Here it is in plain language, to quit Medicare, Part A, one must withdraw from Social Security and REPAY all prior benefits received!

HI 00801.002 Waiver of HI Entitlement by Monthly Beneficiary

A. INTRODUCTION

Some individuals entitled to monthly benefits have asked to waive their HI entitlement because of religious or philosophical reasons or because they prefer other health insurance.

B. POLICY

Individuals entitled to monthly benefits which confer eligibility for HI may not waive HI entitlement. The only way to avoid HI entitlement is through withdrawal of the monthly benefit application. Withdrawal requires repayment of all RSDI and HI benefit payments made.

https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0600801002!opendocument

And again, the procedures state that one may not withdraw only from Medicare, Part A while retaining monthly benefits:

HI 00801.034 Withdrawal Considerations

A. POLICY

To withdraw from the HI program, an individual must submit a written request for withdrawal and must refund any HI benefits paid on his/her behalf as explained in GN 00206.095 B.1.c.

An individual who filed an application for both monthly benefits and HI may:

• withdraw the claim for monthly benefits without jeopardizing HI entitlement; or
• withdraw the claim for both monthly benefits and HI.

The individual may not elect to withdraw only the HI claim.

An individual who filed an application for HI only may withdraw the claim at any time (see HI 00801.002).

Note: Even though a NH may withdraw a claim for monthly benefits and HI for HI only, the NH’s aged spouse (or other aged auxiliary) retains HI entitlement unless the spouse (or auxiliary) also specifically elects to withdraw the application for HI.

B. REFERENCE

See GN 00206.020 for a complete discussion of withdrawal considerations.

https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0600801034!opendocument

Following the status conference held in Washington, DC, on April 9, 2010 we were ordered to re-file our complaint such that the government’s request for discovery could be denied. The new motion excludes the motivation of the plaintiffs for wanting to opt out of Medicare, Part A, and argues the case based on the fact that the procedure manual contradicts the Social Security and Medicare Acts.

http://TheFundForPersonalLiberty.org/pdf/100503-39-1-Plaintiffs-Memo-in-Support-of-Summary-Judgment.pdf

Citations of the statutes:

TITLE II – FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS, AND DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS

http://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/act/0200.htm

Social Security Act, 42 USC §§ 401 et seq.,

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00000401—-000-.html

specifically, but not limited to, 42 USC §§ 402 and 426,

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00000402—-000-.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00000426—-000-.html

and the Medicare Act, 42 USC §§ 1395 et seq.,

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001395—-000-.html

specifically, but not limited to, 42 USC §§ 1395, 1395a, 1395b, 1395i-2 and 1395o,

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001395—-000-.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001395—a000-.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001395—b000-.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001395—i002-.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001395—o000-.html

Thank you, everyone, for your continuing support and interest in Hall v. Sebelius, the Medicare Lawsuit.

On June 14, 2010, our final brief will be filed with the US District Court of Washington, DC, after which, Judge Rosemary Collyer will schedule oral arguments and then render a decision on the issue of whether one may opt out of Medicare without foregoing Social Security benefits.

Please subscribe to our updates and follow the lawsuit as it reaches its conclusion in the US District Court.

~ Martha de Forest, Executive Director

    5/3/10 Revised Motion for Summary Judgment

The government is ordered to respond to the complaint on or before May 27, 2010.

Kent Masterson Brown recounted:

The government’s counsel responded by stating that he believed discovery was in order because the Government needed to determine whether the decisions of the Plaintiffs not to accept Medicare, Part A, were in their best financial interests!  Government counsel proceeded to inform the Court that he wanted to depose the Plaintiffs, the officials of the hospitals they routinely use, their insurers, and multiple other parties.

Mr. Brown concluded:

Judge Collyer denied the government’s Motion for Discovery and ordered us to re-file the Statement of Material Facts with it pared down to illustrate just the basic facts of the Plaintiffs having their FEHB benefits and HSAs taken away and the Plaintiffs forced into Medicare, Part A, against their will, as a condition of receiving the Social Security due to the POMS.

The short term timeline:

• May 5, 2010, Plaintiffs re-file the Motion for Summary Judgment
• May 27, 2010, Government responds to the motion
• June 14, 2010, Plaintiffs respond to the government’s response

Defendants Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, and Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, ask the Court to reconsider its denial of their motion to dismiss. [...] Plaintiffs Brian Hall, John J. Kraus, and Richard K. Armey, retirees who want to receive Social Security benefits but not be required to participate in Medicare Part A, oppose. The motion will be denied. 

Collyer noted of our primary argument:

When one becomes entitled to Social Security retirement benefits, one gets to choose whether to participate in that program or not. However, when one becomes entitled to hospital health insurance under Medicare, Part A, coverage is automatic and there is no choice. Plaintiffs essentially challenge SSA’s interpretation of “entitled” with respect to Medicare, Part A.

Further, Judge Collyer asks:

Since a retiree clearly has a choice as to whether to apply for and receive Social Security benefits — to which s/he is entitled — it is not at all clear why the same retiree does not, under the law and regulations, have a choice as to whether to apply for and receive Medicare, Part A, benefits. The “entitlement” language on which the Defendants seem to base their arguments is the same but, because of the POMS, the result is very different.

See Order Denying Motion to Reconsider for the complete text.
 
The judge ordered a scheduling conference for a status conference which was held 4/9/2010.

For Immediate Release: March 17, 2010
Contact: Jon Hanian (208) 334-2100

Governor Signs Idaho Health Freedom Act

(BOISE) – Hailing it as a reflection of public dismay with Washington, D.C., and a clear expression of State sovereignty, Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter welcomed legislative sponsors to his office at the Capitol today for the signing of House Bill 391 – the Idaho Health Freedom Act.

“Congress and the White House are working out their scheme for pushing through a healthcare ‘reform’ bill that has more pages than the U.S. Constitution has words. I guarantee you that not a single member of the House or Senate has a complete understanding of that legislation any more than they understood all the implications of the USA PATRIOT Act back in 2001,” Governor Otter said. “What the Idaho Health Freedom Act says is that the citizens of our state won’t be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control.”

The legislative cosponsors of House Bill 391 – Representatives Jim Clark of Hayden Lake, Raul Labrador of Eagle and Lynn Luker Boise, along with Senator Monty Pearce of New Plymouth – joined the Governor at the signing ceremony to celebrate a victory for Idaho’s self-determination.

The Idaho Health Freedom Act also takes into account the work that Idaho already is doing on its own to promote greater accessibility and affordability to healthcare for all Idahoans. That involves working closely to create and nurture public-private partnerships to develop primary care medical homes throughout Idaho, expand medical residency programs, expand the safe and secure electronic exchange of health information, and improve the voluntary enrollment of Medicaid-eligible children.

Governor Otter said it is a different approach to government than some people are used to, but one that respects the source of government authority and resources and understands the limited but crucial role that government should play in people’s lives.

“From addressing the ‘tax gap’ to managing our aquifers, from increasing the potential for charitable giving to reorganizing management of our State parks system, and from our insistence on maintaining a stable and predictable tax structure to our continuing efforts to find savings throughout State government, this has been a productive legislative session,” he said. “We have kept our priorities where they belong – on finding better, more efficient and effective ways to serve the individuals, families and communities with whose tax dollars we are entrusted.”

###

Audio: 3/15/2010 Radio – Freedom’s Phoenix with Ernest Hancock, Guest: Martha de Forest

Ms. Moss-Coane:

     When I called WHYY this morning and pointed out how the Social Security Administration (SSA) REQUIRED that monthly benefit recipients also enroll in Medicare Part A, Mr. Walker made the erroneous statement that Medicare Part A and Social Security are both mandatory.  What is mandatory is the payroll tax for these two programs, not participation in their benefits.  He went on about the Medicare Part A “premium” payments being deducted from monthly SS benefits, when it is Medicare Part B that requires a premium payment for coverage.  He certainly should have known these distinctions from his time in government. 

     My point about the, “REQUIREMENT”, to be enrolled in Part A in order to collect monthly retirement benefits is that it is merely a statement in the SSA’s Program Operations Manual System, (POMS), section HI 00801.002, (http:/policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/links/0600801002).
It is not a requirement found anywhere in legislation, U.S. Code, or other regulation.  It is thus not a legal requirement, since it was not promulgated through the legislative process.  However, the SSA continues to require Part A enrollment as a condition of receiving monthly retirement benefits, but not vice-versa.   With Medicare facing insolvency in the near future, why must we sue the federal government to remove ourselves from Medicare coverage without losing monthly SS benefits?  We are not asking to recover the Medicare taxes paid, only to not be forced into Part A coverage.  Furthermore, why must we sue to not have to pay back all monthly benefits collected up to the time that we want to subsequently withdraw from Part A? 

     The law suit has been given coverage in the media nationwide.  We have so far had a favorable opinion on the suit’s merits from the D.C. Federal District court, but the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) continues to waste taxpayer money by having the Justice Department pursue further appeals, presumably in the hope that we plaintiffs will be defeated by exhaustion.  The details of the court action are found at:

http://www.thefundforpersonalliberty.org

     I hope that you or another appropriate NPR venue address this issue by having someone from the SSA, the HHS, or Justice appear to explain why these agencies continue to oppose this action.  MY guess is that they will decline to do so.  As this suit enters its third year, we are still at a loss to understand why they continue to oppose being able to unconditionally remove oneself from Part A coverage.  Wouldn’t the Medicare program benefit by not having to pay medical procedure reimbursements for those who do not want to be in the program?

Thank you,
John Kraus
Plymouth Meeting, PA    

John Kraus is a plaintiff in The Fund for Personal Liberty’s Medicare Lawsuit.  Marty Moss-Coane is host of Radio Times on WHYY, an NPR affiliate in Philadelphia.  David M. Walker is President and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/07/thermopylae-for-health-care/