View Single Post
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-25-2014, 12:03 PM
cnredd's Avatar
cnredd cnredd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 55,614
Thanks: 2,278
Thanked 36,153 Times in 20,625 Posts
Default ObamaCare architect explained in 2012 video why only state exchanges pay subsidies

A couple of days ago, I pointed out that the fact that federal exchanges would NOT get subsidies was far from a typo...It was a actual THREAT...

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd
here's how it went down...

Baucus admits that the reason it was set up where states that don't set up exchanges themselves won't get subsidies was a DIRECT THREAT...

"Set it up your self or you won't get any subsidies!!!!!!"...

The Democrat logic was that all (or most at least) would scream "Holy crap!!!" and run to set up their own exchanges...

...and the Democrats couldn't have been more wrong...
Now you don't have to take my word from it...

You can listen to the EXACT WORDS of one of the actual architects of ObamaCare say it himself...

ObamaCare architect explained in 2012 video why only state exchanges pay subsidies

Quote:
This week, Jonathan Gruber appeared on MSNBC to assert that the DC Circuit appellate court got the ObamaCare statute all wrong in its Halbig decision. Gruber, one of the key architects of the ACA and of the Massachusetts “RomneyCare” law that preceded it, insisted that the state exchange requirement for subsidy payment was purely accidental. “It is unambiguous this is a typo,” Gruber told Chris Matthews. “Literally every single person involved in the crafting of this law has said that it`s a typo, that they had no intention of excluding the federal states.”

Two years ago, though, Gruber gave a much different explanation for this part of the ObamaCare statute. Speaking at a January 2012 symposium for a tech organization that this was no typo. It was, Gruber said, a deliberate policy to twist the arms of reluctant states to set up their own exchanges — and that a failure to do so would mean no subsidies for their citizens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gruber
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. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post: