set” and “telephone service” as examples of personal comfort items. 42 C.F.R. § 405.310(j) (1979). The Hospital does not seriously argue that this interpretation is beyond the authority of the Secretary. Instead, the Hospital argues that medicare patients have a constitutional right, under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, to government reimbursement of television and telephone expenses incurred during their covered hospitalization. We disagree. Assuming without deciding that the government is barred by the First Amendment from acting to prevent a hospital patient’s access to television and telephone service, we think it clear that there is no constitutional obligation to finance such access. In Harris v. McRae, - U.S. -,---, 100 S.Ct. 2671, 2688-89, 65 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1980) (<HOLDING>), the Supreme Court explained the applicable
holding that government regulation even extensive regulation and the receipt of federal funds such as medicare medicaid and hillburton funds are insufficient to establish that a hospital or other entity acted under color of state law holding constitutional the hyde amendment which severely limits the reimbursement of abortion costs from medicaid funds holding that suits which seek no recovery from state funds but rather allege that recovery is sought under and up to the limits of the states liability insurance coverage fall outside the traditional constitutional bar to suits against the state holding that medicaid and medicare funds are subject to levy and that even if the inability to pay was the result of government regulation it would not excuse the tax liability holding that the constitutional rights in a termination proceeding  are derived from the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the united states constitution and not the sixth amendment