Subsidies are only for states that create the exchanges

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Jul 25, 2014.

  1. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    73,562
    Likes Received:
    5,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +11,393



    It's a long clip, but at the 31 minute mark Gruber is asked about the state exchanges and he says:

    "Yeah, so these health insurance exchanges ...will be these new shopping places. And they'll be the places that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. In the law it says that if the states don't provide them, the federal backstop will. The federal government has been sort of slow in putting up its backstop, I think partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it.

    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 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. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this."
    In other words, according to the man who helped create the law, no state exchange means no subsidies to citizens of the state. This means that any state without its own exchange will - by design - see astronomically high insurance rates, and it was done in a Democrat effort to force the states to comply.

    ObamaCare's death blow just got much harder to ignore.

    http://www.caintv.com/bombshell-obamacare-architect
  2. gatorman_07732
    Online

    gatorman_07732 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    32,493
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    The Irish Riviera
    Ratings Received:
    +5,161
    So much for the pitch the libs have been giving me. I'm stilling looking for something affordable but have yet to come up with anything. I kind of thought that subsidy thing was a pipe dream one way or the other. The other thing is you still have to put the money out and get it back in the backend.
  3. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,826
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,142
    Since Gruber isnt and was not a member of Congress, not sure its any evidence of Congressional intent. Moreover, Gruber wrote an amicus brief supporting the government in Halbig, so he's either a liar, unknowingly contradicted himself at various points, or has changed his mind about the intent of the law.
  4. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    73,562
    Likes Received:
    5,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +11,393

    my bet
  5. gatorman_07732
    Online

    gatorman_07732 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    32,493
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    The Irish Riviera
    Ratings Received:
    +5,161
    I wouldn't assume it was their intent but perhaps unintended consequences. With the size of that legislation and who was involved a lot of bad things were going to happen.
  6. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,826
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,142
    Well, then you'd have to at least accept the possibility that he's lying in the video.
  7. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    73,562
    Likes Received:
    5,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +11,393

    anything is possible wgb- but since he was one of the architects of the aca, I doubt he was lying on the video-as they thought for sure all the states would set up the exchanges-they were counting on it so they could sluff all the increased medicaid costs to the states thus being able to say the cost to the fed guvment was lower than it actually is
    • Like Like x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  8. CaptUSMCNole
    Offline

    CaptUSMCNole Active Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,999
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    NCR
    Ratings Received:
    +81
    He said in the video that states not setting up exchanges is a big threat to the law. So now that states have chosen not so set up the exchanges and the law is in trouble, it sounds like he is changing his story in order to preserve the law. While Gruber was not a member of Congress, he was a White House paid consultant who had a hand in crafting the law, so I would say he can speak very factually about Congressional intent.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  9. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,826
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,142
    Not really, even the guy who found the video stated that its not evidence of congressional intent.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  10. philobeddoe
    Offline

    philobeddoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    7,023
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +612

    Well first Gruber has had some ethical problems in the past ....

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/01/on-jonathan-gruber-and-disclosure/
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/08/jonathan-gruber-failed-to_n_415999.html

    ... so he could very well be a liar.

    And, Gruber looks like he may have had some involvement with the creation of obamacare and likely a pretty good understanding of what was being written in the legislation:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...2012/the-frontline-interview-jonathan-gruber/

    So it's likely ... as bill states ... he knew what was going on and clearly understood what the administration wanted to do with the ACA. Helluva lot easier for an objective person to believe that than .... assert Gruber didn't know the intent of congress on this matter.
  11. CaptUSMCNole
    Offline

    CaptUSMCNole Active Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,999
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    NCR
    Ratings Received:
    +81
    I'm not sure what you would take as a statement of Congressional Intent then. This is a paid advisor for the White House who worked on the law and is out advising businesses about how the law works after it passed. No one who supports the law is going to say what he is saying in that video now, because it would do so much damage to the ACA since the states didn't set up the exchanges.

    Now there is a debate about wether the SCOTUS will take that presentation as Congressional Intent in court, but politically this really hurts the argument that the state vs federal exchange was a typo.

    If the SCOTUS does say it is not a typo, hopefully Congress and the POTUS can sit down do a bi-partisan reform of the bill. Not likely, but worth hoping for.
  12. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,826
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,142
    Someone actually in congress that voted for the law?
  13. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    73,562
    Likes Received:
    5,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +11,393
    yeah all dems and they had to pass it to see what was in it- that has worked out real well hasn't it
    and then of course you have a sitting prez who has made 71 changes in the law-changes he lacks the authority to make
  14. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,826
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,142
    Not really. The video is from 2012, right? That could simply be his interpretation after the fact of what passed, not a statement of congressional intent WRT the law.
  15. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    73,562
    Likes Received:
    5,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +11,393
    you libs sure hope don't you
  16. fredsanford
    Online

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,335
    Likes Received:
    231
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,693
    It's worked out just fine, with 10 million insured Americans that weren't before.
  17. philobeddoe
    Offline

    philobeddoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    7,023
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +612
    Well ... I'm sure someone who supports the administration and benefits from the law would see it that way. Again, I don't believe a reasonably intelligent objective person would embrace that line of thinking.
  18. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,826
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,142
    Yeah, I do hope conservatives calling an ambiguous typo congressional intent doesnt throw the healthcare market into chaos in 36 states. But your hope is that this chaos somehow leads to a full repeal of the law. I'm not so sure that's the final outcome in that event.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  19. egator1245
    Offline

    egator1245 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +236
    The intent is clear in the words that Congress used Unless you want to change the English language. Also Gruber is clear on what Congress wrote.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. gatorman_07732
    Online

    gatorman_07732 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    32,493
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    The Irish Riviera
    Ratings Received:
    +5,161
    The focus should really be another broken promise and the people get screwed. Whether is was intentional or not we'll never know for sure so focus in the direction is wasted energy. There are 36 states with no exchange of which subsidies were promised, the question is where do we go from here? I'm really in a screwed up position because of this legislation because getting a policy here for a family is a mortgage payment.
    • Funny Funny x 1

Share This Page