Gruber is the most relevant part of King vs. Burwell. Nowhere in the law does it claim subsidies are for the Federal Exchange and quite the contrary, it was designed that way to punish states that don’t setup exchanges.
Besides Gruber’s admissions, the law also never states FPL or Federal Poverty Line, it states a percentage of the poverty line. If they meant the subsidies were for the Federal Exchange then they would have specifically used the model for the FPL and Gruber knew that.
Well, I agree that legislative history is the most relevant part of King v. Burwell, and some of Gruber's remarks (if they are in evidence) supports the plaintiff's case.
But there is abundant OTHER evidence of legislative intent. IIRC, in fact, Baucus and Ben Nelson were both quite clear that they would not vote for a bill with Federal exchanges.
Wrong.
The Senate finance committee hearing, live on cspan and recorded for posterity, makes the prima facie case.
I’ve been saying for months that this joker is a distraction. He’s the sacrificial lamb. Focus on actual legislators.