Someone in the 35-45 age bracket, please sue Medicare....

[Rosco T.]

.. try to join, then get told you can't because of your age. Then Sue for AGE DISCRIMINATION, you pay into it, you should be able to join and take advantage.

Note to Team Obama... nice backdoor here if you want to use it.

[joeglow3]

1. Both Medicare and Social Security violate equal protection clause...

...In my opinion. Now, I fully support both programs, but am shocked people have not tried to challenge (maybe they have).

[damntexdem]

5. Equal protection does not prohibit probrams with legitimate purposes.

To so that it does is a fake 'equality' stance not unlike that used by conservatives to attack affirmative action. It could also be used to attack, for example, the Violence Against Women Act.

[Thothmes]

18. By the direction of the Congress of the United States

They are the ones you should take the issue to.

[yodermon]

2. was just thinking about this the other day.

case would be dismissed outright, probably, but one could at least make the argument, and I think it would be compelling.

[damntexdem]

3. Won't work. Congress passes age discrimination laws, and passed Medicare.

It can choose to focus a bill on any age group it wants, is not covered by age discrimination laws unless it wants to be. Moreover, especially in the context of Social Security law (and Medicare is Title XVIII of Social Security), there is a legitimate public purpose in aiding vulnerable populations (aged AND disabled), in effect creating an expanded pension plan (expanding Social Security to cover medical care). True, not all people over 65 are retired; however, even people over 65 who continue working tend to see their incomes fall. In any case, aged eligibles for Part A have paid into Medicare via FICA, just as they have into Social Security pensions.

[godzilla32]

15. but try it this way

I'm an attorney and I googled this thread because i had this idea yesterday, so I see I'm not the first. I would file it based on the idea that Medi-care should be required to pro-rate and provide a plan for those who are younger, as there is no legitimate reason why they should not be compelled to offer a program to younger people if it is cost neutral. In other words, turn it into "the public option" by having them come up with a monthly fee that younger people can pay. If there is no cost to the govt then there is no compelling reason to deny it, and then argue people have a fundamental right to health care..

[Hello_Kitty]

4. I've thought for a long time that single people should sue corporations

For violating equal pay for equal work. Let's say I am in the exact same job at the exact same salary as a guy with a wife and 2 kids. My benefits package (most of which is health insurance) runs about $4k a year and his runs about $15k. Benefits are part of the overall compensation package and my counterpart is getting far more compensation than I am. When the Equal Pay Act was being debated in the early 60s critics claimed that men "deserved" to be paid more than women for the same jobs because they had families to support. Leaving aside the fact that plenty of working men were single and plenty of working women were supporting families, the act passed because as the Sec'y of Labor at the time put it, "People should be paid for the work they do not the number of dependents they have."

Insurance really needs to be separated from employment for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it's one of the reasons wages have stagnated.

[damntexdem]

6. Note that a woman with a husband (with or without kids) can also cover her family ...

through employer-based insurance. It is true that employer-based insurance is a lousy way for a society to arrange for its health coverage. And, yes, rising costs of benefits can negatively affect wage increases. But the major reasons for stagnant wages have not been health insurance, rather: attacks on unions and public policy that accommodates or even encourages it; outsourcing and other industry attacks on worker pay, again accommodated and even encouraged by public policy; and the shifting of the tax burden away from the rich and toward the rest of us.

[Hello_Kitty]

11. I fully agree with you

The people who opposed equal pay back then seemed to be completely unaware that women were supporting families too.

[spooky3]

8. there are some cases - you might be able to find them on the web

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. Age isn't a constitutionally protected suspect classification...

...as found by the Court to date, nor is it covered by the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The Court would have no problem finding Medicare's enabling legislation meets the 'rational basis' test.

They wouldn't even grant certiorari.

[godzilla32]

17. there is no rational basis...

I understand about rational basis, but here is the point,,if you file the suit asking Medi-care to charge an amount, based on actuarial data, that a person can pay to join, and your membership is revenue-neutral, then there actually is no rational basis for excluding any person. The government comes out even, and there is no expenditure of public funds. I'm an attorney and I've been thinking about filing this..I have another client who is losing her insurance because of divorce..Well isn't there a fundamental right to get divorced?? (Roe v Wade, Griswold, etc.) And yet the system penalizes her, and could in fact kill her. So I think she will be a good plaintiff for this case. So will I. I am 44. I run 10 miles a week. I'm mb 5 lbs overweight. I can't get health insurance because I had an ulcer before my wife finally left (ha-ha, but true). So by charging an amount that I can..Medi-Care becomes the "public option", is cost-neutral. And we win.

[spooky3]

9. the age discrimination laws generally protect people OVER the age of 40 but not younger

they are different from laws re: race, gender, etc.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/adea.html

[jberryhill]

10. Medicare is rationally related to a legitimate objective

Insurers won't cover older people.

The claim doesn't survive a sniff test.

[OHdem10]

12. Hand Seniors to the GOP and the GOP will reign for the next 50 years.

So far Obama is doing a good job sending them to the GOP.

[Cali_Democrat]

13. So providing medicare to people under 65 will send seniors to the GOP?

Then the GOP will reign for the next 50 years and Obama is already doing a good job of sending seniors to the GOP?

Talk out of your ass much?

[OHdem10]

14. Only illustrating how things can be misinterpreted.

[avaistheone1]

16. How about someone age 58 doing so, would that work?