Posted on 11/08/2014 7:54:37 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
This statement should be bolded and circulated widely.
Frank's statement, while he may not have intended to be so "frank" (pun intended), is a statement of fact which indicates the sheer arrogance of the Obama-Reid-Pelosi team and their rubber stamp Democrats.
Arrogance and an underestimation of the intelligence and will of "the People" who are their bosses in the States brought about this "mistake" which the Supreme Court should not legitimize by allowing any other interpretation of the word "mistake" when applied to the abominable Trojan Horse legislation masked as having to do with health care in America.
Gruber's description, coming from a complicit architect of ACA, should be accepted as evidence of intent, and "the People" and "States" have spoken!
This is what comes of having to pass bills in order to know what is in them, Bawney.
This is what comes of having to pass bills in order to know what is in them, Bawney.
There is another glaring error. There is no severability clause. It isn't subject to a piecemeal modification.
Don’t forget, not all of those 14 states have 2 rat senators either. KY is one of the 14 states, so it is down to a max of 13 x2.
Roberts is a strict constructionist and will interpret the relevant language in the Obamacare statute according to its clear wording, meaning that he rule against the government on this.
It’s perfectly true that if SCOTUS holds for the appellant, the only thing that will happen is that the residents of many states, presumably all of them with Republican governors, will not get subsidized. Which is an enormous political embarrassment in the sense that the Democrat schemers intentionally wrote this part of the bill the way they did in a blatant attempt to “roll” all Republican governors. They thought they would electorally destroy any Republican who stood against the ACA. And for their trouble all they got was the 2010 and 2014 election results.They managed to bluff the GOPe in 2012, getting George RomneyCare for a Washington Generals opponent - but now they are looking into the maw of a presidential election with no Democrat incumbent POTUS and with Captain Ahab heading their party.
This SCOTUS case might focus the minds of surviving Democrat senators from 2010 who will face a bloody-minded electorate in ’16 if ObamaCare isn’t drastically modified long enough before the election to take it off the table before then. Even the class of ’12 has to know that they need to get out from under the ObamaCare albatross before ’18 rolls around.
Trouble is, we all face a bloody-minded POTUS for the next two 1/4 years. IMHO we need a constitutional amendment to make it possible to impeach the president without a 2/3 vote of the Senate. Don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but a different mechanism is needed.
Here Gruber is saying just that. By the way, Gruber sounds like he could be Barney's husband.
Sure it is. Congress could easily amend it by adding a provision saying that those people in states that haven't set up exchanges will also qualify for subsidies. Congress won't do that, of course, now that it is firmly in Republican control.
A severability clause says that if a provision in the statute is deemed to be unenforceable, it will not affect the enforceability of the balance of the statute. This is not an enforceability issue, but an interpretation issue.
so once the supremes enforce strict construction and the obamacare enrollees get the bill for the actual costs, what? the republicans wait until the boiling point is reached, and then propose forgiveness of individual debts along with a general repeal of the entire bill?
I believe the penalties (tax) for not buying insurance are also involved in this case. If there are no subsidies, there can be no tax for not buying the product.
-— There is a song on youtube called “Dreamer” -—
I hear you. But hear me now and believe me later. I think the conventional wisdom is beginning to change. Obamacare no longer seems inevitable. And after the election, it’s beginning to look like something for flabby losers. Obamacare supporters now appear to be on the wrong side of history. They don’t want to “make history” for the wrong reason. They’ll just want to give this thing two in the hat and quickly forget about it.
If I recall correctly, there weren’t 60 votes for Federal exchanges.
The Bill was written this way so it could pass.
Right so that the States would get equal blame for the crime of 0Kare
Liberal states built them...most of them probably. States with some common sense leadership wanted nothing to do with this Federale dreck
PPACA architect Jonathan Gruber openly brags about the benefits of political deception.
“this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3224927/posts?page=4
I have a great idea! Why not just fix the law when the justices hear it? They could just make it say what they think it should say and enforce it that way!
Wait...uh...they do that already??
Never mind.
That must be why he opined that the word, "penalty" does not mean a penalty, but really means, "tax", which he strictly based on the enumerated Health Care power in the Constitution
Cordially,
You certainly get an A+ for snideness.
The tax code has been used for decades to encourage certain behaviors. A good example is the mortgage interest deduction. Congress wanted to encourage home ownership so it provided for a mortgage interest deduction. The "penalty" is the converse of that. Congress (at the time) wanted to encourage people to buy health insurance so it provided for a penalty to those who did not do so. Whether it's called a penalty or a tax is merely a matter of semantics. The administration argued before the Supreme Court that the penalty is a tax and I think they and Roberts were right about that. I know many people disagree with me, but I'm a lawyer and know quite a bit about this subject. I am certain that Roberts will rule against the administration on the subsidy issue.
"[W]e have never—never—treated as a tax an exaction which faces up to the critical difference between a tax and a penalty, and explicitly denominates the exaction a 'penalty.' Eighteen times in §5000A itself and elsewhere throughout the Act, Congress called the exaction in §5000A(b) a 'penalty.'"Cordially,".. We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty. See Affordable Health Care for America Act, H. R. 3962, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §501 (2009); America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, S. 1796, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §1301."
"..The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax."
But, then, the Republican Congress will come to the rescue -- and amend the bill to allow subsidies.
For the chil'run...
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.