Obamacare architect in 2012: It was deliberately designed so only state exchanges could have subsidies (lawyer, health care)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the wake of the ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, that the government could not provide subsidies to people who signed up through Federal exchanges (as most US citizens have done), the ACA's supporters have tried to claim that the wording in the law itself was a simple oversight. Of course it was intended from the beginning (they claim) that people could get subsidies whether they signed up through their state exchange or through the Federal website.
But a newly exposed video has shown otherwise. MIT economist Jonathan Gruber (one of the main designers of Obamacare) is shown describing in 2012 how the power of the Fed govt to grant subsidies to people who signed up through the Federal website, was deliberately omitted from the law, to pressure states into forming their own exchanges.
Now that 36 states have decided not to form exchanges, this means that most Americans cannot get subsidies. And the recent Court decision simply affirmed that that is so.
With the Obamacare supporters no longer able to claim it was an "oversight" or a "drafting error", this elevates the Circuit Court's decision into a stunning deal-breaker. The extremely high primuims for Obamacare polices, now cannot be reduced through subsides for most Americans - those in the 36 states without state exchanges.
This confirms that Obamacare is the high-priced, poorly-serviced govt program its opponents have always maintained it was.
In the wake of the ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, that the government could not provide subsidies to people who signed up through Federal exchanges (as most US citizens have done), the ACA's supporters have tried to claim that the wording in the law itself was a simple oversight. Of course it was intended from the beginning (they claim) that people could get subsidies whether they signed up through their state exchange or through the Federal website.
But a newly exposed video has shown otherwise. MIT economist Jonathan Gruber (one of the main designers of Obamacare) is shown describing in 2012 how the power of the Fed govt to grant subsidies to people who signed up through the Federal website, was deliberately omitted from the law, to pressure states into forming their own exchanges.
Now that 36 states have decided not to form exchanges, this means that most Americans cannot get subsidies. And the recent Court decision simply affirmed that that is so.
With the Obamacare supporters no longer able to claim it was an "oversight" or a "drafting error", this elevates the Circuit Court's decision into a stunning deal-breaker. The extremely high primuims for Obamacare polices, now cannot be reduced through subsides for most Americans - those in the 36 states without state exchanges.
This confirms that Obamacare is the high-priced, poorly-serviced govt program its opponents have always maintained it was.
What's your point?
It's like saying, "Obamacare was designed to reduce the number of uninsured people". Thanks, Captain Obvious.
The main purpose of Obamacare was to transfer money from wealthy people to less wealthy people, so that the less wealthy could afford "everything-is-covered-no-matter-what" health insurance. But the people who wrote it, deliberately left that transfer authority OUT, for states that did not form their own exchange. It seems that the people who wrote it, expected few if any states to opt out of forming an exchange.
But now that most states have opted out, the funding mechanism for Obamacare has abruptly collapsed. This will lead to popular support collapsing almost as fast, once people realize they must pay the full cost of their premiums, rather than relying on the govt to force other people to pay most of it.
Ths will likely become the death knell of Obamacare... and of the careers of the politicians who supported it.
The main purpose of Obamacare was to transfer money from wealthy people to less wealthy people, so that the less wealthy could afford "everything-is-covered-no-matter-what" health insurance. But the people who wrote it, deliberately left that transfer authority OUT, for states that did not form their own exchange. It seems that the people who wrote it, expected few if any states to opt out of forming an exchange.
But now that most states have opted out, the funding mechanism for Obamacare has abruptly collapsed. This will lead to popular support collapsing almost as fast, once people realize they must pay the full cost of their premiums, rather than relying on the govt to force other people to pay most of it.
Ths will likely become the death knell of Obamacare... and of the careers of the politicians who supported it.
The system was a hash before the Affordable Care Act. Now, in many ways, it is even worse. The real question is not whether the ACA will survive--it has already been gutted by Obama, unilaterally. The question is what comes next, and who does the heavy lifting to make it happen. Health care reform will be reformed.
Personally, I'd like more freedom with my health care and a more efficient means to provide very basic care for those who are unable to provide for their own needs.
It's like saying, "Obamacare was designed to reduce the number of uninsured people". Thanks, Captain Obvious.
No, Obamacare was designed to transfer decisionmaking ability from individuals to politicians, to transfer money from earners to takers. Nothing more, nothing less.
In the wake of the ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, that the government could not provide subsidies to people who signed up through Federal exchanges (as most US citizens have done), the ACA's supporters have tried to claim that the wording in the law itself was a simple oversight. Of course it was intended from the beginning (they claim) that people could get subsidies whether they signed up through their state exchange or through the Federal website.
But a newly exposed video has shown otherwise. MIT economist Jonathan Gruber (one of the main designers of Obamacare) is shown describing in 2012 how the power of the Fed govt to grant subsidies to people who signed up through the Federal website, was deliberately omitted from the law, to pressure states into forming their own exchanges.
Now that 36 states have decided not to form exchanges, this means that most Americans cannot get subsidies. And the recent Court decision simply affirmed that that is so.
With the Obamacare supporters no longer able to claim it was an "oversight" or a "drafting error", this elevates the Circuit Court's decision into a stunning deal-breaker. The extremely high primuims for Obamacare polices, now cannot be reduced through subsides for most Americans - those in the 36 states without state exchanges.
This confirms that Obamacare is the high-priced, poorly-serviced govt program its opponents have always maintained it was.
WOW that is gargantuan news. This is one of those times when I will always remember 'where were you when you found out about X.' I was sitting here reading metalboy's post.
This confirms an article I posted the other day that pointed out that the state exchange language occurred not just once, but several times in the law, and the law even explicitly defined 'state.' But this provides a smoking gun.
I am not a lawyer, but I would think this makes it a lock that Halbig is going to the SCOTUS. And remember, Obama has lost a several 9-0 decisions of late involving executive branch over-reach.
I think people are forgetting that clearly written in the original ACA bill it says that the Feds will pay subsidies to the people in the State exchanges for a certain length of time. I think it was 2017, don't recall. After that, the State has to pick up paying the subsidies. That was the whole point of the states that didn't start exchanges--they said they couldn't afford picking up the tab when the time came.
So the people who get subsidies from the Feds directly--who pays after 2017? A permanent Fed slush fund?
The point would be coercing Conservative states into help paying for this monumental disaster. Wait and see what happens with the states that accepted the expansion of medicare down the road when the feds bail.
Has anybody noticed that no one knows what they are talking about on this thread. They dont have a clue about the ACA and they arent participants...they simply parrot what the right wing media tells them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
