text: Many claim to prefer bipartisanship out of leaders in Washington, D.C., and right now we're witnessing…
  Welcome Bipartisanship in Senators' Letter to NLRB Opposing Destructive Proposed "Joint Employer Rule"
  Many claim to prefer bipartisanship out of leaders in Washington, D.C., and right now we're witnessing an encouraging example of it.
  Specifically, Senators Mike Braun (R - Indiana), Joe Manchin (D - West Virginia), Angus King (I - Maine), James Lankford (R - Oklahoma), Kyrsten Sinema (D - Arizona), and Susan Collins (R - Maine) have written National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Chairman Lauren McFerran seeking reconsideration of the NLRB's proposed "Joint Employer Rule" that they correctly warn "would have negative effects on workers and businesses during a time that many are already struggling following the COVID-19 pandemic."
  For years we at CFIF have sounded the alarm on the Joint Employer Rule that the Senators target, because it would dangerously reverse decades of established labor…[more]
  December 08, 2022 • 10:55 AM
  [close]
  Home
  About CFIF
  Mission
  Contact Us
  Donate to CFIF
  Employment Opportunities
  Privacy Policy
  CFIF Staff
  Commentary
  Latest Commentary
  Quiz Questions
  Notable Quotes
  The Issues
  Polls
  Donate
  Internet Donations
  Post Mail Donations
  Blog
  Welcome Bipartisanship in Senators' Letter to NLRB Opposing Destructive Proposed "Joint Employer Rule"
  Image of the Day: Sure Enough, Credit Card Balances Are Exploding
  Stat of the Day: Thanksgiving Costs Up a Record 20%, but Prescription Drug Prices Decline
  Government Should Not Dictate Which Channels Appear in Your Cable Package
  Vote
  USC Healthcare Fellow: Biden's "Inflation Reduction Act" Already Killing Potential Pharmaceutical Cures
  Anti-Patent Group Seeks to Weaken U.S. Pharmaceutical Innovation and Intellectual Property Advantage
  Image of the Day: Biden's "Make America an Energy Importer Again" Presidency
  New Lung Cancer Breakthrough Illustrates the Potential Peril of Drug Price Controls
  Image of the Day: Biden's War On Drilling
  CFIF Urges Support of the American Music Fairness Act
  CFIF Launches Ad Campaign Calling for Repeal of Tennessee’s “Certificate of Need” (CON) Laws
  Liberty Update
  CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
  Congress Should Act Against Mandatory Medicare
  By Quin Hillyer
  Wednesday, January 16 2013
  When ordinary Americans find they have no choice in health care once they reach age 65, they are likely to be severely frustrated, if not enraged.
  Tweet
  In a hugely disappointing end to a long-running legal battle, the Supreme Court refused to consider whether a federal agency can enforce a burdensome new policy, invented out of thin air, without even going through a formal regulatory process. But the overall policy fight should not be over. Instead, it should be shifted, with great fanfare, to the political arena.
  The issue, about which I’ve written many times, involves a bureaucratic sleight of hand by which:
  The feds… insist that anybody who voluntary turns down Medicare hospital benefits (even while still paying full Medicare taxes) must be denied the Social Security benefits which they have earned through a lifetime of work – and, worse, must pay back any SS payments they already have received. The POMS was issued without benefit of formal rulemaking, without public comment or review. It cites no specific legislative authority for tying the two sets of benefits together, nor does it offer a reasoned explanation for doing so.
  The plaintiffs want to keep their private insurance, but will not be allowed to do so if they receive Medicare. The feds say they cannot refuse those public benefits: The government argues that a law saying a citizen shall be “entitled” to Medicare benefits effectively means that he should be “required” to accept them. This, of course, is nonsense. Hence the lawsuit.
  In one of the most inane and willfully mendacious rulings I have ever read, two of three judges on a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in favor of the government, against the plaintiffs who merely want to save their own freedom and the taxpayers’ money. In light of a powerful dissenting opinion by Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, it would have made good sense for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the dispute. Its refusal to hear the appeal is baffling.
  But the fight against injustice and idiotic policy must continue. There is no good policy reason for Congress not to step in to right the wrong – and every good political advantage in doing so.
  Back in 2008, Republican U.S. Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas introduced a bill to correct this bureaucratic abuse. It would allow seniors to opt out of Medicare hospital benefits, allow doctors to enter into private contracts for such care and allow seniors to continue building their Health Savings Accounts. This is an eminently sensible bill, and it should prove quite popular if congressional supporters put even a tiny amount of political effort into explaining it. Congress ought to resurrect this bill and pass it forthwith.
  As Johnson said when he first introduced the bill, with reference to the famous billionaire investor, “If Warren Buffett wants to pay for his own medical care, I say we should let him.”
  Basic fairness demands such a bill. Wise management of the public fisc demands it. And, considering the procedural abuses that created the awful policy at issue, the cause of the due process of representative democracy demands it as well. Nobody ought to be coerced into accepting “benefits” they don’t want, especially when the public never was allowed to weigh in on the policy to begin with.
  Politically, this should be a slam dunk. When ordinary Americans find they have no choice in health care once they reach age 65, they are likely to be severely frustrated, if not enraged. They will approve such a policy change. And, considering the logical parallels between the current dumb policy and the “individual mandate” in ObamaCare, any congressmen who push Sam Johnson’s bill will also be taking another tacit swipe at, even if not a direct assault on, the most unpopular feature of the president’s disastrous health-care law.
  Conservatives in Congress right now seem to floundering around politically. The Johnson bill gives them a chance to regain at least a small offensive. They should pass it forthwith.
  Related Articles :
  » Multiple Courts Strike Biden’s “Pen and Phone” Student Loan Cancellation Scheme
  » Supreme Court Poised to Strike Down Racial Preferences
  » CFIF Launches Ad Campaign Calling for Repeal of Tennessee’s “Certificate of Need” (CON) Laws
  » Inflammatory Racial Comment from Kamala Harris Highlights Opportunity Before Supreme Court
  » The Left's Lies About the Supreme Court
  » The Mysteries of Long COVID
  » The Democrats' Lifespan Reduction Act
  » Drug Prices Remain Moderated, but Democrats Nevertheless Push Destructive Price Controls
  » It's Not 'Minority Rule'; It's the Point
  » Justice Gorsuch Trolls Obama with “Pen and Phone” Line as Supreme Court Lashes Regulatory Overreach
  » Power to the People – Even if It Comes From Coal
  » The CDC Is Deceiving the Public Again
  » The Supreme Court's Decision Is a Huge Win for the Constitution
  » Judicial Branch Checks Administrative State Run Amok
  » Beware Fauci's Scheme To Empower the World Health Organization
  » WTO Targets U.S. Drug Patents, and the Biden Administration Plots Surrender
  » Justices Ask Whether Left's Wokeness Should Be the Only Religion Allowed in Public Schools
  » Time to End Affirmative Action
  » Drug Price Controls Reemerge from Biden’s “Build Back Better” Rubble
  » New Study Confirms How Drug Price Controls Kill Investment and Innovation
  Quiz Question
  Which of the following Presidents replaced the traditional candles with electric lights on the White House Christmas tree?
  John Adams
  Abraham Lincoln
  Grover Cleveland
  Theodore Roosevelt
  More Questions
  Notable Quote
  "This has been a year of watershed moments in real estate, and not the good kind.Â The Housing Market Index, a closely watched industry metric that gauges the outlook for home sales, declined to 33 in November on a hundred-point scale, its lowest level in a decade, save for the first dystopian month of the pandemic. Anything under 50 spells trouble.Â A month earlier, interest rates on a standard…[more]
  —Daniel de Visé, The Hill
  — Daniel de Visé, The Hill
  Liberty Poll
  Congress is debating adding $45 billion more than requested to defense spending for 2023. Considering a fragile economy and geopolitical threats, do you support or oppose that increase?