Jump to content

Obamacare Architect Provides Fodder for Court case


Proud Tiger

Recommended Posts

If the latest challenge to Obamacare subsidies continues in the courts, this guy may have provided some key comments supporting case against subsides in the states without fed exchanges.

http://cei.org/blog/obamacare-architect-admitted-2012-states-without-exchanges-lose-subsidies





  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Well, least Colorado is healthy. Good to know my taxes will go to help people that actually care about their health, can I get my taxes that go to buying songs and signs in Alabama shifted to Colorado also?

I think Obama thought that the states would be eager to set up exchanges. He also probably thought he coulddo what he wanted anyway. He pretty much has. This was too big to let go by. When you make something this monstrous and complicated something will end up being overlooked. Even the smartest people miss things and we are not dealing with the best and brightest among us with these people. They aren't as smart as they think they are.

I think Obama thought that the states would be eager to set up exchanges. He also probably thought he coulddo what he wanted anyway. He pretty much has. This was too big to let go by. When you make something this monstrous and complicated something will end up being overlooked. Even the smartest people miss things and we are not dealing with the best and brightest among us with these people. They aren't as smart as they think they are.

I sure wish the Republicans would hurry up and come out with their alternative.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/24/obamacare-plan-john-boehner_n_5618180.html?ir=Politics

I think Obama thought that the states would be eager to set up exchanges. He also probably thought he coulddo what he wanted anyway. He pretty much has. This was too big to let go by. When you make something this monstrous and complicated something will end up being overlooked. Even the smartest people miss things and we are not dealing with the best and brightest among us with these people. They aren't as smart as they think they are.

I sure wish the Republicans would hurry up and come out with their alternative.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/24/obamacare-plan-john-boehner_n_5618180.html?ir=Politics

Alternative? I'd be happy to return to status quo.

http://townhall.com/...re-lie-n1865810

Many Obamacare supporters have insisted that this was an oversight. A drafting error. A typo. And conservatives raising this point are off their rockers, they sneer. One of the most influential players in this dispute is Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist who is considered by many to be the architect of the law, and who toldthe New York Times, "I know more about this law than any other economist." He's filed amicus briefs in the relevant cases confirming liberals' assertions that it was never anyone's intention that only state-based exchange enrollees are eligible for taxpayer subsidies. Arguments to the contrary, he's said, are "screwy," "nutty," "stupid," and "desperate." In case he wasn't making himself clear, Gruberappeared on MSNBC this week and said this:

“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.”

Literally. He went on to decry suggestions to the contrary as "criminal." QED, right?

. Here's Gruber, who "knows more about this law than any other economist," explaining how the law he helped write and promote in 2012. The clip begins with his recent answer transcribed above, followed by his 2012 analysis:

Oops:

https://pbs.twimg.co...IuQE0.png:large

"If you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits." He affirmed conservatives' argument in 2012 by sharing his own expertise about the law as it's written. Then, when his own explanation became politically problematic, he reversed positions, shamelessly arguing that "literally" nobody had ever intended to make the case that he himself had explicitly laid out. Who's the "criminal," again? The Left, gobsmacked by this discovery, cast about for answers, and Gruber gave them one this morning. It was comically pathetic:

I honestly don’t remember why I said that.
I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake
. People make mistakes. Congress made a mistake drafting the law and I made a mistake talking about it...
My subsequent statement was just
a speak-o—you know, like a typo
.

A "speak-o." That's a new one. He was just confused, you guys. He accidentallysaid the wrong thing. He was "speaking off the cuff." People make mistakes. But do they make "off the cuff speak-o mistakes" repeatedly, and in prepared remarks?

from a separate 2012 Gruber speech has surfaced:

"Finally, the third risk, and
the one folks aren't talking about, which may be most important of all,
is the role of the states...Will people understand that gee,
if your governor doesn't set up an exchange, you're losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits
to be delivered to your citizens."

Not only did he offer this analysis at least twice, he emphasized the subsidy "risk" as an under-reported, highly important point. This man is a liar. And one of his prominent defenders has also

that misleading the public about Obamacare's contents is justified in order to "win." Prominent Democrats agreed. For the humiliated Left, Gruber has gone from the gold standard witness on this question to an afterthought.

I think Obama thought that the states would be eager to set up exchanges. He also probably thought he coulddo what he wanted anyway. He pretty much has. This was too big to let go by. When you make something this monstrous and complicated something will end up being overlooked. Even the smartest people miss things and we are not dealing with the best and brightest among us with these people. They aren't as smart as they think they are.

I sure wish the Republicans would hurry up and come out with their alternative.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/24/obamacare-plan-john-boehner_n_5618180.html?ir=Politics

Alternative? I'd be happy to return to status quo.

The republicans were never allowed a chance to amend or negotiate changes or alternatives to the ACA. The only negotiations and deals were amongst democrats, the health insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies.

I think Obama thought that the states would be eager to set up exchanges. He also probably thought he coulddo what he wanted anyway. He pretty much has. This was too big to let go by. When you make something this monstrous and complicated something will end up being overlooked. Even the smartest people miss things and we are not dealing with the best and brightest among us with these people. They aren't as smart as they think they are.

I sure wish the Republicans would hurry up and come out with their alternative.

http://www.huffingto...tml?ir=Politics

Alternative? I'd be happy to return to status quo.

I expect you had insurance then, huh?

Apparently, even the Republicans don't think that is an option, or it wouldn't be taking them so long to propose it.

I think Obama thought that the states would be eager to set up exchanges. He also probably thought he coulddo what he wanted anyway. He pretty much has. This was too big to let go by. When you make something this monstrous and complicated something will end up being overlooked. Even the smartest people miss things and we are not dealing with the best and brightest among us with these people. They aren't as smart as they think they are.

I sure wish the Republicans would hurry up and come out with their alternative.

http://www.huffingto...tml?ir=Politics

Alternative? I'd be happy to return to status quo.

The republicans were never allowed a chance to amend or negotiate changes or alternatives to the ACA. The only negotiations and deals were amongst democrats, the health insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies.

If they had changes and alternatives ready to present, what happened to them? Did they forget what they were?

They weren't interested in anything other than killing it.

Yes, a public figure has NEVER claimed to have "misspoke."

Tex, he had a speak-o when he denied it wasnt in there. not before.

The videos plainly state that there is a denial of subsidies if you are in the federal exchange.

Gruber plainly states on two videos in 2012.

Yes, a public figure has NEVER claimed to have "misspoke."

Tex, he had a speak-o when he denied it wasnt in there. not before.

The videos plainly state that there is a denial of subsidies if you are in the federal exchange.

Gruber plainly states on two videos in 2012.

This omission you guys are salivating over would be absolutely illogical if literally applied and was clearly unintentional.

Yes, a public figure has NEVER claimed to have "misspoke."

He didn't misspeak. How are you not getting this ? He got CAUGHT saying exactly what O-Care was intended to do - politically shame those who resisted the state subsidies and FORCE them to fall in line.

My god, how can anyone be so frelling blind and partisan and NOT see this ?

Yes, a public figure has NEVER claimed to have "misspoke."

He didn't misspeak. How are you not getting this ? He got CAUGHT saying exactly what O-Care was intended to do - politically shame those who resisted the state subsidies and FORCE them to fall in line.

My god, how can anyone be so frelling blind and partisan and NOT see this ?

Any non-partisan person with a brain and a basic sense of legislative interpretation readily sees this as a non- issue.

Any non-partisan person with a brain and a basic sense of legislative interpretation readily sees this as a non- issue.

Usually, when a person is in a deep hole and can't get out, they stop shoveling.

But not you.

WOW.

Parties over country....today's US political machine.

I think it's a big issue and I bet SCOTUS will too. It's already a big enough issue that two fed courts have heard arguments. But of course all those whose brains think like Pelosi will naturally disagree.

Yes, a public figure has NEVER claimed to have "misspoke."

He didn't misspeak. How are you not getting this ? He got CAUGHT saying exactly what O-Care was intended to do - politically shame those who resisted the state subsidies and FORCE them to fall in line.

My god, how can anyone be so frelling blind and partisan and NOT see this ?

Any non-partisan person with a brain and a basic sense of legislative interpretation readily sees this as a non- issue.

Yes, a public figure has NEVER claimed to have "misspoke."

He didn't misspeak. How are you not getting this ? He got CAUGHT saying exactly what O-Care was intended to do - politically shame those who resisted the state subsidies and FORCE them to fall in line.

My god, how can anyone be so frelling blind and partisan and NOT see this ?

Any non-partisan person with a brain and a basic sense of legislative interpretation readily sees this as a non- issue.

Get that memo to the courts...OBVIOUSLY they vigorously disagree with that assertion or they would have already closed the case. Progressive/liberals are masters of interpreting "implied" powers that were neither intended nor constitutional.

Yes, a public figure has NEVER claimed to have "misspoke."

He didn't misspeak. How are you not getting this ? He got CAUGHT saying exactly what O-Care was intended to do - politically shame those who resisted the state subsidies and FORCE them to fall in line.

My god, how can anyone be so frelling blind and partisan and NOT see this ?

Any non-partisan person with a brain and a basic sense of legislative interpretation readily sees this as a non- issue.

Yes, a public figure has NEVER claimed to have "misspoke."

He didn't misspeak. How are you not getting this ? He got CAUGHT saying exactly what O-Care was intended to do - politically shame those who resisted the state subsidies and FORCE them to fall in line.

My god, how can anyone be so frelling blind and partisan and NOT see this ?

Any non-partisan person with a brain and a basic sense of legislative interpretation readily sees this as a non- issue.

Get that memo to the courts...OBVIOUSLY they vigorously disagree with that assertion or they would have already closed the case. Progressive/liberals are masters of interpreting "implied" powers that were neither intended nor constitutional.

Once again, your view of facts is biased:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/commentary-the-fate-of-the-obamacare-subsidies-in-the-supreme-court/

Dude said the law was written to coerce states who didn't fall in line would do so. Courts say subsidies are illegal.

Hilarity ensues.

Dude said the law was written to coerce states who didn't fall in line would do so. Courts say subsidies are illegal.

Hilarity ensues.

Courts disagree. Right wingers heads explode over the ambiguity.

Yes, a public figure has NEVER claimed to have "misspoke."

He didn't misspeak. How are you not getting this ? He got CAUGHT saying exactly what O-Care was intended to do - politically shame those who resisted the state subsidies and FORCE them to fall in line.

My god, how can anyone be so frelling blind and partisan and NOT see this ?

Any non-partisan person with a brain and a basic sense of legislative interpretation readily sees this as a non- issue.

Yes, a public figure has NEVER claimed to have "misspoke."

He didn't misspeak. How are you not getting this ? He got CAUGHT saying exactly what O-Care was intended to do - politically shame those who resisted the state subsidies and FORCE them to fall in line.

My god, how can anyone be so frelling blind and partisan and NOT see this ?

Any non-partisan person with a brain and a basic sense of legislative interpretation readily sees this as a non- issue.

Get that memo to the courts...OBVIOUSLY they vigorously disagree with that assertion or they would have already closed the case. Progressive/liberals are masters of interpreting "implied" powers that were neither intended nor constitutional.

Once again, your view of facts is biased:

http://www.scotusblo...-supreme-court/hy

Theres NOTHING in that piece that contradicts what I posted. try something else...that failed miserably at making a point, if you have one. It says the case is more than likely going back to the Supreme Court. Why is that necessary if what you're contending is factual? This is not a done deal, by any means, for the proponents of ACA. it seems to me that O-mans record with these "non-issues" going to the SCOTUS isn't that spectacular. Losing 9 straight in unanimous fashion isn't exactly a record of sterling endorsements.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...