Skip to comments.Obamacare architect seals the deal to kill it
Posted on 07/26/2014 11:42:02 AM PDT by Starman417
Don't hold us to what we meant, scream democrats.
Jonathan Gruber is one of the creators of Obamacare. It turns out that the way the exchanges were designed were quite intentional:
Did Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber make the same mistake twice? A new audio clip finds him once again explaining that Obamacare subsidies are tied to state health exchanges.
A clip of Jonathan Gruber circulated last night in which he states that Obamacare subsidies are tied to the existence of state exchanges. This statement is extremely problematic for the law's supporters because it appears to confirm the view of plaintiffs in the Halbig case, i.e. that only state-exchanges were intended to deliver subsidies.
This morning Gruber told the New Republic's Jonathan Cohn that he doesn't know why he said it at the time in 2012. "I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake," he claims. He added, "My subsequent statement was just a speak-oyou know, like a typo." A typo is usually a simple slip of the finger on the keyboard, i.e. a misspelling or missed bit of punctuation. Gruber's statement is nearly a minute long.
It wasn't the only time he insisted on it either:
Also, it turns out it was not the only time he made such a statement. An audio clip from a public appearance Gruber made at the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco on January 10, 2012 reveals he made the same connection between subsidies and state-based exchanges on at least one other occasion (hat tip to MorgenR). Obviously, Gruber can continue to claim he was wrong but it becomes harder to explain this as the equivalent of a typo when he said it more than once.
The design of the exchanges were meant to be coercion:
Whats important to remember politically about this is if youre a state and you dont set up an exchange, that means your citizens dont get their tax credits but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So youre essentially saying [to] your citizens youre going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that thats a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.
There's no mistake despite any current protests by Gruber.
The whiners at MSNBC make this argument:
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Ahhhhh....info...like your SS no, your bank accounts etc etc.
Kinda like saving the government spies work.
In the end, these are the folks who will simply pay a penalty. Except 85% are welfare folks and won't pay a dime.
Bottom line is likely....Obamas next statement...do you think we would have signed these people up if they weren't entitled to subsidies.
Maybe clever, I think stupidly clumsy. Of course all of us go back and forth between thinking “total incompetence” and “unimaginably diabolical” on this and a dozen other issues.
The key is the supposition, indeed the enforced supposition that there are zero consequences for this admin, whether their actions are flat-out black letter illegal, incompetent, ideological....it just doesn’t matter.
Unfortunately, for the rest of us, the consequences are piling up ten stories high.
Incidentally, nobody is reporting it at present, but Libya is about to implode. Think “oil”.
Only Congress can change laws....no matter what argument is thrown out there. If the intent of Congress was to grant everyone a subsidy, then Congress can pass such a bill today. Congress has chosen not to, so they must be comfortable with the law as written.
I know this sounds a bit silly with a GOP led House, but please understand, that from a legal standpoint, Congress is a never changing legal entity in the same way a POTUS is a never-changing legal entity. Obama must honor laws passed before he was President as if he signed them into law himself. Likewise, Congress accepts all laws written many years ago, unless they choose to change them.
Again, as of now Congress is comfortable with the wording of the ACA and therefore only State Run exchanges can get subsidies. If Congress was unhappy with the exchange rule, they would change the law which up to now, they have chosen not to do. This is absolutely unambiguous. PERIOD.
I fear Obama’s stooges on the court will just say it was Congressional intent to include everybody in these subsidies and nothing will come of this. Between Obama rewriting the ACA by executive order and the Obama appointed courts redoing all the mistakes we have become a banana republic with an elected Congress just for show. Our Constitution is all but gone.
Now start cutting back on other forms of welfare and use state finds to instead buy the dead beats one way tickets to welfare and OBozoCare friendly states.
Incompetence masking intent? Which would be Cloward Piven design to destroy our healthcare system and further drive the masses to demand govt. control? This is why this Gruber is lying to cover his lies.
No honest person would say, states that don’t have exchanges will be “missing out” on subsidies from the Feds— subsidies which cannot be maintained in a bankrupt economy and govt.
The design is deconstruction. And Gruber is a red diaper doper baby lying marxist. Like Cass Sunstein and obamaumao. Venture marxist dictators all.
Regardless what activiste justices and the corrupt media, including Obama guard dog Fx News, want everybody to think about the constitutionality of Democratcare, the Supreme Court has historically clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes.
State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added] Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass. Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphasis added] beyond the power of Congress. Linder v. United States, 1925.
And for those federal Democratic and RINO lawmakers who argue that if the Constitution doesnt say that they cant do something then they can do it, the Supreme Court has addressed that foolish idea too. The Supremes have clarified that powers not delegated by the states to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, are prohibited to the feds.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. United States v. Butler, 1936.
So if Mr. Gruber wants Democratcare to work then he needs to do the following. He needs to encourage Congress to propose a healthcare amendement to the Constitution to the states. And if the states choose to ratify Mr. Gruber's amendment, then Congress will have the specific power that it has always needed to establish Democratcare and Mr. Gruber will be a hero.
It's abundantly clear the 'Rats wrote the law the way they did to pressure the red states. They bet the law would be so popular by now, that the reluctant red states would find themselves forced politically to implement exchanges. But the 'Rats miscalculated how the politics would sort out, and now there aren't enough of them in that legally unchanged House to fix their mistake!
If the Court decides this case correctly, a whole bunch of lower-income voters, too rich for Medicaid, are going to find themselves facing the full dead weight of ObamaCare's inefficiencies, and there is going to be a lot of pressure on Congress to pass a fix. I would expect the House to demand the fix take the form of gutting the ACA. Won't pass the Senate, and Zero wouldn't sign it. Meanwhile, the Democrats and the media will be whining about those middle class Americans being screwed by those rascally red states and that scrooge House. All while Shrillary and Granny Warren compete to serve up vote-buying promises for 2016.
My hope is, as long as the Court is willing to read the law, that they'd take up that other challenge, based on the Origination Clause. ObamaCare is a revenue bill which originated in the Senate. That's unconstitutional and ample reason to rip out the whole thing, taxes, regulations, and all. Harry and Nancy should have thought about that when they had the chance!
Ripping ObamaCare out altogether would be far less disruptive. Americans were mostly satisfied with their health care before ObamaCare's implementation.
I wouldn't be without its problems, however. The economy would get a sudden boost, as part-timers become full-timers, and 49-employee small businesses suddenly grow. Maybe some of those medical device companies would come back from Ireland. The Donks would obviously try to take credit. But I'd rather deal with that problem than with a crippled health care system unfixable until 2017.
1. Grubers: We have all met Grubers in our lives.
2. They believe that they are the smartest persons in the room.
3 No mistakes: But the main thing about them is this: They believe that they don't make mistakes like us ordinary humans, or they believe that they rarely make mistakes.
4. My point is this: Gruber did not make a mistake when he talked about how only State exchanges could apply for Obamacare subsidies, because he said it at least twice. He knew exactly what he was saying. He knew exactly what the law said, because he wrote it. No typo error or excuse for Gruber. No "I was heavily medicated when i wrote it."
5.We also know that the law went through several revisions and proofreadings before it was finally accepted. So there is strong proof that what we see in the law is exactly what Gruber and Obama wanted in the law. Sorry, Gruber, but you messed up bigtime. So be it.
6. Since he wrote the law, I bet that he is one of the few persons who has actually read every word over and over. He probably even memorized the whole damn thing.
7. I can hear know-it-all Gruber defending himself:"Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?"
8. I say this to Gruber and his partner in crime Obama: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
I have no faith in Benedict Roberts to strike down the implementation of federally funding Obmacare where States have not set up exchanges. Benedict Roberts will come to the rescue of Obamacare once again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.