
But maybe your insurance is private, rather than work related and that makes the difference????
If such a thing ever happened, I think AARP would be forced to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of seniors, the old age pensioners and the elderly and what’s more they would probably sue for damages as well which might reach into the billions of dollars to be distributed to everybody who is getting SS. Bring it on, DC!
bump to the top
I'm one of the many whom will be using SS to exist.
I own my home and land outright, drive a paid for car and my taxes aren't too bad ... I can exist.
But I'd rather keep working to 66 or 67 to collect full SS at a full rate than take an approximate 50% hit at 62.
I really want to discuss this here with anyone with a simular situation.
iF I retire at 62, I have only a few months to decide.
And please ... don't tell me what I fool I am for relying on SS ... Some of us were not capabale of staying in one job for 20 plus years.
I retired from employment with NY State in 2003. At that time, I was receiving a pension from my job, and was covered by an excellent plan. Because I had various health problems, and was in my late 50’s, I was told to apply for Social Security Disability. I got turned down once, appealed the case, and was approved for it. When I got the award notice from Social Security, it said I had an option to take Medicare Parts A & B, and recommended that I contact the pension department to discuss it. Upon calling the State’s pension department, they advised me that I had no option, and that I HAD to take Medicare, but I am still able to keep the health insurance I had with the State. The only difference was that now, Medicare became my primary, and my State insurance plan became secondary. I still have to pay a co-pay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.