Discussion for article #225568
As any GOTP can tell you, consistency is the hobgoblin of liberals.
Well they could tell you, but have no idea what a hobgoblin actually is. Ted Cruz not withstanding.
3 Likes
There really is no âfederal exchangeâ, in the sense of a nationwide list of insurance plans available in all 50 states, or even a subset of states. There are 50 exchanges, each offering plans available only to residents of that state. In many cases, some plans are not even available in all areas of a given state, as some provider networks only cover a given geographic area. Thus, the first question you asked when you go to healthcare.gov is what state you live in. The distinction of who runs the website is absurd. In fact, the web sites may be ârunâ by contractors (as we know).
The clear intent was that subsidies would not be available to those who chose to buy plans through a broker or directly from an insurer, but only through the exchanges. I think a child could understand that, which makes certain judges dumber than a 5th grader.
4 Likes
Why the heck are you beating this story to death. The guy said his 2012 statement was a mistake. It is the only statement like it. The legislative framework is clear, as is the legislative history. Nothing to see here.
4 Likes
Gruber: Pay no attention to what I said before, this is what I believe today.
Sounds like most Democrats.
I think the fool memore has answered your question below.
âI want a humble foreign policy; no nation building.â George W Bush
4 Likes
Dylan Scott, you lie. I was wondering what you meant about Gruber being usually consistent with the administration on the state exchanges. And then I noticed that instead of quoting the analyses, that you simply referenced them. So, I read them. They basically focus on the costs of Obamacare, promising that they would lower rates which has been shown to be misleading if not a flat lie. But nowhere is there any reference to the issue of the state exchanges that your article is discussing. Another lie. I understand that your job is to lean left and thatâs great, but why would you give the right ammunition to destroy your integrity? Maybe because now itâs obvious that you have none.
Well, there is that videoâŚ
Re: MommieCommieâs comment. Hereâs Dylanâs statement:
âGruberâs 2009 analysis of the Senate version of Obamacare, which allowed for both state and federal exchanges, did not appear to account for the possibility that tax credits would be unavailable on HealthCare.gov. The same seems to be true of other analyses he published after the bill became law.â
The words âdid not appear to account for the possibility that tax credits would be unavailable on HealthCare.govâ means that Gruber clearly assumed that they would be available on all exchanges, including the federal exchange.
IOW, Gruber wasnât dealing with the state v federal exchange issue because, for him, there was no issue. An exchange was an exchange. If he, Gruber, believed there was a difference, and this is what he truly believed, this difference wouldâve been reflected in his analysis. It wasnât.
Had he truly believed there was a distinction, he wouldâve made that distinction in his analysis, showing the impact of the tax credits on state exchanges and their absence on the federal exchange.
1 Like
Except for the fact that ALL his statements that predate the video support what he says today.
1 Like
Well, these two examples are just from this morningâs news:
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant ÂŽ blamed President Barack Obama for a reported increase in uninsured Mississipians. The problem is, Bryant didnât acknowledge that heâs been a staunch opponent of expanding Medicaid under Obamacare and refused to encourage enrolling in private coverage through Healthcare.gov.
Boehner Op-Ed: I Oppose The Law Iâm Suing Obama To Implement
Shall I continue?
1 Like
To believe these kkkonservative fucksâ argument, you have to believe that Obama, Gruber, and the Democrats INTENDED to deliberately undermine the foundation of their own legislation for some nefarious ulterior motive.
KKKonservative fucks fall for conspiracy theories like that, but nobody else does. The premise itself is a non sequitur nonstarter.
This frivolous, ridiculous case is an insult to the judicial system. The courts who have dismissed it outright have ruled correctly. Those two shitbags on the DC Circuit are dedicated wingnuts with atrocious reputations.
The real question we should be asking is what kind of sociopath fucks get giddy over the thought of wrecking hard working Americansâ lives, and what should we to do such sociopath scum?
I have my ideas, and oh, but my imagination is vivid.
1 Like
Apparently Gruber was entertaining a hypothetical about what would happen if state exchanges were functioning but Healthcare.gov/federally administered exchanges were not.
The federal exchange IS a state exchange; the federal government administers it but the insurance you can purchase is specific to each state. When you visit Healthcare.gov, youâre directed to a specific exchange for the state you live in. You CANNOT purchase âfederalâ insurance.
This entire lawsuit is unmitigated bullshit. As a lawyer it pisses me off to the point that Iâd like to rip off these manufactured plaintiffsâ CATO attorneyâs heads and shit down their necks. Lawsuit abusing douchebags.
1 Like
Reminder that the Affordable Care Act was originally a Republican-concocted set of provisions and regulations.
2 Likes
No, I donât think it was because Gruber believed that there was no distinction, because there clearly is. I think what he believed is that no state would exempt itself from taking advantage of the tax credits by not establishing an exchange. Maybe the thought barely entered into his mind that a state wouldnât establish an exchange. Thatâs a big difference. Somebody here had smartly pointed out that the language that ended up being the law was intended to go to committee to be cleared up, but it never got to committee. They were in such a rush those days. Either way, his opinions donât count in courts of law, anyway, so weâll just have to see how our âjusticeâ system works it out. When all is done and over, it will be that law.
You mean give you ammunition, correct? The ACA has lowered insurance rates and the rate of premium increases, as anyone who had to go without or purchase it for themselves knows⌠unless youâre in a bunker state that is struggling to ensure you have high insurance premiums. You say you read the âactualâ studies, but donât actually bother to provide a link and spew out what sounds like a soundbite. Why donât you stop trolling and try to contribute to the discussion?
1 Like
And the only thing you have is an âgotchaâ moment, without a discussion of the real policy implications. Would you also agree then that Romneyâs explicit â47%â comments were also indicitative of his entire policy stance in opposition to 150 million Americans? Or was that liberals trying to paint Romney as an elitist?
1 Like
I agree that the architects didnât envision state rebellion against the law. But Gruber DID know there was going to be a federal exchange, at least as a back up. So he had to know that SOME people would probably sign up through the federal exchange and would need tax credits to make the insurance affordable. Itâs silly to think that they planned to penalize individuals who had to make use of the federal back up through no fault of their own, i.e., because their state didnât create an exchange or was late doing so. You say there is âclearlyâ a distinction, but you donât say what it is, or why the architects, who WANTED individuals to have access to tax subsidies, would exclude this one group of people. Why have a back up that doesnât deliver one of the key benefits of the program? Especially when thereâs no reason to create a program like that. It makes sense that ambiguity could slip into the lawâs wording; it makes NO sense that the legislators INTENDED for these people to be excluded.
1 Like