Appeals court panels issue split decision on Obamacare

[emperus]

Here's the man termed as the architect of Obamacare. When questioned now, he states that it is a typo but he's on video saying in 2012 that ONLY state exchanges are eligible for subsidies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbD5iQQS5KA

It doesn't take a genius to realize that the intent of the law was to punish certain states. It has now backfired. I'm not losing any sleep over it. This regime is hell bent on punishing its enemies, either real or perceived. The DOJ seeks out political enemies for scrutiny and prosecution. I have days when I hope a Republican majority controlled government adopts not just the same tactics, but intensifies them dramatically. It's wrong on so many levels but you know the old saying, nice guys finish last.

Where does this stop?

Here is the whole quote.

Questioner: You mentioned the health-information Exchanges for the states, and it is my understanding that if states don’t provide them, then the federal government will provide them for the states.

Gruber: Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. 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.

Larger Clip of his remarks. It should start around the 31:25 mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtnEmPXEpr0#t=1886

I think he's saying that if the Fed doesn't set up the exchange and the states don't then people don't get their credit. And the Federal government would wait (The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its backstop) to set it up to put the "squeeze" on the states and force them politically to set up the exchange.

 

[Jaskalas]

But its a Federal law, so the bracket must be all people who qualify under the federal law across all states. Not just people who qualify in a certain state(s). That's the heart of the issue, of course.

To follow this logic, you'd be arguing for equal outcome, when the law already provides equal opportunity. Anyone's State MAY provide an exchange and thus qualify.

Does equal treatment exist in opportunity or outcome? SCOTUS probably decided that in cases long ago...

 

[Victorian Gray]

Hey the ACA is better than Canadian healthcare as the ACA requires that women get birth control for free and Canadians have to pay for theirs.

pssst, neither the ACA or Canada's system is "healthcare". They are health insurance systems.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Here's the man termed as the architect of Obamacare. When questioned now, he states that it is a typo but he's on video saying in 2012 that ONLY state exchanges are eligible for subsidies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbD5iQQS5KA

It doesn't take a genius to realize that the intent of the law was to punish certain states. It has now backfired. I'm not losing any sleep over it. This regime is hell bent on punishing its enemies, either real or perceived. The DOJ seeks out political enemies for scrutiny and prosecution. I have days when I hope a Republican majority controlled government adopts not just the same tactics, but intensifies them dramatically. It's wrong on so many levels but you know the old saying, nice guys finish last.

Where does this stop?

How about you find us a clip that is an actual comparison with the complete presentation that he was giving in 2012 rather than judiciously edited snippets.

If you want to depend on propaganda to make your point can't you at least find some well done propaganda to use?

 

[ivwshane]

Here is the whole quote.



Larger Clip of his remarks. It should start around the 31:25 mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtnEmPXEpr0#t=1886

I think he's saying that if the Fed doesn't set up the exchange and the states don't then people don't get their credit. And the Federal government would wait (The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its backstop) to set it up to put the "squeeze" on the states and force them politically to set up the exchange.

Oops! Looks like you schooled his bitch ass!

 

[Fern]

Here is the whole quote.

Questioner: You mentioned the health-information Exchanges for the states, and it is my understanding that if states don’t provide them, then the federal government will provide them for the states.

Gruber: Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. 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.

Larger Clip of his remarks. It should start around the 31:25 mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtnEmPXEpr0#t=1886

I think he's saying that if the Fed doesn't set up the exchange and the states don't then people don't get their credit. And the Federal government would wait (The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its backstop) to set it up to put the "squeeze" on the states and force them politically to set up the exchange.

I don't have audio on my PC so the youtube is of no help to me.

But in looking at the transcript you posted, I think you highlighted the wrong portion.

The portion I bolded I think makes clear that there is no credit if there is no state exchange. I think the sentence below that which I have italicized reinforces that interpretation.

The question is though - can those remarks be submitted in court? I've heard that they cannot. (OTOH, judges do watch news )

Fern

 

[emperus]

I don't have audio on my PC so the youtube is of no help to me.

But in looking at the transcript you posted, I think you highlighted the wrong portion.

The portion I bolded I think makes clear that there is no credit if there is no state exchange. I think the sentence below that which I have italicized reinforces that interpretation.

The question is though - can those remarks be submitted in court? I've heard that they cannot. (OTOH, judges do watch news )

Fern

Unfortunately, reading comprehension doesn't work the way you think it does. You don't start and end at the point you like.

If you read the comments before the part you bolded he is talking about how the Federal government will put the squeeze on the states because the Federal Exchange hasn't been set up yet (the backstop). So, if there is no state exchange and no Federal exchange, it would make sense that the citizens of a state would not get their tax credits, right?

But why don't we let the American Conservative tell it. You know a non-liberal publication.

Conservative economist Scott Sumner offers up a desperately needed example of intellectual honesty on l’affaire Gruber. (For those who haven’t been keeping score at home: Some libertarians last night released a video of Obamacare “architect” Jonathan Gruber in 2012 seemingly affirming the reasoning of the D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling on the legality of offering healthcare subsidies via exchange.)

Sumner actually watched the video and noticed Gruber’s remarks were taken out of context (context: what a concept!):

That seems to suggest he agrees with the recent court ruling. But he actually disagrees with the ruling. Indeed he seems to regard the ruling as ludicrous. That doesn’t look good. Until you realize that the quote was taken out of context, and that the comments immediately preceding the quote tells a very different story: “Yes, so these health insurance exchanges . . . will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. 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 up its backstop in part because I think they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it.”

That seems to imply the federal backstops would provide health subsidies. So how can we reconcile these two statements? I believe Gruber was trying to say that the federal government was being slow in setting up the exchanges, because until they did so, those states without state exchanges would get no subsidy. Once the federal exchanges were set up, they would all get the subsidy.

What I don’t understand is why commenters were providing me with the quote on top, but not the second quote, which provides important context.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/jonathan-gruber-and-the-smoking-gun-that-wasnt/

 

[Fern]

Unfortunately, reading doesn't work the way you think it does. You don't start and end at the point you like.

If you read the comments before the part you bolded he is talking about how the Federal government will put the squeeze on the states because the Federal Exchange hasn't been set up yet (the backstop). So, if there is no state exchange and no Federal exchange, it would make sense that the citizens of a state would not get their tax credits, right?

I don't see your interpretation at all. Nor I have seen any talking head on TV adopt an interpretation such as yours, no matter which of the case they take.

Fern

 

[Fern]

You do understand that the the job of the Judicial branch is to interpret and apply the laws that congress passes right?
-snip-

Stick to taxes buddy I'm pretty sure the courts also look at the intent of the law, which is why the 2nd amendment isn't as clear cut as it should be, it's why judges can say voter ID laws descrimnate and target groups unfairly.

Stop acting like partisan simpletons.

Of course the job of the courts is interpretation.

The point being in the hierarchy of interpreting the plain language of the statute is #1.

I'm guessing that Congress didn't publish a technical explanation for this bill since I haven't heard any mentioned yet. That's too bad. I don't think it got a lot of debate on the floor either. That's also too bad as the courts can and do look at those remarks to determine intent.

Fern

 

[emperus]

I don't see your interpretation at all. Nor I have seen any talking head on TV adopt an interpretation such as yours, no matter which of the case they take.

Fern

I gave you a link from a Conservative blog none the less.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/jonathan-gruber-and-the-smoking-gun-that-wasnt/

 

[emperus]

I don't see your interpretation at all. Nor I have seen any talking head on TV adopt an interpretation such as yours, no matter which of the case they take.

Fern

I gave you a link from a Conservative blog none the less.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/jonathan-gruber-and-the-smoking-gun-that-wasnt/

And again.

Conservative economist Scott Sumner offers up a desperately needed example of intellectual honesty on l’affaire Gruber. (For those who haven’t been keeping score at home: Some libertarians last night released a video of Obamacare “architect” Jonathan Gruber in 2012 seemingly affirming the reasoning of the D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling on the legality of offering healthcare subsidies via exchange.)

Sumner actually watched the video and noticed Gruber’s remarks were taken out of context (context: what a concept!):

That seems to suggest he agrees with the recent court ruling. But he actually disagrees with the ruling. Indeed he seems to regard the ruling as ludicrous. That doesn’t look good. Until you realize that the quote was taken out of context, and that the comments immediately preceding the quote tells a very different story: “Yes, so these health insurance exchanges . . . will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. 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 up its backstop in part because I think they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it.”

That seems to imply the federal backstops would provide health subsidies. So how can we reconcile these two statements? I believe Gruber was trying to say that the federal government was being slow in setting up the exchanges, because until they did so, those states without state exchanges would get no subsidy. Once the federal exchanges were set up, they would all get the subsidy.

What I don’t understand is why commenters were providing me with the quote on top, but not the second quote, which provides important context.

 

[xBiffx]

To follow this logic, you'd be arguing for equal outcome, when the law already provides equal opportunity. Anyone's State MAY provide an exchange and thus qualify.

Does equal treatment exist in opportunity or outcome? SCOTUS probably decided that in cases long ago...

The law doesn't provide equal opportunity, that's the whole point. If the people who registered on the federal exchange don't receive a subsidy or, more importantly, never could then that's not equal opportunity. There was no opportunity, get it?

 

[Jaskalas]

The law doesn't provide equal opportunity, that's the whole point. If the people who registered on the federal exchange don't receive a subsidy or, more importantly, never could then that's not equal opportunity. There was no opportunity, get it?

You have no opportunity to live in a State with an exchange?
No opportunity to move to one?
No opportunity to vote to create an exchange in your State?

It still sounds like you look at outcome instead of opportunity.

"The law doesn't provide". Interesting, so you'd argue it's a bad law. Don't we have to repeal it then?

 

[xBiffx]

You have no opportunity to live in a State with an exchange?
No opportunity to move to one?
No opportunity to vote to create an exchange in your State?

It still sounds like you look at outcome instead of opportunity.

"The law doesn't provide". Interesting, so you'd argue it's a bad law. Don't we have to repeal it then?

You can't argue its different outcome when you have two different standards going in. Of course you are going to get a different outcome. But the main point here is, without further input, some people inherently have the opportunity where others do not.

Yes, I'd argue its a bad law. Conflicting rulings seem to back that up.

 

[theeedude]

You can't argue its different outcome when you have two different standards going in. Of course you are going to get a different outcome. But the main point here is, without further input, some people inherently have the opportunity where others do not.

Yes, I'd argue its a bad law. Conflicting rulings seem to back that up.

So fix it and move on. It would take half a day to change the law to say both state and federal exchanges are eligible for subsidies.

 

[dank69]

...
It doesn't take a genius to realize that ...

When boomer starts a paragraph with this you know you are about to be fed some Grade A Horseshit. Stuff about "regimes" and other similar nonsense.

 

[Brainonska511]

When boomer starts a paragraph with this you know you are about to be fed some Grade A Horseshit. Stuff about "regimes" and other similar nonsense.

 

[boomerang]

fed some Grade A Horseshit.

Grade A - that's one hell of a compliment! Thanks! :thumbsup: :wub:

 

[emperus]

Grade A - that's one hell of a compliment! Thanks! :thumbsup: :wub:

But, you are going to admit that you were wrong and completely took the man's words out of context and/or manipulated by whomever you got that information from, right?

 

[boomerang]

But, you are going to admit that you were wrong and completely took the man's words out of context and/or manipulated by whomever you got that information from, right?

No because I don't agree with your interpretation. And regardless, your opinion and my opinion are meaningless. The language in the bill is clear and the courts have come to their conclusion. Amend the legislation if possible or appeal to a higher authority. Those are the options. If you want to "win" on this forum, it will not be with my participation.

The law was revised countless times. The language remained as it had been. There's a reason for that and I expressed it earlier. The legislation was poorly crafted, is impossible to administer and has had numerous parts of it delayed by executive order to try and keep it afloat. Well it's going to sink and we'll be lucky if it doesn't take the nation down with it. Zero Republican votes means it's an albatross around the necks of Democrats. Here's hoping they wear it with pride. They did build that.

 

[theeedude]

No because I don't agree with your interpretation. And regardless, your opinion and my opinion are meaningless. The language in the bill is clear and the courts have come to their conclusion. Amend the legislation if possible or appeal to a higher authority. Those are the options. If you want to "win" on this forum, it will not be with my participation.

The law was revised countless times. The language remained as it had been. There's a reason for that and I expressed it earlier. The legislation was poorly crafted, is impossible to administer and has had numerous parts of it delayed by executive order to try and keep it afloat. Well it's going to sink and we'll be lucky if it doesn't take the nation down with it. Zero Republican votes means it's an albatross around the necks of Democrats. Here's hoping they wear it with pride. They did build that.

Do you ever have a thought that's not a Republican talking point or cliche?

 

[emperus]

No because I don't agree with your interpretation. And regardless, your opinion and my opinion are meaningless. The language in the bill is clear and the courts have come to their conclusion. Amend the legislation if possible or appeal to a higher authority. Those are the options. If you want to "win" on this forum, it will not be with my participation.

The law was revised countless times. The language remained as it had been. There's a reason for that and I expressed it earlier. The legislation was poorly crafted, is impossible to administer and has had numerous parts of it delayed by executive order to try and keep it afloat. Well it's going to sink and we'll be lucky if it doesn't take the nation down with it. Zero Republican votes means it's an albatross around the necks of Democrats. Here's hoping they wear it with pride. They did build that.

That is a defeatist post if I have ever read one. You have boiled it down to the tired cliché of "my opinion and your opinion are meaningless". If so, why even come to this forum to debate anything, since mostly everything that is debated here we are generally powerless to control?

 

[ivwshane]

That is a defeatist post if I have ever read one. You have boiled it down to the tired cliché of "my opinion and your opinion are meaningless". If so, why even come to this forum to debate anything, since mostly everything that is debated here we are generally powerless to control?

Canned response in 3...2...1...

 

[werepossum]

Answer: Because many members of the public will see the health care plan for what it is -- a poor substitute for real socialized medicine and they know that the Republicans ultimately stood in the way of our having socialized medicine. In other words, the blame for the skyrocketing costs will fall on the Republicans' shoulders. At least it would if so many working class people were not brain dead Republicans. ("We don't wants dem gays gettin' married and wimmins having 'bortions, therefore whatever the Democrats do is da work of da Devil!")

That's an interesting concept. The more socialized our medical system becomes, the more it costs, yet you guys still insist that if it's completely socialized it will magically become cheap.

Oh look, diversion!

I always giggle when Democrats throw hissy fits because Republicans didn't jump in line and support their initiatives, as if that is somehow a requirement or expectation. I will remember this the next time a Republican initiative passes without Democrat support and if it doesn't go well, I'll just blame the Democrats for not supporting what the Republicans "really" wanted.

Democrats (or more specifically, their rank and file followers like you) have an issue, and that issue is accountability. Nothing is ever the fault of Democrats. In this instance, we have the ACA -- a bill designed by Democrats, passed entirely by Democrats, and now we may see that it is more expensive than originally thought. Do the Democrat sheep take responsibility and say "We made an error, but we were just doing what we thought was best"? No! Instead, we get "But...but...it's all the Republican's fault!!!!!"

Uh, no, it isn't. If the Democrats wanted socialized medicine, they could've pushed it. Instead, they were more concerned about getting re-elected and even without that particular concern, knew many in their own party didn't support that level of government involvement in healthcare. They likely would not have had the votes. And to blame "sheeple" for not liking "ebil suhciliazed medicine!" is not only arrogant, but counterproductive. Where were the initiatives by the Democrats to sell that plan?

You have completely lost it. Seriously. Your posts used to be thoughtful and filled with good information and now you've devolved into yet another foaming-at-the-mouth lefty buffoon. Let me clue you in:

1. Not a single Republican voted for ACA. The Democrats enacted it anyway. Therefore, to blame Republicans because ACA will do little to stem increasing costs is foolish and illogical. The Republicans "stood in the way" of ACA, the Democrats passed it, and it is all on the Democrats. Likewise, if it works out for the best, the Democrats get the credit.
2. In light of the facts in #1, the Democrats very well could have passed socialized medicine if they wanted to. Your contention that the Democrats "know what's best for people" (I'm paraphrasing) and yet, passed ACA because it was felt that it was the only politically viable solution smacks of arrogance and translates to Democrats just wanting to get re-elected. This is a problem with both parties -- "Let's keep ourselves in office and not do the right thing!"
3. Go ahead and continue supporting the duopoly we have. Both political parties are corrupt, incompetent, and only care about keeping themselves in cushy, high-paying positions.

Also, cut your tired rant of "But...but...where was the Republican plan?" It isn't what we're discussing, I never claimed they had a good plan, and it is nothing but diversion by you.



The Republican plan was tax credits to allow the purchase of insurance and had no requirements for purchasing insurance and did nothing to control costs -- like the ACA does nothing to control costs.

That's become a very common defense among Democrats: You KNOW we'll fuck it up, so you guys have a moral obligation to get on board with our ideas and somehow make them work. Curious, that.

No because I don't agree with your interpretation. And regardless, your opinion and my opinion are meaningless. The language in the bill is clear and the courts have come to their conclusion. Amend the legislation if possible or appeal to a higher authority. Those are the options. If you want to "win" on this forum, it will not be with my participation.

The law was revised countless times. The language remained as it had been. There's a reason for that and I expressed it earlier. The legislation was poorly crafted, is impossible to administer and has had numerous parts of it delayed by executive order to try and keep it afloat. Well it's going to sink and we'll be lucky if it doesn't take the nation down with it. Zero Republican votes means it's an albatross around the necks of Democrats. Here's hoping they wear it with pride. They did build that.

I think that is intentional. By making the law murky and largely unworkable, they further empower to bureaucracy to make whatever changes they want without having to go through the legislative process again.

 

[ivwshane]

That's an interesting concept. The more socialized our medical system becomes, the more it costs, yet you guys still insist that if it's completely socialized it will magically become cheap.


That's become a very common defense among Democrats: You KNOW we'll fuck it up, so you guys have a moral obligation to get on board with our ideas and somehow make them work. Curious, that.


I think that is intentional. By making the law murky and largely unworkable, they further empower to bureaucracy to make whatever changes they want without having to go through the legislative process again.

I'd be amazed if you could go one post without lying or putting forth another conspiracy theory!