unlawful detention? If not kidnapping? And why would the editors of ANY paper(unless totally in the Democrat tank, of course) not raise hell about this happening to one of their reporters?
Or, if he was 'free to leave', what the hell kind of sorry excuse for a reporter wouldn't have been raising hell about it on his own?
Of course, there's the 'if true' question, but if it's not what reporter wouldn't say so?
Second,
Yet in a stunning reversal, Judge Collyer last week revisited her decision and dismissed the case. In direct contravention to her prior ruling, the judge said the Medicare statute does — with a little creative reading — contain a requirement that Social Security recipients take government health care. The Medicare statute provides that only individuals who are “entitled” to Social Security are “entitled” to Medicare. Therefore, argues the judge, “The only way to avoid entitlement to Medicare Part A at age 65 is to forego the source of that entitlement, i.e., Social Security Retirement benefits.”
Gee, I wonder who got to the judge, and with what threats? This is bullshit, and one more "We control you" action by these bastards. "So what if you paid for this? You don't do what we tell you, we'll screw you out of it."
1 comment:
If this does not fire you up and make you realize that there is a bunch of anti-freedom folks in the executive and judicial branches in this country, I fear for your reasoning ability. Sensing the jaws of the nanny state closing about your freedom is the first stage of escaping.
On the upside, neither program has the fiscal legs to enslave the next generation....So we have that going for this country. Too bad I won't live long enough to see the denoument.
Post a Comment