Skip to comments.Gruber vs. Gruber
Posted on 07/25/2014 6:34:36 PM PDT by SteveH
It seems to us Gruber has an awfully broad definition of "typo." A typo is when you write "established by the Stake" when you mean to write "established by the State," not when you write "established by the State" when you mean "." Nonetheless, many ObamaCare supporters agree with Gruber that the passage in question was, as others have put it, a mere "drafting error"--that Congress could not possibly have meant to exclude the federal exchange from the subsidy program.
Many, but not all. One who disagrees is Jonathan Gruber, who not only is a supporter of ObamaCare but was one of the law's architects. In a January 2012 speech, a video of which Ryan Radia of the Competitive Enterprise Institute posted yesterday on CEI's website (with credit for the tip to Rich Weinstein), Gruber explained the rationale:
What's important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits--but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you're essentially saying [to] your citizens you're 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.
It may seem hard to believe that there were two guys named Jonathan Gruber, both of whom helped design ObamaCare, who hold contradictory views of how a key provision of the law was supposed to work. And there weren't. The contradictory quotes come from the same Jonathan Gruber.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
” the politics can get ugly around this.” Seriously
That was one possibility that occurred to me, that it was written that way intentionally to bully states into playing along.
It was not a typo, it was a speak 0.
WSJ is dead to me. Pro-amnesty trash
exactly. It was intended as a hammer.
Also, see the Baucus comments in committee, 23 SEP 2009. Posted all over the net including here at FR.
Legislative intent is clear.
Someone forgot to tell CSpan to take the clip down. Oops.
Barone nails the reason dems had it written as it was written, here:
And it was no drafting error.
Actually post #7 explains why the Obama socialist left tried to coerce states. It was because the courts have always shot down federal government attempts to ‘commandeer’ state budgets or items that affect state budgets.
That's not just a possibility. It is the reality. The 'Rats bet the law would be so popular by now, that the reluctant red states would find themselves forced politically to implement exchanges. They miscalculated, and now there aren't enough 'Rats in the House to fix it!
But, much as I'd like to see a major mess blamed on that lying snake Gruber, it would nevertheless be a major mess that could not get resolved until 2017. I would prefer to see the law struck down in toto for having been passed in violation of the Origination Clause. Then we'd be back to the old health care system until 2017.
He doesn’t seem to understand what the word “literally” means either:
“Literally every single person involved in the crafting of this law has said that it’s a typo”
So keep your tyranny pills under a thousand pages and maybe you’ll be able to proofread them, don’t take it out on us.
They should just issue all of these economics profs hot pants and f*** me heels so that people won’t get any mistaken impressions.
Thanks for the link to another good article