Posted on 12/04/2014 11:39:40 AM PST by sheikdetailfeather
f all the Jonathan Gruber videos released so far, this one could be the most damaging. Revealed on Tuesday's Greta Van Susteren program on Fox News, the latest blockbuster has the Obamacare architect explaining if your state doesn't set up an exchange, its residents aren't eligible for tax credits, precisely the opposite of what the Administration is arguing before the Supreme Court. The question before the Supreme Court is whether the language of the Affordable Care Act restricts the premium subsidies (in the form of tax credits) to residents buying insurance from a state-run exchange, and prohibits the credits on the federal exchange which serves a little over 7 million Americans in 36 states. The specific language says participants in the state exchanges get the tax credit, but doesn't mention the federal exchange. The administration is arguing that the omission of the federal exchange is a typo, the plaintiffs argue that there was no intention cover a federal exchange in the bill. A ruling against the White House would severely damage Obamacare because the tax credits are critical to ensuring that lower-income Americans can afford insurance.
(Excerpt) Read more at truthrevolt.org ...
LOL....hoist, meet petard.
if Roberts were... influenced... how could he possibly make himself believe that Sebelius would with assurance be the only Obamacare case that he would ever hear, and the only controversial case that he would ever hear.
That is, if Roberts were ... capable of being influenced... then what kept him away from (say) overdosing on sleeping pills 2 years ago.
(Just wondering aloud.)
Obama has never heard of this Gruber character.
If you’re a state and you don’t accept an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes to support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to support all the states in this country.
One factor that isn’t mentioned often is the SCOTUS ruling in their Obamacare decision that states could not be required to expand their Medicaid coverage, as Obamacare attempted to require.
That gave states an incentive to not expand Medicaid, and an opportunity to save huge amounts of money in the future. It probably also significantly increased the number of states who also decided to not establish their own exchanges.
That is the kicker, it's all about redistribution. Even if SCOTUS does rule against obamacare, in any form, insurance companies are not going to go back to 2009 premium rates.
2014 we paid, for my husband and myself, $575 per month for coverage with a 10k deductable. For 2015 that policy will be no more and the cheapest we can find is $1000 p/month (!!!) with a 6k deductable and nothing is covered, not once single office visit, until the deductable is met.
We will be uninsured so we will have to pay the penalty. The feds throw salt on the wound as they refer to the penalty for not purchasing insurance as the "shared responsibility fee". No kidding. It's right there on the healthcare.gov website. Bassturds.
He read about him in the newspaper
Who is John Galt.
Obama read about him in the New York Times. First time he heard the name...
I do believe that if there are no subsidies available, the employee mandate cannot be enforced.
I would surely rather not have insurance than have to buy the 0-care insurance. Perhaps non-participating states could allow insurance companies to create non-qualified plans which would be cheaper because of less mandated coverage.
The most important result of a decision against the IRS (in my mind at least) is that the law will be crippled and then even Democrats (some looking for redemption?) will use it as an opportunity to join Republicans in perhaps repealing the law.
There will have to be consiberable dissension within the Democratic Party for such a thing to happen.
But any kind of significant split would provide enough votes to override a veto.
How many Dems will want to protect a bad law and an unpopular lame duck pResident?
“haps non-participating states could allow insurance companies to create non-qualified plans which would be cheaper because of less mandated coverage.”
I think the question is what will those states do -createca state exchange or stand firm?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.