Skip to comments.Watch Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Admit in 2012 That Subsidies Were Limited to State-Run...
Posted on 07/24/2014 9:38:04 PM PDT by ironman
Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who helped design the Massachusetts health law that was the model for Obamacare, was a key influence on the creation of the law. He was widely quoted in the media. During the crafting of the law, the Obama administration brought him on for his expertise. He was paid almost $400,000 to consult with the administration on the law. And he has claimed to have written part of the legislation, the section dealing with small business tax credits.
After the law passed, in 2011 and throughout 2012, multiple states sought his expertise to help them understand their options regarding the choice to set up their own exchanges. During that period of time, in January of 2012, Gruber told an audience at Noblis, a technical management support organization, that tax creditsthe subsidies available for health insurancewere only available in states that set up their own exchanges.
A video of the presentation, posted on YouTube, was unearthed tonight by Ryan Radia at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank which has participated in the legal challenge to the IRS rule allowing subsidies in federal exchanges. Heres what Gruber says.
Whats important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you dont set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax creditsbut 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 that's 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Mitt Romney’s guy!
Well, there you have it, prima facie evidence of the intent of the section of the law in question. This should be a breeze for all the high minded rulers of our nation that hold judgeship.
He supports Obamacare, he helped write the pertinent section (Halbig), he was taking the position of the successful plaintiffs not too very long ago, and now that the SCOTUS agrees with him/them, he says it’s a typo.
He’s an Obamanite all right. And, no, Reason, we still don’t want to get on board.
Can’t Brackus just change the words to meet the needs of the White House, through an executive order?
Why should anybody be surprised that a constitutionally indefensible federal healthcare bill that was irresponsibly not read before it was passed is self-destructing? It’s kind of like finding a Trojan Horse inside a Trojan Horse.
Well well well.
What would basically be an ‘executive nunc pro tunc’ order.
Such a legal order corrects an obvious mistake, basically so the judge doesn’t look to his peers and lower feeders like the type of lazy judge who has his staff stamp too many Orders, or fails to read judgments or Orders before passing ... I mean, signing.
What’s really funny is a nunc pro tunc that is also mistaken because the lawyer tripped-up again but the judge signed, again w/o reading it.
But in this case a court should do it, I think.
But then I thought that the legislature should decree an amnesty, if an amnesty were to be given, and I wasn’t aware that was ‘doable’ by presidential diktat, so what do I know?
Nanzi did warn us that they weren’t bothering to read it until it was passed but I guess the guy who wrote it forgot to proof it too. He says it’s a typo.
Man, that’s embarrassing in a small office, a dozen or or so people, a community or town. But nationwide, mmmm mm mmmmm
It is not a bug, it is a feature.
That’s what I call a smoking gun. Thanks for posting.
People really need to watch this video.
This guy is a real piece of work and it’s really educational to see the mentality of our nanny state elite at work.
Last thing I would want is this pencil neck geek making health care decisions for me
FWIW, he lied his ass off in a various forums about the true intent as described below
“In early 2013, Gruber told the liberal magazine Mother Jones that the theory advanced by the challengers in this case was “nutty.” Gruber also signed an amicus brief in defense of the administration and the IRS rule. But judging by the video it is quite clear that in 2012 he accepted the essence of the interpretation advanced by the challengers.
Unless this video is a fraud or there are relevant details missing, there are only two options here: Either Gruber, a key influence on the legislation who wrote part of the law and who consulted with multiple states on setting up their own exchanges, was correct, and the law explicitly limits subsidies to state-run exchanges.
Or he was wrong in a way that perfectly aligns with both the clear text of the legislation and the argument later made by the challengers to the IRS rule allowing susbidies in federal exchanges.
Update: Earlier this week, Gruber was on MNSBC to address the Halbig ruling. He was asked if the language limiting subsidies to state-run exchanges was a typo. His response: “It is unambiguous this is a typo. Literally every single person involved in the crafting of this law has said that it`s a typo, that they had no intention of excluding the federal states.”
This guy is a lying sack of crap.
I wonder how long before this video gets scrubbed.
A typo is when public becomes pubic. This is a hell of a lot more than a typo.
It was set up to punish states that didn’t go along. Simple enough. You don’t set up the exchange, your citizens suffer, you’ll lose your job. It really is that plain. They expected every state to cower under the threat. Now that it didn’t happen that way they want another bite at the apple.
Johnathan, you magnificent moron! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtnEmPXEpr0&t=31m25s
I remember this going on. This was all part of the pressure on states to set up their own exchanges to make 0Care look like one big happy Federal-State effort and not just the Federales imposing their top down solutions. All to get the states irrevocably tangled up in 0Kare.
To make the states into co-conspirators. To spread the blame for any 0Kare problems so the Federales (0bama regime) can lay them off on the states
"typo" error? What do they mean?
1. Are they talking about a particular word?
2. A certain sentence?
3. A certain paragraph?
4. And who made the "typo"error? A secretary?
5. Someone please explain what the pro-Obama people mean when they talk about a "typo"?
6. That law is huge and complex. So, are there other "typos" in the law that we all missed, or is the "typo" talked about above the only "typo" error in the entire law?
It doesn’t matter if one or a hundred of the cabal that brewed this evil legislation backtrack and say they ‘meant’ something else.
The fact is that the Senate passed the bill [unread] and the House via Pelosi ‘deemed’ it passed [unread] and it became law. It went from the hands of the crafters to the legislators, and King Hussein signed it.
It is law. Bad, very bad law, but law nonetheless.
The Constitution says nothing about ‘do overs’. If they want a do over, then try and get a new bill through Congress.
for follow up
@mfcannon: Obama advisor Gruber: “you dont set up an Exchange, that means your citizens dont get their tax credits.” http://ow.ly/zzgr8 #Halbig