Skip to comments.2012 Video shows major Obamacare architect confirm subsidies were meant only for state exchange
Posted on 07/25/2014 1:39:19 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
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.
[Text and :59 video SNIP]
PS: Possibly the most damning thing about this video is that Jonathan Gruber stated, quite forthrightly, that the decision to deny subsidies to federal exchange policies was deliberate, and designed to push states into starting their own exchanges. That is
extremely unhelpful to the current Democratic narrative.
Shows that Ø couldn't care less about health care - he is totally focused now on Cloward-Piven.
He basically is like the terrorist driving thru the national park throwing lighted matches out the window - one here in Health Care row, another in Amnesty forest, another at Hamas mountain, and so on
And Washington burns...both the state and the district.
I am certain that the “architects” of Obamacare, when asked about these things, would likely say with confidence “Well, you have to break a few eggs to make omelets...” with the full belief and mutual understanding that it was necessary for “the greater good”.
They would also take great satisfaction at the destruction of “big medicine” as run by private entities that currently (or at least until recently) constitute health care.
They see any opportunity to replace “Big (insert your economic sector here, Pharm, Medicine, Energy, etc) with “Big Government”.
They are evil, especially the POS who Gruber. When everything is destroyed and in rubble, and there is indeed equality, and equality of inefficiency, waste, ineffectiveness and misery, they will be nowhere to be found.
They will all have “Moved On”. Kind of makes you realize why the Leftists knowingly smirk and snicker at the reality of naming an liberal organization something like “MoveOn. org”.
And ten the guy goes out and lies his ass off denying exactly what he said in his presentation.
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.
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.
These people lie with impunity
This part of the law was by design, as admitted, to make states bend to the federal will.
Your state’s citizens have to pay for Obamacare but if your state does not set up an exchange, then its citizens that would otherwise qualify for subsidies will not get any.
The carrot and the stick, applied with a vengeance to us guinea pigs here in flyover country...
Fast forward to now, CW.
Hurray for the American People via their state governments.
THIRTY SIX STATES REFUSED TO SET UP AN EXCHANGE.
We just need to keep on our feet, pushing back.
“We just need to keep on our feet, pushing back”
I was listening to a talk radio guest expert say that what would torpedo Obamacare is the following, assuming SCOTUS goes the right way:
The law also means that individuals cannot be penalized if they qualify for subsidies but can’t get them via a state exchange, and that pushes their cost for a policy to more than EIGHT PER CENT of their income.
That’s the line drawn by law.
I’d bet dollars to doughnuts this ‘admission’ will never be brought up into evidence of any further O’Care challenge (if there’s any ‘standing’ left to be had)
Course, IMHO, we should flood the court system w/ challenges on every detail: Congress can tax, but by what authority does it have to spend on XYZ/healchare; Congress shall make law, not HHS/etc.,; If it’s a tax, must it not Proportioned?; etc...
Then, when diff. courts give different ‘rulings’, the house of cards should fall much faster.