Skip to main content

View Diary: CBO: Obamacare subsidies apply to both state and federal exchanges (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Re (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coffeetalk, nextstep, VClib

    On Second Occasion, Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Says States That Don't Set Up Exchanges Lose Access to Obamacare Subsidies

    Last night, a video surfaced showing Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber saying in January 2012 that if states do not set up their own exchanges under Obamacare, they lose access to the law.

    The clip was important because Gruber is an influential health policy analyst who helped author parts of Obamacare and consulted with multiple states on the implementation of health insurance exchanges under the law.

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 04:49:01 PM PDT

    •  Sparhawk - WOW this is very interesting (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coffeetalk

      You should do diary on this video clip.

      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

      by VClib on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 10:00:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  To quote your comment above: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chrismorgan, RightHeaded

        Gruber's opinion

        has no weight in the legal case.
        But then, as a lawyer, you knew that already.  

        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

        by FogCityJohn on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 09:33:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It probably doesn't, but it would certainly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pi Li

          have more weight than the CBO if judges were trying to determine legislative intent. Plus it fills out the scope of opinion about what were the Democrats trying to do? My guess is that it was such a complex bill, and the end was so rushed that some of them thought that the subsidies should be both a carrot and a stick (recall there was a very big stick on Medicaid expansion) while others always thought that everyone who qualified should receive a subsidy. It does show that the concept of using the subsidies as a stick was discussed, something that has gotten little publicity.  

          "let's talk about that" uid 92953

          by VClib on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 09:46:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Uh, no. CBO at least works for Congress who wrote (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            red rabbit, RightHeaded, FogCityJohn

            it.  Gruber is irrelevant.

            •  You're naive if you think Congress wrote this law (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nextstep, VClib

              It was largely shaped and written by statutory analysts and policy experts (in a variety of fields) including Gruber, to a significant degree. Yes, some aides in both the WH and Congress had a hand in it. But, like with lots of legislation, most members of Congress neither wrote, or read, this law, they merely voted on it.

              So to say "Gruber is irrelevant" is absurd if you're interested in the truth. He was one of the primary architects of the law. Though it's true that what he's saying likely has little legal weight, his words certainly helps us understand the real intent of the legislation, and Justice Kennedy reads the newspaper also.

              Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

              by Pi Li on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 07:51:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  How many votes did they have? Zero. Congress (0+ / 0-)

                votes, Congress wrote it.  That's how the law views it.  And Gruber, who had no vote, was not even a congressional staffer, is irrelevant.  The 'truth' as you seek to frame it, is irrelevant.  Only Congress' intent is relevant, and that comes only from Congress' record.  Not some academician, not some thinktanker, not some TV interview.

                Sorry if you do not understand what 'legislative power' means.

                The 'reality' of course is every law starts somewhere and often it is not in Congress.  That makes no difference.  Congress votes on it from committee to floor to conference.  

                Why do you think the House get to name laws that clearly say 'fuck you workers' the 'Jobs for Everyone, Hurrah! Act'?  

                •  LOL (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib
                  How many votes did they have? Zero. Congress votes, Congress wrote it.  That's how the law views it.  And Gruber, who had no vote, was not even a congressional staffer, is irrelevant.
                  Reading comprehension. I was merely pointing out that by and large members of Congress actually didn't write the law, and that Gruber was more instrumental in writing, and shaping, the law than any member of Congress or "congressional staffer". Which is a fact.  And I certainly never mentioned anything about "legislative powers".

                  And indeed I said that what Gruber thinks is irrelevant as to legislative intent. His comments are simply revealing to those who are interested in knowing the truth (which I understand you're not interested in, but others are) about what the intent of the law really was.

                  Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                  by Pi Li on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 12:02:55 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Backtracking won't help you. You called me 'naive (0+ / 0-)

                    ' and ominously said 'Kenedy reads the papers' but now say your post had nothing to do with the only issue here, the legislative intent i.e., the correctness of these legal decisions.

                    Your retreat position, about some metaphysical 'truth', is as irrelevant to that issue as Gruber's statements to some media is irrelevant to the legislative intent.

                    I don't give 2 rats farts what the metaphysical 'truth' here is.  If I did, I'd be on a philosophy blog.  What matters is the legal truth.  

                    Which, for all of your pixels spent, you end up sayng you agree with me on.  So why waste more pixels discussing this?

                    •  LOL2..."metaphysical truth" (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      VClib

                      Tell you what, you just keep making up whatever you think I said, and have that conversation with yourself.

                      I'll leave you to it then.

                      Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                      by Pi Li on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 01:03:56 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

            Boy, I'd really like to see some authority for your highly creative view of what constitutes the legislative history of a statute.  I've never once seen a court rely on the post hoc comments of an outside expert as to what the intent of actual legislators was.  Most courts tend to be interested in the views of the people who actually voted on the legislation.

            And in your desperation to give credence to right wing arguments about the ACA, you even go so far as to claim that the consistent interpretation by an agency that is an actual arm of Congress is entitled to less weight than Gruber's after-the-fact remarks.  So much for deference to longstanding agency construction of laws, and this doesn't even consider the views of the IRS and OMB.

            If the concept of using the subsidies as a stick was discussed, surely there's evidence of this in the legislative record.  Perhaps you could direct me to a line in a committee report or to a floor statement from some member that would support your view.

            Your opinion boils down to this: Congress intended to create a punitive scheme that would deny subsidies to citizens in states with federally operated exchanges, but there's not one peep in the actual legislative history about this.  And of course that same Congress somehow happened to include a number of other provisions that show state and federal exchanges were to be treated the same.  

            I congratulate you on your impeccably Republican "reasoning."

            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

            by FogCityJohn on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:55:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Try not to wet yourself over every rightwing ta... (0+ / 0-)

        Try not to wet yourself over every rightwing talking point.

        •  When did "right wing talking point"... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          andalusi

          ...stop being a description of genuine right wing talking points and become a descriptor of news we just don't like?

          Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

          by Pi Li on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 08:19:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site