Reform opponents say recent Medicare ruling cause for concern

Opponents of the healthcare reform law are appealing a federal judge’s ruling that seniors cannot opt out of a Medicare program without losing their Social Security benefits.

The 2008 suit was brought by three retirees who wanted to refuse Medicare Part A coverage for hospital stays while retaining their Social Security benefits. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) later joined the suit.

“The Medicare Act is very clear that persons entitled to Social Security retirement benefits, i.e., of an age and work history and application therefore, are immediately and automatically entitled to Medicare Part A benefits upon their 65th birthdays,” District Judge Rosemary Collyer wrote last week.

The plaintiffs in Hall v. Sebelius specifically objected to Social Security Administration rules added in 1993 and 2002 about the link between Medicare Part A and Social Security.

“Plaintiffs are trapped in a government program intended for their benefit," Collyer wrote. "They disagree and wish to escape. The court can find no loophole or requirement that the secretary provide such a pathway."

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, who plan to appeal the decision, said the ruling highlights concerns about the regulatory powers granted by healthcare reform.

“Anyone concerned with what will happen when the bureaucrats start writing the thousands of pages of rules that will govern the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act need only look at what has happened in Hall v. Sebelius,” said attorney Kent Masterson Brow in a statement. “When they do, they will realize nothing will be optional and there will be no fair, affordable or swift manner to obtain recourse or appeal a decision made by the bureaucracy.”