Posted on 06/25/2015 3:43:00 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: Here's Jonathan Gruber. Let's go back to January 18th, three years ago, January 18th, 2012, Falls Church, Virginia, at the Noblis Innovation & Collaboration Center. MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber talking about the Obamacare health exchanges, and during the Q&A he was asked, "Mr. Gruber, it's my understanding that if the states do not provide subsidies, the federal government will."
GRUBER: 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.
RUSH: Bingo. He's the architect. He wrote the law. He was out bragging and caught on tape bragging about how they took advantage of the gullibility and stupidity of the American people to fall for what they were saying. Play it again. Audio sound bite 21. "Mr. Gruber, it's my understanding that if the states don't provide the subsidies, the federal government will?"
GRUBER: 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.
RUSH: You don't get subsidies. If your governor doesn't set up an exchange, you are up the creek, pal, you do not get a subsidy. That was the intent of the law. And here he goes on to explain that the law was written that way intentionally to put maximum pressure on the states to set up exchanges.
GRUBER: Your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you're essentially saying to your citizens, you're gonna pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality the states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges and will do it. But, you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this.
Architect of Obamacare: Only get tax credits if buy on state exchanges
RUSH: So he's admitting, Chief Justice Roberts notwithstanding, he's admitting here that the whole point of these subsidies was to withhold them from states that did not set up exchanges because that was intended to put pressure on states to do it. The federal government, the backstory here is, the federal government was trying to off-load some of the cost so that they could present a phony document to the CBO showing that the total cost would come in at no more than the Iraq war, $1 trillion. They had to do it.
The way they did it, they did many things, but they shifted a lot of the costs to the states, including on Medicare. And the states from the get-go said, "Wait a minute. We can't afford these mandates on us. We can't print money like you do." It didn't matter. The only thing that mattered to the Regime was getting those costs off the federal ledger. And as an enticement they basically were threatening these governors with not being reelected. If we're gonna provide subsidies to these people so they could afford this, which would otherwise not be affordable, and the only way they can get those subsidies is if the governors in those states set up exchanges then we think that political pressure will force every governor to set up an exchange. Because if they don't the citizens in that state will not get any help, they won't get a subsidy, and they won't be able to afford Obamacare.
He's admitting that the whole thing was indeed political to put pressure primarily on Republican governors to make Obamacare possible, to make it happen. Despite all of this -- I don't know if the forces for good, meaning our side argued this at the Supreme Court, I have no idea, but it's plain as day. I wonder what Justice Roberts would say if he heard this. (imitating Roberts), "Well, that may have been what Gruber said, but clearly the context of the law is that everybody was gonna get --" No, it wasn't. And here's Laurence Tribe last summer, one year ago, Fox News Channel Real Story Gretchen Carlson talking about Judge Roberts.
TRIBE: It's gonna depend in the end on the chief justice. Now, he, too, was a student of mine, and I think he's got a lot of common sense, and he is not very likely, in my view, to take the language of the law, which says that exchanges established by a state are the ones on which people can get financial help, and emphasize that little word "by." We're talking words that are designed to protect ordinary people, middle-class people should they be tripped up by what even the DC Circuit Court of Appeals said was an unintentional gap in the language.
RUSH: I'll have to analyze this for you when I get back.
RUSH: Okay. What Laurence Tribe's sound bite means, look, it's gonna depend on the chief, he was a student of mine, he's got a lot of common sense, and he's not likely to take the language of the law and emphasize that little word "by." Meaning, look, he was a student of mine and I taught him well, and he's not gonna let the language of the law get in the way of doing what the left wants, or what Obama wants. That's basically what he was saying. I taught him well. He's not gonna let the language of the law stand in his way.
The language of the law is all there is. The language of the law is what it is, until you start interpreting it and then imagining the context of it. I'm going to tell you something here, folks. The left and the media are out there telling a big, bogus lie today that it's just four words in the law. "By the states." It's not just the four words they mention nine or 10 times throughout the law. The fact that only states will get subsidies if they set up an exchange is mentioned at least nine times in various places in the law. It's not a throwaway, and it doesn't mean what the chief said it means.
RUSH: Just one more thing on this disastrous Supreme Court ruling today. The chief justice of the Supreme Court, folks, please do not doubt me. I have no reason to lie to you. There's no point in making things up in order to persuade you of what I want you to think. There's no staying power in that. Anybody who lies to you to get you to believe something is gonna end up losing their credibility once you find out you've been lied to. There is no point in me lying to you, and I never do it.
This law, Obamacare, was written specifically and said so specifically that only the states that set up exchanges, i.e., places to go buy Obamacare policies, would be offered subsidies. People living in those states would be offered subsidies. There is no doubt that Congress, when they wrote this law, did not mean every exchange. They meant just the states. And the intention was political.
This is an incompetent law. It is a horribly written law. It's stupid; it's a political document; and the whole point of this was to leave some people without subsidies so that the governors in states that made that happen would not be reelected. This was an attempt by Democrats, the only ones that wrote this law and the only ones that voted for it. It was an attempt to isolate Republicans and have them defeated. It's what the purpose of this whole subsidy setup was. Plus, to off-load expenses from the federal ledger so that the whole cost would come in under a trillion dollars.
Congress specifically, and it has been backed up by countless assertions of the primary architect, Jonathan Gruber, that the subsidies would only be available to people who live in states that set up Obamacare exchanges, and states that did not would not have subsidies.
The chief justice of the United States Supreme Court -- and I'm gonna paraphrase his ruling -- said that if that were the case, that the entire program would be in tumult and chaos and clearly that was not intended. He said we can't have some people in states get subsidies and some people not get subsidies. So I am going to find in favor of the federal government who tell me that they really meant the state to mean the national government, the federal government.
He just flat-out interpreted this the way he wanted to interpret it, ignoring the intent of Congress. He ignored the rule of law, he ignored the words in the law, the statute, he ignored the intent of Congress, and wrote his own law again, using his own preferences, and his stated reason was to avoid chaos in the health insurance markets.
But it was that chaos that was intended. Not everything Congress does is brilliant. Not everything Congress does is right, but what they did was what they did, and Roberts appointed himself savior of a bunch of incompetent statutory requirements in Obamacare.
The Supreme Court is just another legislature, with unelected members and lifetime tenure.
Undoubtedly Obama caught Chief Justice John Roberts with a dead girl or a live boy in his bed.
And here are Americans being fooled that there are two sides, when ATM
in present times there isn't any separation of party votes accept
for when a pass is guaranteed, so a few get the pass to vote
opposite way to get re-elected.
When will enough be enough is the 18-Trillion dollar question.
Roberts ignores words - let’s ignore his words.
I wouldn’t give Roberts that much credit. My story is that he’s taking money under the table.
I’m actually starting to believe Obama and Roberts are gay lovers.
Laws mean nothing.
Legal precedent means nothing.
It all falls on how the tyrant feels this day or the next
I will never again have any respect for the Supreme Court .
As soon as Cruz is elected President, he should make Newt the Judge Czar and order him to clean house.
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.