Comments on: Architect of Obamacare: You only get tax credits if buy on state exchange (Video)

By: Gus

Gus — Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:45:38 +0000

No, professor, I’m not “defending” Gruber. I’m pointing out that he’s not Congress (nor is he “de facto” Congress), and therefore his musings don’t matter.

By: Gus

Gus — Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:58:23 +0000

Shockingly, Gruber WAS taken out of context. Let’s go to the video tape:

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

*crickets*

By: ConradCA

ConradCA — Mon, 28 Jul 2014 03:33:52 +0000

It was the plaintiffs job to present this video as evidence to support their case.

By: Miata Shinsen

Miata Shinsen — Sat, 26 Jul 2014 16:46:44 +0000

So what Gruber is basically saying is:

“Who are you going to believe, me or that lying video?”

Just when I think liberals can’t get have any less integrity…

By: Sanddog

Sanddog — Sat, 26 Jul 2014 07:53:46 +0000

Okay, here is someone who was a sitting Senator at the time Obamacare was passed, warning the administration on 12/01/2011 that they didn’t have the authority to extend subsidies to the fed exchanges because the law stipulated they were to be used ONLY for state exchanges:

http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ID=c4775d23-c814-40e1-b86d-4123b8e2ddd3

By: Cleetus

Cleetus — Sat, 26 Jul 2014 04:36:11 +0000

Now that additional recordings have been found where he is stating the same message again and again, it would appear that this would be a form of testimony as to the reasoning behind the reasoning the lead to the language in the law. What I would like to hear from LI is if these tapes now have any real and legal, or even just off the record impact for future curt decisions regarding this case. I know that judges go back an look at testimony made in Congress as they debate these bills to get an idea of the thinking behind them to help with their rulings, but is this sufficient to help judges make future rulings? Any thoughts LI?

By: Jay Jones

Jay Jones — Sat, 26 Jul 2014 00:11:19 +0000

Correct, the Senate changing the House’s bill so much (only keeping the bill number) has caused the admin to do verbal gymnastics over the origination clause and what the word “amend” means.

By: teresainfortworth

teresainfortworth — Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:46:38 +0000

The House version was never voted on by the Senate. The bill that came out of the Senate began its life as a GI Homeowner’s bill in the House.

Doesn’t matter what their INTENT may have been – what made it into codified law is what the Senate passed (without any amendments from the House).

By: 4fun

4fun — Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:16:22 +0000

Yep, the democratic apppointed judge who voted against in this case specifically said the other two were making their ruling out of whole cloth basically.
Someone should go back to that democratic appointed judge and ask him now who is really making up rulings out of whole cloth.
And a lot of the reason Gruber made it state based was to try and put pressure on the Republican governors. Totally political.

By: Estragon

Estragon — Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:04:42 +0000

Another audio statement of Gruber before the Senate Finance Committee has emerged. He says the same thing, of course.

Gruber is trying to use the same “speak-o” lie, but this was something he was reading from his prepared remarks. Did he prepare the “slip o’ the tongue” too?

—

ALL leftists are liars, PERIOD. Lying to them is a means to an end (power), a tactic. As such, it is never frowned upon and often applauded and encouraged.

This is how Obama retains his base through his serial lying. They don’t mind, they expect it. Anything to grab more power.

Of course, there is a large part of his base that isn’t doctrinaire leftist, just stupid and parasitic. They don’t care about his lies, either, as long as the gummint gravy keeps on flowing to their troughs.

By: clafoutis

clafoutis — Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:00:51 +0000

Oh, dear.

From the Wall Street Journal: Updated Jan. 14, 2010 12:01 a.m. ET

“. . . The press corps is agonizing, or claims to be agonizing, over the news of Jonathan Gruber’s conflict of interest: The MIT economist has been among the foremost promoters of ObamaCare—even as he had nearly $400,000 in consulting contracts with the Administration that weren’t disclosed in the many stories in which he was cited as an independent authority. . . ”

“Mr. Gruber is a health economist and former Clinton Treasury hand, as well an architect of Mitt Romney’s 2006 health plan in Massachusetts that so closely resembles ObamaCare. His econometric health-care modelling is well-regarded. So his $297,600 plum from the Department of Health and Human Services in March for “technical assistance” estimating changes in insurance costs and coverage under ObamaCare, plus another $95,000 job, is at least defensible.

However, this financial relationship only came to wide notice when Mr. Gruber wrote a commentary for the New England Journal of Medicine, which has a more stringent disclosure policy than most media outlets. . . ”

” . . . Mr. Orszag never mentioned Mr. Gruber’s contract. Nor did HHS disclose the contract when Mike Enzi, the ranking Republican on the Senate health committee, asked specifically for a list of all consultants as part of routine oversight in July. His request noted that “Transparency regarding these positions will help ensure that the public has confidence in the qualifications, character and abilities of individuals serving in these positions.” . . .”

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704586504574654362679868966

This Mr. Gruber seems to have a questionable history.
Check the link for details.

By: Ragspierre

Ragspierre — Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:49:18 +0000

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4504852/senate-hearing-tax-credits-available-state-exchanges

Video of Max “The Liar” Bacus reinforcing the whole point of the WORDING of the ObamaDoggle bill.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:58:33 +0000

So typical of the elitist progressives…. they will outright blatantly lie to your face in order to advance their Marxist agenda. Disgusting pigs.

By: Midwest Rhino

Midwest Rhino — Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:51:23 +0000

“have to rely on such an obtuse position”

Not relying on it, it was your obtuse point, which I was just turning in a way to make the genuine point, to help you get a clue.

He was a lead guy and had told of his logic behind the punishment to states that didn’t start an exchange. Then he lies and flips to say it was a “typo”. You really want to defend this clown?

By: Ragspierre

Ragspierre — Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:24:58 +0000

No, liar. You don’t “wonder” anything. You chant lying-points from your punk-meisters of teh moonbattery.

Which one published that one? C’mon…you can tell us. Give us the link.

By: Ragspierre

Ragspierre — Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:12:40 +0000

You purrrr lying SOS. Are you going to PRETEND that ObamaDoggle was NOT written by interest groups? The accounts are legion. (I know you have trouble with reading outside the Lie-0-tron of the moonbattery, but you really should TRY…)

High-larrious the lies a Collectivist bung-sucker will attempt in pitiful attack on a plain-word reading of a bill by an appellate court.

By: Gus

Gus — Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:07:43 +0000

Ah, so Gruber IS Congress.

I wonder why not one state read the typo as overtaking the intent of the ACA, like the Halbig plaintiffs did.

By: Gus

Gus — Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:05:18 +0000

Haha, de facto Congress. Funny that you have to rely on such an obtuse position in support of the Halbig decision, which itself relied on the most obtuse reading of the law possible.

Dishonest idealogues will bitterly cling to whatever confirms their biases after all.

By: Pasturized

Pasturized — Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:49:37 +0000

The Medicaid expansion section provided for witholding every cent of Federal Medicaid support from states that didn’t approve the Medicaid expansion. That’s not just denying new subsidies to people in those states, it’s taking away coverage from people who have been receiving it. All to convince the states to do what the Feds wanted.

It’s absurd to think that the subsidies were limited to states that created their own exchanges, but not absurd to cut off healthcare spending to states that didn’t expand Medicaid? Talk about your cognitive dissonance.

By: Midwest Rhino

Midwest Rhino — Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:29:45 +0000

Gruber was one of those writing the bill, when Pelosi informed Congress, “you have to pass the bill to find out what is in it”

So yes, Pelosi/Democrats had made Gruber and his ilk the de facto Congress replacement on this issue. No debate needed, the law was not even fully written … just a big “redistribution” of power from the Congress to the bureaucrats in the White House basement.