Skip to comments.Obamacare Architect Explained Intent Behind Allowing Subsidies Only On State Exchanges
Posted on 07/25/2014 3:05:58 PM PDT by right-wing agnostic
Jonathan Gruber, a professor at MIT, is widely is regarded as the architect of both Romneycare and Obamacare. Following the D.C. Circuits decision in Halbig, he asserted that the provision of Obamacare limiting subsidies to the state exchanges was a typo. Indeed, he found it criminal to suggest that Obamacare was intended to work this way.
But William Jacobson (via one of his readers) has unearthed video from 2012 in which Gruber explains why Obamacare limits subsidies to participants in state exchanges the view of the statute he now finds criminal.
Gruber stated: I think 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
It’s clear that the dems played the political card against the repub Govs. When the govs didn’t play the game, the deems now want to retract the law. Hilarious if not so obvious.
Let’s see how the supremes can sing their way out of this one.
Another reason why sweat is piling up in the WH.
The entire Obama administration is a “typo.”
Well, I don’t hate Bush, but I do hate Roberts. Frickin’ torpedoed this country. Should this go back to SCOTUS, he’d best get his constitutional act together.
They obviously did not see this coming
HE LIES. Like so many other Obozo allies.
Gruber is a liar, and not a very good one.
Tax credits, schmax credits. Tie the boyh behind a pickup and drag him around a parking lot. Then let’s see if citizen tax credits are the most important thing.
You mean it didn’t go according to their plans? Wow that never happens. /s
From what I know about tax law, and it isnt much, the Federal Government cant impose different tax laws for different states.
Since Roberts has called the penalty a tax, it must be imposed to all citizens in all states in the same way. It would seem that this is impossible due to a difference in insurance set up and access in the states.
Therefore the ACA is unconstitutional based on the Roberts decision?
I distinctly remember officials announcing, around the time states were setting up exchanges, that those non-exchange states wouldn’t be getting subsidies. It was supposed to be a “stick and carrot” approach to getting all the states to cooperate.
Remember, we are dealing with lawyers here. Anything, repeat, anything is possible and probable.
I would love to know how Roberts suckered the Bush fools into appointing him.
He was the favorite of his leftist law professors !
“I would love to know how Roberts suckered the Bush fools into appointing him.”
George W. Bush also tried to put Harriet Myers on the Court. His father did put David Souter on the Court. Colin Powell was Secretary of State for George W. Bush and Robert Gates was his second Defense Secretary. He retained Clinton’s Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta and put the Chairman of Goldman Sach, Henry Paulson, in charge of Treasury just in time to give Goldman and the rest of the Wall Street “too big to fail” banking syndicate the biggest taxpayer bailout in history. George W. Bush was not a conservative. He was a member of the Ivy League elitist nobility that rules this nation.
1. The authors intentionally wrote it that way thinking they had a political hammer in the plain and clear text of the law. They miscalculated. Is not ambiguous, but it was a mistake. Sorry ... you lose. States only.
2. Baucus made the intent and language clear in committee Sept 23, 2009. Cspan has the video. Legislative intent should not be in question. The lawyers need to get this into their briefs.
Same tax for each state. Use exchanges, get subsidy. Forego exchanges, no subsidy. As another said, it’s a carrot and stick approach: you don’t have to, but get rewarded if you do. Same options for all states. Just like other things like federal highway funds.
And a sniveling arrogant marxist degenerate prick.
Consider the recent revelation that the Obama administration has been making very large, undisclosed payments to MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber to provide consultation on the President’s health care plan.
With this lucrative arrangement in place, Gruber spent the entire year offering public justifications for Obama’s health care plan, typically without disclosing these payments, and far worse, was repeatedly held out by the White House — falsely — as an “independent” or “objective” authority.
Obama allies in the media constantly cited Gruber’s analysis to support their defenses of the President’s plan, and the White House, in turn, then cited those media reports as proof that their plan would succeed. This created an infinite “feedback loop” in favor of Obama’s health care plan which — unbeknownst to the public — was all being generated by someone who was receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in secret from the administration (read this to see exactly how it worked).
In other words, this arrangement was quite similar to the Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher scandals which Democrats, in virtual lockstep, condemned.
Paul Krugman, for instance, in 2005 angrily lambasted right-wing pundits and policy analysts who received secret, undisclosed payments, and said they lack “intellectual integrity”; he specifically cited the Armstrong Williams case. Yet the very same Paul Krugman last week attacked Marcy Wheeler for helping to uncover the Gruber payments by accusing her of being “just like the right-wingers with their endless supply of fake scandals.”
What is one key difference? Unlike Williams and Gallagher, Jonathan Gruber is a Good, Well-Intentioned Person with Good Views — he favors health care — and so massive, undisclosed payments from the same administration he’s defending are dismissed as a “fake scandal.”
But, but - one of the many weasel ways judges have of imposing their views on the public in spite of the law is to assert that while the law may say one thing, the intent of those who wrote it actually was something else - here’s a clear case of the intent in fact being in line with the law as written - let’s see how the wiggle around it......
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.