Friday, July 25, 2014

That was then, this is now

From the people who brought you "Benghazi is just a made up scandal by Fox News", and "the IRS is just doing their job when they investigate conservative groups", and "If you like your doctor/health care plan, you can keep your doctor/health care plan":  In other words, liberals.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in DC ruled that when Congress wrote the words "enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311" when explaining who could get subsidies, what they really meant was that people enrolled in an Exchange established by the Sate could get subsidies.  In other words, the language is perfectly clear.  No grey area.  The left wants you to think that this is a ridiculous interpretation and that "obviously" Congress could not possibly have intended that.

Enter Jonathan Gruber, the "architect" of Obamacare.   Gruber is a professor at MIT who has written several books on health care and public policy.  Here are two tidbits that may shed some light on what is going on.


Gruber: In the law, it says if the states don't provide them, the federal backstop will. The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its backstop, I think partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it.  I think 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'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, and that they'll do it. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this.

Gruber: "Chris (Matthews), 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. And why would they?"

Update: Gruber now claims that the original statement was just some off-the-cuff remarks. Only problem is that they were actually prepared remarks and the original paper that he made the remarks from still exists.  Whoops.  The cover-up continues.

No comments: