Guess you chose not to read this post by Fern
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37223800&postcount=18
Straight from the horse's mouth or should I say horse's ass.
Jonathan Gruber
Gruber opening his mouth and the fact other federal legislation often times has carrots for the states to act on their own, and the actual wording of the law. This thing has gone both ways in the courts. So I am not the only one that believes the carrot theory. The court system has weighed in that it also believes it. Which is how it landed on the SCOTUS docket.
While the administration would love to have us believe it was a transcript error. I dont think it was. The court system has on occasion also believed it wasnt. Now it will be upto the SCOTUS to decide its fate.
But like I said. Even if many believe this was inserted for the very reason to push the states to build their own exchanges. I dont believe the SCOTUS will side with the plantiffs.
Guess you chose not to read this post by Fern
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37223800&postcount=18
Straight from the horse's mouth or should I say horse's ass.
Jonathan Gruber
Gruber opening his mouth and the fact other federal legislation often times has carrots for the states to act on their own, and the actual wording of the law. This thing has gone both ways in the courts. So I am not the only one that believes the carrot theory. The court system has weighed in that it also believes it. Which is how it landed on the SCOTUS docket.
While the administration would love to have us believe it was a transcript error. I dont think it was. The court system has on occasion also believed it wasnt. Now it will be upto the SCOTUS to decide its fate.
But like I said. Even if many believe this was inserted for the very reason to push the states to build their own exchanges. I dont believe the SCOTUS will side with the plantiffs.
I have to say I don't find this very convincing. Congress most certainly does put carrots and sticks in their legislation, but when they do so they make it super obvious. In this case the carrots and sticks were so well hidden that even rabid opponents of the law, determined to overturn it by any means, didn't realize they existed for a year and a half.
Does that sound like the most likely answer to you?
I also don't get why people would think that states building their own exchanges would be such a high priority that the federal government would attach tens of billions in annual subsidies to it. There's just no cost/benefit there.
That's not what Gruber said. Just as you are attempting to take 4 words out of context in a 900 page bill you are doing the same with Gruber's words. Watch the video and start at minute 31.
The dishonesty of the right really is magnificent to watch.
Again, point to a contemporaneous account of anyone agreeing with you. Post the full transcript or video. Noone is interested in what you think today. Legislative intent is what matters. And everyone pro and con ACA believed the same thing.
How does one listen to this and not believe that is what he said?
This is what he said around the 31:00 mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34rttqLh12U
Really? Somebody point blank asked him about state exchanges. His response is if the states dont do it themselves, they lose subsidies. So their citizens are paying taxes but not getting a benefit. So thus it is in the states best interest to build their own exchange. I'm not sure what other context one could put that in to some to a different conclusion.
You see how the red and blue portions flow into the rest of the paragraph. He begins by saying that the exchanges are where people will go to get their subsidies. He continues by saying if the state doesn't set them up then the Federal government will. Then continues by saying that the Fed govt is acting slow to force the states to do it. Then continues by explaining the political calculations if the states haven't done it (explaining why the Feds are acting slow in setting up the Exchange). Inartfully said? Yes. But what you can do is find me someone who emphatically says that the subsidies were meant just for the states.Questioner: You mentioned the health-information [sic] 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.
And I want to be perfectly clear for the third time in this thread. I dont believe the SCOTUS will side with the plantiffs.
Guess you chose not to read the very next post by Emperus. In fairness, Fern chose to ignore it as well, helping to ensure his original misinformation would continue to spread.Guess you chose not to read this post by Fern
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37223800&postcount=18
Straight from the horse's mouth or should I say horse's ass.
Jonathan Gruber
You get your point by parsing one portion of what he said. That's not how we speak or read.
This is the question and his reply.
You see how the red and blue portions flow into the rest of the paragraph. He begins by saying that the exchanges are where people will go to get their subsidies. He continues by saying if the state doesn't set them up then the Federal government will. Then continues by saying that the Fed govt is acting slow to force the states to do it. Then continues by explaining the political calculations if the states haven't done it (explaining why the Feds are acting slow in setting up the Exchange). Inartfully said? Yes. But what you can do is find me someone who emphatically says that the subsidies were meant just for the states.
You get your point by parsing one portion of what he said. That's not how we speak or read.
And about the lack of subsidies for those states that use the federal exchange????? You seem to gloss right over that bomb. That isnt parsing words. He made is very clear that states that rely on the federal exchanges dont get tax breaks. But their citizens will still be forced to pay taxes without benefits.
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 it's clear. In-artful, yes, but clear. Especially after he said that the Fed government will provide the Exchange as a backstop where by his words "people go to get their subsidies for health insurance".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.
And about the lack of subsidies for those states that use the federal exchange????? You seem to gloss right over that bomb. That isnt parsing words. He made is very clear that states that rely on the federal exchanges dont get tax breaks. But their citizens will still be forced to pay taxes without benefits. Hence the carrot on the stick for states to build their own exchanges.
And about the lack of subsidies for those states that use the federal exchange????? You seem to gloss right over that bomb. That isnt parsing words. He made is very clear that states that rely on the federal exchanges dont get tax breaks. But their citizens will still be forced to pay taxes without benefits. Hence the carrot on the stick for states to build their own exchanges.
I hope SCOTUS votes for King. It will force the issue, and GOP will lose once and for all.
Sure thing Obi Wan Kenobi. Except that most people don't give a rats ass that someone else's subsidies go away especially when the parts of the law they do like are staying around. People dislike welfare no matter what name it goes under and what format it takes, whether food stamps, direct payments, or Obamacare subsidies. Democrats will roll out the sob stories of people without insurance, GOP will point out how much Obamacare takes out of middle class taxpayer pockets to "fix" that and most people will say "sorry, you poor folks are on your own."
There's enough bad in the ACA that if the GOP had passed the exact same law the Democratic party would certainly be opposing it now, but since they passed it they'll defend it to the death.
which we all know will not happen!Probably took it to slam the door shut on overturning Obamacare without an act of Congress.
You're engaging in some very creative interpretation there.Read this first.
.
Then this
I think it's clear. In-artful, yes, but clear. Especially after he said that the Fed government will provide the Exchange as a backstop where by his words "people go to get their subsidies for health insurance".
But assuming you may believe he said that, why is so hard then to find any other person in the world who believed the same thing? This is what is deceptive about this whole thing. You are building an argument on one in-artful line by one person who agrees with you, where every other contemporaneous account doesn't.