Obamacare Architect Provides Fodder for Court case

[AURaptor 1,125]

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.

So far, the courts haven't.

Nothing ambiguous about this, what so ever.

[TexasTiger 12,888]

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.

So far, the courts haven't.

Nothing ambiguous about this, what so ever.

I cited a source you won't at least reflexively reject :

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/22/federal-appeals-court-invalidates-some-obamacare-subsidies-in-blow-to-health/

[TexasTiger 12,888]

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.

So far, the courts haven't.

Nothing ambiguous about this, what so ever.

I cited a source you won't at least reflexively reject :

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/22/federal-appeals-court-invalidates-some-obamacare-subsidies-in-blow-to-health/

Here's an additional one for any reasonable person who may be reading:

http://m.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/federal-appeals-court-panel-deals-major-blow-to-health-law/2014/07/22/c86dd2ce-06a5-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Old news.

[TexasTiger 12,888]

Old news.

This week.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Tuesday. In today's world that's old news.

[TexasTiger 12,888]

Tuesday. In today's world that's old news.

you started a thread about what a guy said in 2012.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Sometimes history is pertinent and hasn't already been discussed here recently. Go back and read my first post in starting this thread. It states that "if this issue continues in courts" recognizing that it has already been heard.

[TexasTiger 12,888]

Sometimes history is pertinent and hasn't already been discussed here recently. Go back and read my first post in starting this thread. It states that "if this issue continues in courts" recognizing that it has already been heard.

Heard with differing results.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Really is sad to see them continue to save the ship when the bow is already under the surface.

[cptau 169]

At this point the democrat politicians might want the SCOTUS to overturn the welfare subsidized plans in the non state exchanges. It would topple the ACA and give them a campaign issue.

Democrats would have been better off if Roberts hadn't given them his strange vote on the ACA fine turning it into a legal federal tax. All the democrats could have campaigned on that for the last 4 years instead of running from the ACA.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

TexT....you are correct, but I never said there were equal results did I? I only referred to "continuing this in the courts." As usual you try to dodge.

[DKW 86 7,425]

Tex, Gruber said publicly, on video, multiple times that there are no subsidies for those in the Federal Exchange.

Gruber THE architect of the ACA.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Thanks DKW for trying to get back to the threads topic.

[TexasTiger 12,888]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/jonathan-gruber-obamacare-halbig-tapes-other-evidence

For anyone generally interested in facts.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Gruber changed his tune after the "administration" explained things to him. FACT remains he did say what he said in 2012. Can't change that FACT.

[TexasTiger 12,888]

Gruber changed his tune after the "administration" explained things to him. FACT remains he did say what he said in 2012. Can't change that FACT.

He said it prior to 2012 when it was being considered. You're grasping at straws and don't seem to realize it.

[AUtiger98 24]

Let me get this straight, it was a typo and we're now asking the Supreme Court to be a spell checker for Congress.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

TexT.......you got it wrong. I'm swallowing nats and you are swallowing elephants. Do a poll and find out how many posters here believe this story of "I said it but didn't mean it."

[TexasTiger 12,888]

TexT.......you got it wrong. I'm swallowing nats and you are swallowing elephants. Do a poll and find out how many posters here believe this story of "I said it but didn't mean it."

You have a real problem discerning relevance.

[DKW 86 7,425]

Tex, if a man says the sun rises in the West and sets in the East, that does not make it so.

Gruber explicitly stated, multiple times, on video, that there would be no subsidies to those that enroll in the Federal Exchanges.

Anyone that has more than two brain cells can listen and watch for themselves.

Gruber, multiple times, uncoerced, on the record, on video, stated that there are no subsidies for those in the Federal Exchanges.

That's the way a Democrat controlled Congress wrote the laws, by themselves and passed them literally in the dead of night.

I could care less what the moral outrage here was, or what the double secret society intent was.

Fact: the law reads as Gruber described it. Words mean things. Lawyers wrote this crap and poured over it ad nauseum.

They wrote what they wanted to write.

"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," Gruber said in a January 2012 presentation on the ACA for Noblis, a nonprofit research organization.

"Now, I guess I'm enough of a believer in democracy to think that when the voters in states see that by not setting up an exchange the politicians of a state are costing state residents hundreds and millions and billions of dollars, that they'll eventually throw the guys out. But I don't know that for sure. And that is really the ultimate threat, is, 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," he said in a January 10, 2012 speech to the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco.

http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_0912_sanders.html

Section 1411(a)(2) prescribes the procedures for determining eligibility for Exchange participation, outlining criteria for premium tax credits, available under § 1401, and reduced cost-sharing, available under PPACA § 1402.¹⁴ Section 1401 makes tax credits available throughstate Exchanges established under § 1311—with no mention of federal Exchanges, which are established pursuant to § 1321©. Thus, a strict reading of § 36B does not make subsidies available through federal Exchanges, meaning that large employers fined for not offering coverage could challenge the fine by asserting the employee received the tax credit in error. An employer’s motivation for trying to take tax credits away from employees, despite the potential effects on morale and loyalty, lie in avoiding the penalty: the employer cannot be fined if its employees do not collect tax credits. This argument would provide judicial opportunity to review the IRS regulations.<a name="_ftnref15" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'; font-size: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">¹⁵

[TexasTiger 12,888]

I'm not disputing that in 2012 he said something that contradicted what he said prior to then and since then. My point is that 2012 was well after the AFA was passed and leading up to that point he apparently had not taken that position. When somebody contradicts the position they have typically taken, a reasonable person interprets the contradiction in the larger context . You guys can get all excited if you want, but it's an irrelevant tempest in the tea party's silly little tea pot.

Having said that, I've wasted enough time on this. Salivate all you want over this nonissue.

[Tigermike 3,029]

Having said that, I've wasted enough time on this. Salivate all you want over this nonissue.

There's a lot of "non issues" with this administration isn't there.

[TexasTiger 12,888]

Having said that, I've wasted enough time on this. Salivate all you want over this nonissue.

There's a lot of "non issues" with this administration isn't there. ;)/>

Non-issues are your domain.

[Tigermike 3,029]

Having said that, I've wasted enough time on this. Salivate all you want over this nonissue.

There's a lot of "non issues" with this administration isn't there. ;)/>

Non-issues are your domain.

Obviously they are yours, you spend a lot of time trying to make all Obama negatives a non issue.