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

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.

‘Forced Medicare’ rules take a well-deserved beating

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Freedom won a big round Sept. 29 when Judge Rosemary M. Collyer slapped down federal commissars who are pushing a senseless and dangerous Medicare requirement.  Judge Collyer, who sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, refused to dismiss a lawsuit in which the three plaintiffs are merely asserting a right to refuse aid provided by taxpayers. Against these plaintiffs, the Department of Health and Human Services insists that the government can coerce people to accept Medicare benefits they don’t want. The government’s position in Hall, et al. v. Sebelius is nonsensical.

(continue reading the Washington Times)

This article is great! They have distilled our case and presented the essentials while maintaining a sense humor.

Blogs:

http://blogs.rep-am.com/worth_reading/?p=5235

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2009/09/score-one-for-the-people/

http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=16560

http://buffalog.blogspot.com/2009/10/potentially-important-lawsuit.html

http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2009/10/must-seniors-be-forced-to-accept.html

http://socsecnews.blogspot.com/2009/10/social-security-without-medicare.html

JUDGE CLEARS WAY TO VOID RULES MANDATING ENROLLMENT IN
MEDICARE, PART A, AS A CONDITION OF RECEIVING SOCIAL SECURITY
RETIREMENT BENEFITS

 Motion to Dismiss Denied; Summary Judgment Pending

WASHINGTON, DC—In an opinion handed down on September 29, Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC denied a Motion to Dismiss filed by Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, clearing the way for the Court to void five rules created by the Clinton Administration that made receipt of an individual’s Social Security retirement benefits contingent upon enrollment in Medicare, Part A.
 
Originally filed in October, 2008 as Brian Hall et al v. Michael Leavitt et al, the lawsuit, now known as Hall v. Sebelius, involves five plaintiffs: Brian Hall of Virginia, Norman Rogers of Florida, Lew Randall of Washington, John Kraus of Pennsylvania and former U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader Richard Armey of Texas.
 
The lawsuit challenges the validity of five rules in the Social Security Program Operations Manual, known as the POMS, that require enrollment in Medicare, Part A, as a condition of receiving Social Security retirement benefits and that mandate the surrender of all Social Security retirement benefits received if an individual seeks to disenroll from Medicare, Part A.
 
The plaintiffs claim that the POMS violate the Social Security statute enacted by Congress in that the statute makes the two federal programs completely voluntary and no federal agency has the authority — statutorily or constitutionally — to “legislate” requirements interfering with an individual’s entitlement to Social Security retirement benefits not enacted by Congress.
 
None of the plaintiffs want to enroll, or remain enrolled, in Medicare as they believe it is an inferior system that restricts seniors’ access to health care because of its administration and looming bankruptcy. Three of the plaintiffs, Hall, Kraus and Armey, had superior private health care benefits, including health savings accounts, under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which they had been denied due to the enforcement of the POMS. The other two plaintiffs had private health insurance and health savings arrangements that would have been disrupted by the POMS had they applied for their Social Security retirement benefits.
 
“The government attempted to get the case dismissed, arguing that the POMS were mere expressions of the statutes and regulations and that none of the plaintiffs had exhausted administrative remedies available to them to challenge the POMS before they filed suit in Federal Court,” said Kent Masterson Brown, lead attorney for the plaintiffs in Hall v. Sebelius. “Judge Collyer denied their Motion.”

Rejecting the Government’s contention that the POMS were merely expressions of the statute and regulations creating and governing Social Security and Medicare, the Court ruled that “neither the statute nor the regulation specifies that Plaintiffs must withdraw from [Social Security] and repay retirement benefits in order to withdraw from Medicare, Part A.” “In contrast,” the Court asserted, “the POMS explicitly states that condition.”

Thus, according to the Court, “the POMS determines Plaintiffs’ rights or obligations in this instance and is an action from which legal consequences flow.” Concluding, the Court asserted: “the POMS is subject to judicial review.”

“With respect to the government’s argument that plaintiffs’ case must be dismissed because they failed to exhaust administrative remedies, the Court also asserted that exhaustion must be excused in this case; it would be futile,” said Brown.

Specifically, plaintiff Hall attempted to exhaust administrative remedies, but was informed by the Social Security general counsel that there was no way he could get out of Medicare, Part A, and still keep his Social Security. Plaintiff Kraus, through his Congresswoman, asked for an administrative law judge after he was “forced” to enroll in Medicare, but was stalled for more than three years.

“Importantly, the position taken by the government in this case clearly revealed its intent not to change the POMS,” said Brown.

The Court held, however, that “Where an agency has demonstrated an unwillingness to reconsider its position and there is certainty of an adverse decision – and where the challenge is to the agency’s policy and practice or systematic failure to comply with Federal law – exhaustion will be excused.”

Because the plaintiffs in this case challenge a policy “not found in the Social Security Act or federal regulations as Defendants allege, but was apparently created by the Social Security Administration and expressed in the POMS” – and exhaustion would be “futile” – the Court denied the Government’s motion.

“The Court further directed the government to respond within thirty days to the plaintiffs’ previously filed Motion for Summary Judgment asking the Court to void the POMS and permanently enjoin the government’s enforcement of the POMS,” said Brown.

 # # #

 090930 Press Release (pdf)

090929 Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss (pdf)