"
The problem with his explanations is that Jonathan Gruber doesn’t “flake.” He knows this law in and out. He knew what his words meant, with all their implications, when he spoke them. He knew the feature he was describing essentially gave each state a veto over the PPACA’s exchange subsidies, employer mandate and to a large extent its individual mandate. He knew that could lead to adverse selection. To claim Gruber didn’t know what he was saying is as absurd as saying a conductor might fail to notice that the brass section suddenly stopped playing."
Supporters of the Obama administration have downplayed Gruber’s comments because he is not a member of Congress. Nevertheless, he played a larger role in writing the PPACA, and knows more about it than most members of Congress. Gruber’s comments raise questions about whether this (correct) interpretation of the law was also understood by the members of Congress and administration officials Gruber advised.
They also corroborate other evidence showing that the administration was aware it was breaking the law all along. Last year, seven career Treasury and IRS officials told congressional investigators that they knew the PPACA did not authorize them to issue tax credits in federal exchanges, and that their regulations had originally confined tax credits to exchanges “established by the State.” At the direction of their political-appointee superiors, however, they dropped that language and announced that tax credits would be available through exchanges established by the federal government as well.
12 comments:
Impeach Obama? Hell no - elect him for another term! He is awesome!
MacGruber for VP!
"Supporters of the Obama administration have downplayed Gruber’s comments because he is not a member of Congress."
That was a jab at rest of the lap-dog media.
Gruber then became part of the story on Thursday when a video surfaced in which he espouses the very interpretation of the law he now publicly derides as “screwy,” “nutty” and “stupid.” In 2012, Gruber told an audience: “If you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.”
The administration’s “implausibility” argument was itself always implausible. Even the 4th Circuit rejected it when it ruled in favor of the government (in King v. Burwell) on the same day the D.C. Circuit ruled for the plaintiffs. The Gruber video demolishes that argument.
This is why, increasingly, the left want the cameras off, and the mics shut down.
Tax credits - another way of saying-- other tax payers will pick up the tab.
Single payer is tax payer funded health care, and it's here. That's why the IRS is in charge of enforcement. A politicized IRS. Shouldn't the left be celebrating? Instead it's just more lies and excuses.
More ACA corruption.
We have been telling lefties all along - you big bad evil insurance companies got in to bed with this thing. Where is the outrage?
Publicly, President Obama loves to demonize insurance companies. But behind the scenes, Big Government and Big Insurance maintain a cozy alliance that the Obama administration actively nourishes, often at taxpayer expense. Indeed, as emails recently obtained by the House Oversight Committee show, Big Government and Big Insurance have worked together to promote Obamacare. They’ve also worked together to make sure taxpayers will help bail out insurance companies who lose money selling insurance under Obamacare.
Emails Show Cozy Government-Insurer Alliance, Expectation of Bailout
Need more hard-drive crashes.
...Meanwhile, the Obama administration was coming under increasing political pressure — as millions of Americans found out that (contrary to Democratic messaging across the years), if they liked their health plan, that didn’t necessarily mean they could keep their health plan. After Obama lawlessly empowered himself to un-ban the plans that Obamacare had banned by law, insurers weren’t happy, so the administration responded by paying them off.
With our money.
We know Obama has a pen and a mission. Does Obama have a special tax payer slush fund bank account used to pay off angered and neglected big insurance companies?
Is that legal?
Another speak-o:
"Ah did nawt have sex with that woman, Mizz Lewinsky".
April, what tax payers will pay for the subsidies? It's a new item on a budget that was already deep in the red. Those subsidies will be paid with newly 'minted' money by the Treasury and the Fed.
...Backed, ultimately, by tax hikes on tax payers. It's the only way.
The money must come from somewhere.
ricpic said...
It's all of a piece with ARM's comment yesterday that a little law breaking doesn't warrant impeachment.
At no point did I say Obama had broken the law. If he actually had broken the law there would be a horde of Republican politicians rushing to lay claim to being the first to call for his impeachment. The absence of that stampede is all you need to know. Those guys aren't shy when it comes to claiming credit.
Post a Comment