Tuesday, April 16, 2019

Ten Years On: Updating an InsureBlog Exclusive

Long-time readers may recall our series of interviews with attorney Kent Brown about his lawsuit against the Fed's "because Social Security officials claim that folks must forfeit their Social Security benefits if they withdraw from (or choose not to enroll in) Medicare."

[ed: Original and follow-up posts are here and here]

One would think that since neither of these are in any way legislatively connected, this would be a non-issue.

One would think that, but one would be incorrect:

"Is there something in the original Medicare legislation that dictated this? Surprisingly, the answer is no ... Nothing in the Social Security or Medicare statutes state that one must take Medicare in order to receive Social Security payments (or vice versa)"

So how did this come about?

Two words: Washington, DC.

Now, fast forward a decade, and there seems to be some light at the end of the tunnel:

Nice! So I once again reached out to Mr Brown for his thoughts, and to confirm that this was in fact related to his case, and he graciously replied:

"Good evening to you!

Yes. It has EVERYTHING to do with my case. The whole purpose of the Retirement Freedom Act is to address what the U.S. Court of Appeals refused to do, but should have done. I hope this matter can be addressed legislatively.  The Washington Examiner article is very good. Thanks for sending it along

So we'll be watching this closely as it wends its way through The Hallowed Halls.
blog comments powered by Disqus