Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (10165)	10/5/2009 7:25:44 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

That's an interesting issue, assuming it's accurately framed. I assume that the plaintiffs are trying to force the issue as there doesn't seem to be a practical problem here. If they don't want to use their Medicare Part A benefits it would seem that they could simply decline to tell the provider that they have Medicare coverage. I already planned to do that had I stayed with a primary care physician who didn't take Medicare patients. So I don't see the practical need for the suit, only the purpose of making a point. I am also at a loss to explain why the agency would promulgate such a rule. It seems silly to me.