Thanks to info I come across from talented freepers with their eye on the ball --- that was the quote I was hoping would be recalled, but could not myself remember enough about it to know where to begin looking. I see Rush is picking up on it (the quote) as are handful of other places. There were more than a few places which provided coverage and discussion for that, and related issues.
As you remarked;
Exactly. It was intended to bully State governments, and inspire volunteer citizens to bully their own State representatives into doing what the then Democrat Party-led federal government wanted them to do. By Gruber's own admission it was a deliberate feature, not a poorly edited, overlooked mistake.
From Reason.com http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/24/watch-obamacare-architect-jonathan-grube Peter Suderman, Jul. 24, 2014. (I did not test to see if video there was still functional).
A few months ago there was an interesting article here
After a couple of paragraphs well worth reading (bookmarking the entire article for later reference could be worthwhile, for even only a few of the details found in the opening paragraphs alone), beginning from part-way down in the article;
Congress had a reason [for] not to extending subsidies to federal exchange (under Section 1311 of the ACA), while authorizing subsidies for states, the District of the Columbia, and any U.S. territory that created a “qualified exchange,” (under Section 1321 of the ACA). Congress wanted to incentivize the states to set up health exchanges while denying subsidies for a state’s citizens if the state refused to create an exchange. As one architect of the law explained:
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—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.
The Administration thought that the ACA would be wildly popular. For many people, it is not. As of January 2015, only 14 states had established Health Exchanges. That meant that the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), using Section 1321 of the ACA, established exchanges in the remaining states. The IRS claims that when Section 36B refers to Section 1311 and state exchanges, there is some sort of ambiguity and it really means to refer to Sections 1311 and 1321 and federal or state exchanges.
The Supreme Court, in King v. Burwell will decide whether the IRS can define Section 1311 to mean Sections 1311 and 1321. If the Court authorizes the IRS to, in effect, change the meaning of Section 1311, that will be the first time that Congress has delegated the power to raise taxes or spend tax subsidies. If the President loses this case, HHS Secretary Burwell has told us, reassuringly (just kidding), that “we have no plans that would, undo the massive damage to our health care system that would be caused by an adverse decision.”
[bolding of text added]
Am I understanding this part of it correctly? if not, please somebody explain it, or provide link to some source which is could be relied upon... I don't want to tell it wrong, and leave anyone around here with an erroneous impression.
It appears to me that it was set up the way it was in order to make 'community organizers' out of all of us, (ok, enough of "us", and not just "navigators" from the Demo-crap camp) to harass our State representatives into setting up "State" health care exchanges (I HATE that term "health care exchange" -- wtf is being "exchanged"? huh? it's BULL-[expletive deleted] to the max).
So what grounds are left to fight this leviathan upon? That the IRS and HHS(?) was in effect delegated to raise taxes? And that by law (ACA), since individuals participating at State-run exchanges are to receive a tax rebate --- but others who are not in those sort of exchanges, but 'Federal' run exhanges do not (?) then in end results there is unequal tax burden?
Participate anywhere, and don't get fined by the IRS.
Participate at State-run exchanges, don't get fined by thr IRS AND get a tax rebate(?).
Federal run exchanges...IRS not after persons who participate but no rebate? Is that the way it goes...or has the Pant's on Fire Admin of the United States of America found a way to talk yet another exception into the law --- in order to cover his own backside, get what he wants, try to remain "popular", to hell with what laws actually say he just does whatever 'his people' tell him he wants to do anyway?