Gruber gets grilled tomorrow

[Paratus]

lol.

So

Many

Boomerang

Fails

Search function is brutal.

 

[chucky2]

boomerang, you aren't really surprised at this guys attitude and comments are you? It's patently obvious the concern the 'super smart political guys' have for average American lemming, that is, None, unless it happens to be their vote or their tax revenue, so you can't find it surprising that this guy made these comments, right?

 

[MongGrel]

I think the House needs to talk to him about his knowledge of his brother's activities at Nakatomi Plaza.

 

[boomerang]

boomerang, you aren't really surprised at this guys attitude and comments are you? It's patently obvious the concern the 'super smart political guys' have for average American lemming, that is, None, unless it happens to be their vote or their tax revenue, so you can't find it surprising that this guy made these comments, right?

Not surprised in the slightest. What I am enjoying though is the focus on the lies and deceit that were essential to both crafting Obamacare and getting it passed. I am disappointed though that the hearing centered around beating up on Gruber instead of for example, drawing out the involvement of Obama in the ruse of the "Cadillac Tax". But, the name of the game these days is to obfuscate as much as possible when before these committee's. Gruber would not have cooperated with that line of questioning anyway as he basically had only three answers for any question presented to him. He declared himself a putz to the nation but many of us that follow the news already knew that. I also enjoy drawing attention to events that our friends on the left will not see at their news sources. It hasn't been covered and because of that, they aren't yet sure what their position is absent any talking points. Well, of course they know I'm talking about it so that pretty much sets their tone despite my providing links based in differing positions.

 

[Jhhnn]

But, the name of the game these days is to obfuscate as much as possible when before these committee's.

Not quite. The purpose of the hearings is to obfuscate by creating every negative slur of inference possible which you eagerly parrot & embellish with the usual code phrases.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
At most they would be kicking it back to Congress for clarification on the intent. This should be a simple typo clarification.

Similar problems happen with tax bills all the time.

It requires a technical correct type bill. That means passing a new piece of legislation. That's not going to happen.

Fern

 

[feralkid]

 

[Jhhnn]

Similar problems happen with tax bills all the time.

It requires a technical correct type bill. That means passing a new piece of legislation. That's not going to happen.

Fern

Not at all. It requires the SCOTUS to clarify changes they legislated from the bench. Had they let the Act stand in its entirety, none of these highly technical suits brought by right wing lawyers dancing on the head of a pin would even be possible.

 

[Genx87]

Not at all. It requires the SCOTUS to clarify changes they legislated from the bench. Had they let the Act stand in its entirety, none of these highly technical suits brought by right wing lawyers dancing on the head of a pin would even be possible.

Eh the bill pretty clearly says subsidies for states that erect their own exchange. Gruber, one of the designers of the bill in at least two videos claims it was a form of coercion to get the states to build their own exchange. Yet we are to believe it was a typo and the Admin can just rewrite legislation congress passed for convenience sake. I think that sets a pretty scary precedent.

This of course could had all been avoided if they didn't insert that into the bill. You can complain about conservative lawyers dancing on the head of a pin. But your rage should be at the morons who wrote the bill that allows conservatives to pick it apart.

 

[Jhhnn]

Eh the bill pretty clearly says subsidies for states that erect their own exchange. Gruber, one of the designers of the bill in at least two videos claims it was a form of coercion to get the states to build their own exchange. Yet we are to believe it was a typo and the Admin can just rewrite legislation congress passed for convenience sake. I think that sets a pretty scary precedent.

This of course could had all been avoided if they didn't insert that into the bill. You can complain about conservative lawyers dancing on the head of a pin. But your rage should be at the morons who wrote the bill that allows conservatives to pick it apart.

Please. The SCOTUS ruled that States didn't have to create exchanges or join the Medicaid expansion. They created the inconsistency. Had they intended to strike down the ACA, they would have done so directly at the time rather than now on the basis of a technicality they created.

 

[Bitek]

Eh the bill pretty clearly says subsidies for states that erect their own exchange. Gruber, one of the designers of the bill in at least two videos claims it was a form of coercion to get the states to build their own exchange. Yet we are to believe it was a typo and the Admin can just rewrite legislation congress passed for convenience sake. I think that sets a pretty scary precedent.

This of course could had all been avoided if they didn't insert that into the bill. You can complain about conservative lawyers dancing on the head of a pin. But your rage should be at the morons who wrote the bill that allows conservatives to pick it apart.

Please. The SCOTUS ruled that States didn't have to create exchanges or join the Medicaid expansion. They created the inconsistency. Had they intended to strike down the ACA, they would have done so directly at the time rather than now on the basis of a technicality they created.

Who knows. I'm not a lawyer, and the Court is not that predicable. They may or may not have the power to negate that part of the act. They don't have the power to revert the whole system to pre-aca either.

What happens after such a ruling will be key. In normal times it would be clarified by Congress and we go on our merry way. With the chaps we have....

They will come under great pressure to just fix it. There is no way they can just cleanly undo the ACA, so they either have to fix it, or leave it in chaos and try to direct blame on an outgoing president.

In the end, they will have broke it, and are the ones in control of Congress, so there is no just waking away from it.

 

[fskimospy]

Eh the bill pretty clearly says subsidies for states that erect their own exchange. Gruber, one of the designers of the bill in at least two videos claims it was a form of coercion to get the states to build their own exchange. Yet we are to believe it was a typo and the Admin can just rewrite legislation congress passed for convenience sake. I think that sets a pretty scary precedent.

This of course could had all been avoided if they didn't insert that into the bill. You can complain about conservative lawyers dancing on the head of a pin. But your rage should be at the morons who wrote the bill that allows conservatives to pick it apart.

Gruber did not write the bill. The people who actually did have said many times that the intent was to have every exchange subsidized. The terms are used interchangeably in numerous sections of the bill.

 

[sportage]

I don't get all the fuss.
Gruber was right. The people are idiots for the most part.
And easily fooled.

Our local paper ran story that newly senator-elect Joni Ernst was resigning from the senate.
The news paper comments section went nutz.
"WHY?, NO!, HOW COME? PLEASE DON"T JONI"

Idiot readers did not realize she was resigning from the IOWA SENATE because she was elected to the US SENATE.
OMG!!!!!! F-king idiots.

And these are the very same people that voted her to the US Senate?
God save us from the idiots.

Gruber only error was not calling the people "F-king idiots". Not just idiots.

 

[Bitek]

I don't get all the fuss.
Gruber was right. The people are idiots for the most part.
And easily fooled.

Our local paper ran story that newly senator-elect Joni Ernst was resigning from the senate.
The news paper comments section went nutz.
"WHY?, NO!, HOW COME? PLEASE DON"T JONI"

Idiot readers did not realize she was resigning from the IOWA SENATE because she was elected to the US SENATE.
OMG!!!!!! F-king idiots.

And these are the very same people that voted her to the US Senate?
God save us from the idiots.

Gruber only error was not calling the people "F-king idiots". Not just idiots.

Clearly we are idiots if Congress has a 9% approval rate, yet we reelect the vast majority back every two years.

 

[zinfamous]

I like how the knuckleheads in the echo chamber still look towards an arsonist and insurance fraudster to deliver them "the justice" against the administration that has apparently done them great wrong.

You can't make this shit up.

 

[Jhhnn]

Clearly we are idiots if Congress has a 9% approval rate, yet we reelect the vast majority back every two years.

And when we do throw the bums out, we elect even bigger idiots to replace them. Witness 2010 & 2014.

 

[Fern]

Not at all. It requires the SCOTUS to clarify changes they legislated from the bench. Had they let the Act stand in its entirety, none of these highly technical suits brought by right wing lawyers dancing on the head of a pin would even be possible.

Please try to pay more attention.

My remarks you quoted above were directed at a poster who said SCOTUS would kick it back to Congress for clarification. I.e., the conversation included the stipulation that it would be kicked back to Congress.

----------------------------------

I am unfamiliar with any claims that the previous SCOTUS ruling caused this issue. Please provide us a link.

Fern

 

[First]

lulz

 

[Jhhnn]

Please try to pay more attention.

My remarks you quoted above were directed at a poster who said SCOTUS would kick it back to Congress for clarification. I.e., the conversation included the stipulation that it would be kicked back to Congress.

----------------------------------

I am unfamiliar with any claims that the previous SCOTUS ruling caused this issue. Please provide us a link.

Fern

I'm paying attention. I pointed out that the Court allowed the ACA to stand, warts & all. They turned back compulsory expansion of Medicaid. At the same time, they obviously determined that the intent of Congress at the time was that subsidies be available to all exchange participants. It has to be that way for it to work. I also rather suspect that it has to be that way to satisfy equal protection.

They gave the ACA their blessing. They know it. Everybody knows it. In that, they obligated themselves to facilitate it wrt technical nuisance suits, which is really what we're talking about. Despite the contradictory language, Congress' intent was plain-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...undercut-bombshell-lawsuit-against-obamacare/

They'd discredit themselves & damage the institution of the court itself to destroy the ACA at this point. It seems unlikely that a majority of the court could possibly see it any other way.

 

[Fern]

I'm paying attention. I pointed out that the Court allowed the ACA to stand, warts & all. They turned back compulsory expansion of Medicaid. At the same time, they obviously determined that the intent of Congress at the time was that subsidies be available to all exchange participants. It has to be that way for it to work. I also rather suspect that it has to be that way to satisfy equal protection.

They gave the ACA their blessing. They know it. Everybody knows it. In that, they obligated themselves to facilitate it wrt technical nuisance suits, which is really what we're talking about. Despite the contradictory language, Congress' intent was plain-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...undercut-bombshell-lawsuit-against-obamacare/

They'd discredit themselves & damage the institution of the court itself to destroy the ACA at this point. It seems unlikely that a majority of the court could possibly see it any other way.

The SCOTUS focuses on very specific questions/issues in their cases. They do not wholesale 'bless' the entirety of bills. And they generally do not raise issues themselves. I.e., if neither party raised it SCOTUS wouldn't either.

If SCOTUS felt they had already resolved the state versus fed exchange issue they wouldn't even bother to accept the case again.

I also found the argument(s) in the article you linked underwhelming. Their "key fact" #1 says that fed exchanges were originally included and then dropped in the subsequent draft. That strongly suggests it was purposefully dropped and its absence is not merely an inadvertent omission.

Fern

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

The SCOTUS focuses on very specific questions/issues in their cases. They do not wholesale 'bless' the entirety of bills. And they generally do not raise issues themselves. I.e., if neither party raised it SCOTUS wouldn't either.

If SCOTUS felt they had already resolved the state versus fed exchange issue they wouldn't even bother to accept the case again.

That's not really true at all. It takes only four justices to hear a case, and four already thought the whole thing was unconstitutional. SCOTUS could easily consider the issue settled but be forced to hear it out of a fit of pique from the same four justices.

I also found the argument(s) in the article you linked underwhelming. Their "key fact" #1 says that fed exchanges were originally included and then dropped in the subsequent draft. That strongly suggests it was purposefully dropped and its absence is not merely an inadvertent omission.

Fern

Definitely not true. The disputed language came from a bill that required each state to set up an exchange, therefore there was no such thing as a federal exchange. When the bill was merged by staff with one that did include federally run exchanges this language remained as a drafting error.

There is in fact no evidence whatsoever that it was purposefully dropped. Like, not a single piece. In fact, all the people who actually participated in the legislative work to put the two bills together agree on this. Is your argument that they sneakily meant to deny federally run exchanges subsidies but *never once mentioned that to anyone* and then changed their mind several years later? If it isn't, I can't possibly imagine what a coherent argument as to that being their intent would be.

It seems odd that you would take an inference based on how a bill was merged over the explicit statements of everyone involved in its creation... on the topic of the intent of everyone involved in its creation. Does that make much sense to you?

Doesn't that seem an awful lot like motivated reasoning?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm paying attention. I pointed out that the Court allowed the ACA to stand, warts & all. They turned back compulsory expansion of Medicaid. At the same time, they obviously determined that the intent of Congress at the time was that subsidies be available to all exchange participants. It has to be that way for it to work. I also rather suspect that it has to be that way to satisfy equal protection.

They gave the ACA their blessing. They know it. Everybody knows it. In that, they obligated themselves to facilitate it wrt technical nuisance suits, which is really what we're talking about. Despite the contradictory language, Congress' intent was plain-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...undercut-bombshell-lawsuit-against-obamacare/

They'd discredit themselves & damage the institution of the court itself to destroy the ACA at this point. It seems unlikely that a majority of the court could possibly see it any other way.

It is pretty odd that conservatives have become so obsessed with this bill that they are desperately trying to argue for a judicial result that not only relies on a frankly insane reading of both the bill and the legislative record, but that would inflict significant economic harm on the states they probably live in, without actually affecting the overall bill.

This tribalism/totem stuff has gotten to truly scary levels. What do you do when a nontrivial portion of the country has basically gone nuts?

 

[Moonbeam]

It is pretty odd that conservatives have become so obsessed with this bill that they are desperately trying to argue for a judicial result that not only relies on a frankly insane reading of both the bill and the legislative record, but that would inflict significant economic harm on the states they probably live in, without actually affecting the overall bill.

This tribalism/totem stuff has gotten to truly scary levels. What do you do when a nontrivial portion of the country has basically gone nuts?

I do not know, but I got some good advise from the folk in the trenches of WWI. It was in German but it translates like this:

The situation is hopeless, but not serious. That, I think, is how you deal with the 'scary'. It is not the hopelessness of a situation that is the problem, but the refusal to face it squarely as fact. A good sense of fatalistic humor helps one to do that. I believe that any inspiration that can come on how this problem can be solved will probably come in the form of a Black Swan event. The recognition and utilization of any opportunity that is presented will best be appreciated by those comfortably resigned. Inspiration, like humor are magical electrical discharges that form connections in disparate parts of the brain. Meanwhile we must enjoy Mr. Toads wild ride. One of the funniest things I have ever seen is Ted Cruz taking himself seriously. A finger pointing here, a gesture there, the nodding of heads...... You are getting sleepy, very sleepy.... Follow the bounding ball.

 

[Zorkorist]

It is pretty odd that conservatives have become so obsessed with this bill that they are desperately trying to argue for a judicial result that not only relies on a frankly insane reading of both the bill and the legislative record, but that would inflict significant economic harm on the states they probably live in, without actually affecting the overall bill.

This tribalism/totem stuff has gotten to truly scary levels. What do you do when a nontrivial portion of the country has basically gone nuts?

Some of us are okay, that ObamaCare is set in stone, and not to be moved. We don't like it. But, we admit it is the new way in America today.

It can't be overturned without a huge majority, etc.

It's done. America is a Socialist country.

-John

 

[Jhhnn]

It is pretty odd that conservatives have become so obsessed with this bill that they are desperately trying to argue for a judicial result that not only relies on a frankly insane reading of both the bill and the legislative record, but that would inflict significant economic harm on the states they probably live in, without actually affecting the overall bill.

This tribalism/totem stuff has gotten to truly scary levels. What do you do when a nontrivial portion of the country has basically gone nuts?

What do you do? You hope that the SCOTUS hasn't gone with them. Unfortunately, there's a non-trivial part of it that was picked precisely because they also believe in the nuttiness.