IOW if the states don't hire him as a consultant to set them up, they won't receive the tax credits.
What a creep. See new tag line. An orange jumpsuit is too good.
Yes, crime.
I do not think any of what this guy is saying is reaching the surface awareness that 0bamacare is an organized criminal enterprise...not just socialist.
Gruber, Obamacare, and RICO all Went Golfing Together...(Vanity)
Gruber is running around essentially boasting about how he got away with one of the biggest rip-offs in history! We do not need a hearing on the Hill ...he needs to be taken to court!
Gruber’s model and analysis of it appears to be what’s sold to the varying states who have contracted with him to set up their exchanges. This and his contacts with the WH and HHS.
In another instance, we find that climate ‘models’ are used to predict climate and provide the basis for legislation that impacts us with taxes and fees on gas, electricity, etc.
I am looking for the third model of anything—probably finance or illegals’ impacts on government—to establish the third dot and make the straight line for myself. I am coming to believe that we are living in a controlled group of a double-blind experiment on an entire people, as though we are national lab rats to mad political scientists.
1. If a State is enrolled in the federal HealthCare.gov portal, the State may dole out subsidies.
2. If a State sets up its own exchange, it also may dole out subsidies.
3. If a State neither enrolls in the federal HealthCare.gov portal, nor sets up its own exchange, it can not dole out subsidies.
Gruber is trying to make an argument that it was not the intent of the Government to withhold subsidies from States that did not set up an exchange, but according to the Oklahoma State General, that is exactly what was intended by the people who constructed the regulations.
"Defendants themselves relied on evidence from Professor Gruber in an attempt to show the supposed “implausibility” of Congress having made something as important as the subsidies hinge on the States’ willingness to establish exchanges. Plainly, this newly-discovered evidence squarely controverts Defendants’ evidence on this point, and establishes that it is far from “implausible” that the drafters or Section 36B intended to withhold tax credits and subsidies from states who declined to set up exchanges in order to place pressure on those states to set up exchanges. To the contrary, it is not only plausible, it now appears to be demonstrably true."
Do I have this right?