Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fixing/Removing ObamaCare
How about it, Ron? What did SS tell your mom specifically?
Reply
Just prior to leaving office, President Obama issued a flurry of executive orders. The one that resulted in the massive deduction in my mother's benefits, may have been among them. Obama never liked seniors, since 60% of them always voted against him. We seniors could see through his con artistry. I don't think President Trump has done anything affecting Social Security yet.

I don't want to quote the letter with all its personal information in a public forum. My sister has gotten in touch with an attorney. I will let you know what further we may find out.
Reply
I just don't think a POTUS order can change SS payouts like this. It would have been huge news if they were messing with SS. It is way more likely some bonehead in the SS office has your mother confused with another woman with a similar name, that's going to me my "prediction".
Reply
I hope that turns out to be true. But my mother has a rather unusual name--Eula Mae. One of those southern names.
Reply
I had a boss named Eula Mae Barnett when I was a kid. At the local hospital.

My maternal grandmother's name was Nettie Mae. It's not as common down here anymore to have 2 names like that.

Except in Mississippi and Alabama. I know a family from Miss. and I can't get used to it, but, when you just say, "hey Mary" she will correct you and say "Mary Helen".
Reply
Here are the salient paragraphs from the letter Social Security sent to my mother:

"We changed your monthly benefit to $1,026.40 beginning December 2016 because you are eligible for a government pension.

"What We Will Pay And When

"You will receive $918.00 for March 2017 around April 3, 2017.

"After that you will receive $918.00 on or about the third of each month.

"Other Government Payments Affect Benefits

"We reduce Social Security benefits paid to widows if they also receive a government pension based on their own work. We reduce the benefits by two-thirds of the amount of the pension. For this reason, we are reducing your benefits beginning December 2016, by $992.00.

My mother has been receiving monthly payments from an annuity earned from her 20 years working for the U.S. Post Office. She also worked at a U.S. Government munitions factory in Detroit during WWII. She also has been receiving some benefits for 22 years as the widow of a WWII veteran.

I do not understand clearly what all this means. My sister has written to appeal this decision.
Reply
Sounds like ( assuming they are acting within the law) they have discovered your mom gets that pension benefit and was receiving more than allowed earlier from this letter.

I am assuming she was receiving your dad's SS "survivor" benefit and it would be more if she did not have the government pension.

Hope she gets it all back, that's just how I interpret the note above.
Reply
My father died 22 years ago. Why did they wait until my mother was 95 to correct anything? Unless this was merely renewing the same correction that was made earlier, in which case they were certainly not clear. Social Security has always been modified proportionately to what the recipient may receive in addition to Social Security. I would almost want to wait until May to see how much they actually pay Mom--except that they only gave 60 days for an appeal. My sister has sent in an appeal.

I wish they would "correct" the more than $100 they have arbitrarily taken out of my monthly Social Security check since 2010, supposedly to help pay for Obamacare, and pay me back all that money they took out of my account for no valid reason over the past seven years.
Reply
I assume because the numbskulls just found it out, Ron. It's the US federal government, they are not efficient and if this is accurate, be thankful in this case.

As an amateur lawyer( according to my big brother), I advise your family to double check the law to make sure this is fair and restrain against legal action because these bureaucrats could demand she pay back the excess if you irk them. I always expect the worst from American government employees.
Reply
Ann Coulter has a simple bill that should work:

Congress doesn't repeal Obamacare! Instead, Congress passes a law, pursuant to its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, that says: "In America, it shall be legal to sell health insurance on the free market. This law supersedes all other laws, taxes, mandates, coverage requirements, regulations or prohibitions, state or federal.”
Reply
(04-01-2017, 10:21 PM)WmLambert Wrote: Ann Coulter has a simple bill that should work:

Congress doesn't repeal Obamacare! Instead, Congress passes a law, pursuant to its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, that says: "In America, it shall be legal to sell health insurance on the free market. This law supersedes all other laws, taxes, mandates, coverage requirements, regulations or prohibitions, state or federal.”

Makes good sense to me. S22
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
They still have to require that insurance companies cannot deny coverage for "pre-existing" conditions, and must allow children up to age 26 (or whatever age is deemed proper) to be covered by their parents' policy. We cannot make everything favorable to the insurance companies--they are just as greedy and corrupt as anyone else, and will cheat as much as the law allows.
Reply
(04-02-2017, 11:22 AM)Ron Lambert Wrote: They still have to require that insurance companies cannot deny coverage for "pre-existing" conditions, and must allow children up to age 26 (or whatever age is deemed proper) to be covered by their parents' policy. We cannot make everything favorable to the insurance companies--they are just as greedy and corrupt as anyone else, and will cheat as much as the law allows.

I think what your brother was showing was an easy way to repeal Obamacare, and eliminate all the bureaucratic manure that goes with it. Things could be individually added later.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
Ron,

The 26 year old thing IS favorable to the insurance firms. Young folks don't want to pay for insurance( that's why they did the mandate) and at least the firms get the revenue from 26 year olds being on parent's policies as family coverage.

They pay out close to nothing for healthy youngsters.
Reply
The trick with free market pre-existing conditions is that the market can decide where the economics are. Once a person gets a policy, any conditions that are new are covered. Pre-existing conditions used to be knowing about a problem before signing up. The old paradigm had hospitals and charitable giving take up the slack on catastrophic problems. The Free Market can factor this all into policies without forcing bureaucracy to demand what to do
Reply
True enough. The system we had before did provide for everyone in emergency situations. When I had to had surgery to correct a hiatal hernia that had become strangulated, and I was still two years short of being old enough to be on Medicare, they tried to sign me up for Medicaid, but since I was not disabled previously, the hospital wound up just having to swallow the $34,000 cost of my surgery and nearly week-long stay at the hospital. I was told that hospital employees were asked to pay into an emergency fund that covers cases like mine.

Were I in Canada, or any other country that features socialized medicine, I would have just been left to die. That is what would have been the case with a friend of mine, who suffered a broken neck in a traffic accident while traveling through Canada. Fortunately her husband was a doctor, and they could afford to have $300,000 coverage. Hospital spokespeople there in Canada (near Hamilton, Ontario) told us plainly (I was there) that if my friends had not had that much coverage, they would not have treated her, and would have demanded that she be taken back to the USA, despite the fact that the trip would have killed her. As it was, after the surgery that stabilized her neck, she was helicoptered back to the USA.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Price Fixing Anyone? John L 23 2,141 03-19-2012, 10:21 PM
Last Post: Gunnen4u

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)