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.
But now, a 2012 video has emerged of the architect of Obamacare—MIT economist Jonathan Gruber—agreeing that only state exchanges are eligible for subsidies....
Gruber responded: “What’s important to remember politically about [Obamacare] 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.”
Basically the Democrats lied about what is written and what it meant...
Look - you can get a bunch of federal money if you do A, B, and C.
Then two years down the road, they say - you since you are accepting federal money for A, B, and C,... you are now subjected to D, E, and F whether you like it or not.
I would stay away from any federal money... it's just a trap for later.
In the article Avik Roy also said this "If the Supreme Court upholds the appeals court ruling in Halbig v. Burwell, every state government will set up its own exchange. In other words, the ruling is nothing but a speed bump for Obamacare."
Roy who has been a critic of the ACA likes the idea of the exchanges especially for Medicare. This is a very conservative idea of private health insurance for everyone.
In the article Avik Roy also said this "If the Supreme Court upholds the appeals court ruling in Halbig v. Burwell, every state government will set up its own exchange. In other words, the ruling is nothing but a speed bump for Obamacare."
Roy who has been a critic of the ACA likes the idea of the exchanges especially for Medicare. This is a very conservative idea of private health insurance for everyone.
Obamacare, written in a deliberate way intended to pressure states to set up health care exchanges, and then Democrats try to wiggle out and claim the phrase was a typo and meant nothing, that Congress intended subsidies for both state and federal plan enrollees.
Obamacare, written in a deliberate way intended to pressure states to set up health care exchanges, and then Democrats try to wiggle out and claim the phrase was a typo and meant nothing, that Congress intended subsidies for both state and federal plan enrollees.
Obamacare, written in a deliberate way intended to pressure states to set up health care exchanges, and then Democrats try to wiggle out and claim the phrase was a typo and meant nothing, that Congress intended subsidies for both state and federal plan enrollees.
Boy did you all see the fines coming up for folks who didn't buy into the TAX?
It can be up to $2500. for a single person and up to $12K and change for a family of four. Imaging getting hit with a big hospital bill and then having to pay the fine for not purchasing insurance. OCH!!
Yep, it's done. The D.C. Circuit Court got it right. The ACA was intentionally written to provide subsidies to only those who bought through state exchanges. Anyone who bought through the federal exchange doesn't qualify for subsidies.
There's no way SCOTUS can ignore what Gruber himself stated many times. Here are two:
Quote:
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.
Gruber: "A number of states have even turned down millions of dollars in federal government grants as a statement of some sort. They don’t support health care reform. I guess I’m enough of a believe in democracy to think that when the voters in states see that by not setting up an Exchange, the politicians in their state are costing state residents hundreds of millions and billions of dollars that they’ll eventually throw the guys out. But I don’t know that for sure. And that is really the ultimate threat, is: Will people understand that, gee, if your governor doesn’t set up an Exchange, you’re losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens?
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.
