The Smoking Gun That Blows Obamacare To Hell
By Karl Denninger
2014-07-27 17:14
Obama's government has repeatedly claimed in court filings and elsewhere, including when the IRS itself made it's "determination" that you could have a subsidy even if your state did not set up its own exchange, that this was an "interpretation" of what the drafters of the law intended.
There's a problem: One of the actual architects is on video saying not once, but twice, in two widely-spaced and different appearances, that the intent of the subsidy was to coerce states to set up said exchanges -- and that you would not obtain the subsidy without one.
Last night, the Competitive Enterprise Institute broke a heck of a story: A video showed Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act, supporting the plaintiff's argument in Halbig v. Burwell.
http://tinyurl.com/n5lz4q9
Gruber claimed that he "misspoke" during the Q&A. Perhaps believable -- once.
But not twice.
We have a major problem in this nation with The Rule of Law -- or rather, the lack thereof. It is that specific issue that leads to all sorts of other problems, most of them hurting you as citizens. Whether it be the monopolist actions of the medical industry, the games played with so-called "insurance", rigging of Wall Street markets and more, The Rule of Law is a bad joke in this country.
Simply put it is clear not only from the legislation itself but from the context and statements made by one of its chief architects that the intent of the subsidies was to coerce the states into setting up exchanges.
It was a blatant threat, and thus, by black letter law, residents of the states that opted out are ineligible -- not only on the black letter wording but the clear intention behind the clause in the statute itself.
But what startles me is that not "someone" has mentioned this -- hell, I've brought it up several times, including a number of years ago when the IRS decided to change the law on its own initiative, which it is not allowed to do.
No, it's that this comes from Bloomberg, which has never seen a lefty proposal -- or interpretation -- it didn't like.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229242
By Karl Denninger
2014-07-27 17:14
Obama's government has repeatedly claimed in court filings and elsewhere, including when the IRS itself made it's "determination" that you could have a subsidy even if your state did not set up its own exchange, that this was an "interpretation" of what the drafters of the law intended.
There's a problem: One of the actual architects is on video saying not once, but twice, in two widely-spaced and different appearances, that the intent of the subsidy was to coerce states to set up said exchanges -- and that you would not obtain the subsidy without one.
Last night, the Competitive Enterprise Institute broke a heck of a story: A video showed Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act, supporting the plaintiff's argument in Halbig v. Burwell.
http://tinyurl.com/n5lz4q9
Gruber claimed that he "misspoke" during the Q&A. Perhaps believable -- once.
But not twice.
We have a major problem in this nation with The Rule of Law -- or rather, the lack thereof. It is that specific issue that leads to all sorts of other problems, most of them hurting you as citizens. Whether it be the monopolist actions of the medical industry, the games played with so-called "insurance", rigging of Wall Street markets and more, The Rule of Law is a bad joke in this country.
Simply put it is clear not only from the legislation itself but from the context and statements made by one of its chief architects that the intent of the subsidies was to coerce the states into setting up exchanges.
It was a blatant threat, and thus, by black letter law, residents of the states that opted out are ineligible -- not only on the black letter wording but the clear intention behind the clause in the statute itself.
But what startles me is that not "someone" has mentioned this -- hell, I've brought it up several times, including a number of years ago when the IRS decided to change the law on its own initiative, which it is not allowed to do.
No, it's that this comes from Bloomberg, which has never seen a lefty proposal -- or interpretation -- it didn't like.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229242
