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.”