Skip to comments.Flashback 2012: We Predicted Subsidies Would Trip Up Obamacare
Posted on 07/22/2014 6:47:10 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: Now, back on July 3rd, 2012. You can go look it up, with our brilliant exhaustive search feature at RushLimbaugh.com.
"These 'State Exchanges' Are a Health Care DMV," is the slug line of the segment, and I am just gonna read to you excerpts of what I said that day, July 3rd, 2012. "[Michael Tanner]: 'One last wrinkle: It is those subsidies that trigger the penalty,' or the tax, whatever you want to call it, 'under Obamacare for employers who fail to provide workers with insurance. So states that don't set up exchanges could also escape the 'employer mandate.'"
Now, I said it a little differently, but states that didn't create exchanges got them through the federal exchange, but that's not within the letter of the law. I also said, "'Obamacare requires employers with 50 or more workers to provide health insurance or pay a fine...er, tax. But that tax only kicks in if at least one employee qualifies for subsidies under the exchange.'" So way back in July of 2012 we nailed this, that if the subsidies were killed, both the individual and employer mandates were also dead.
I was able to come to that conclusion because it was what the law said, and it was the law that was upheld today. I further said, "'Since subsidies can only be provided via a state-authorized exchange, a state that refuses to set one up could end up blocking the employer mandate altogether.'" Now, I also pointed out that it was nowhere near over. I just wanted to make one more observation, and I repeated what I said there.
But the point was "'[F]ederal subsidies are available only through exchanges that the states set up' because the law says 'The Feds can't offer subsidies through a federally run exchange.'" I cited Talking Points Memo, which is left-wing blog out there, that was very upset about this aspect of the law, that the Feds couldn't offer subsidies through their exchange, HealthCare.gov.
Talking Points Memo said, "Because as the result of a drafting oversight, Congress neglected to include automatic appropriations for federally facilitated exchanges (FFEs)." So even back in 2012 the left said, "Hey, wait a minute! That's not what you meant. We know what you meant! You meant to give away subsidies to everybody." So they've had it set up for two years now.
There was a great article by Michael Tanner at Cato Institute we were bouncing off two years ago in analyzing what was ahead. This is what I mean, folks, when I say you're on the cutting edge of societal evolution if you are tuned to this program, 'cause you're gonna find out way in advance what is gonna happen. Now, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, boiled this down to its essence. (summarized)
"To hell with the law! We got most of the DC circuit court judges in our pocket, and it doesn't matter, and you haven't lost your subsidies. So all the rest of this is just a bunch of legal eagle, pointy-headed legal academics sitting around and flapping their gums. It doesn't mean a thing. Don't sweat it. Life goes on. We got more fundraisers to attend." That, ladies and gentlemen, is the sum total.
Now it’s time for Rush and Mr. Cato Institute Analyst to predict the opinions as they go through en banc appeals court review and then USSC. Looks like another 2 years, or just before the 2016 elections before we have this part “settled.”
Viva el Rushbo
The Supremes will get the case by fall, and have to decide by July of 2015. As everything occurs...it will be hot primary building season in Iowa and the other four states...getting ready for January of 2016. The whole whole primary might be about a failed program, how to fix it, and the massive financial chaos that occurs in January of 2016 as five to eight million Americans quit their health care package because they can’t afford it. Then, we all stand there....seven years after the fact, and ask what exactly was achieved? The same number of people without health insurance as 2008...in 2016....and everyone else paying thirty-to-fifty percent more than they did in 2008. No dimwit political analyst will be able to stand there and explain how we came full-circle, with nothing really achieved.
I only disagree (possibly) with your timeline. If they have the full DC appeals court opine, that takes months (my bet). That means the Supremes don’t get it by Fall 14 for a July 15 decision time. Things take longer than we hope, is my bet.