Plan B Forum

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1202 ... are-states

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1202 ... berals-yet

What gets me is all the the excoriating of the Supreme Court (which hasn't even issued a ruling yet) I have seen over this in Leftie Pundit World, but yet not one word of criticism or blame for the sloppy incompetents who managed to fuck up in writing this. Nor one word of scorn or anger towards all those who didn't catch it. Afterall, this wasn't a typo in some obscure section of this massive bill. It was a glaring error (assuming that it was in fact a mistake) completely misstating a key element of the intent of the bill.

No, for the sloppy incompetent morons actually responsible for this situation, they have nothing but excuses. I've even seen a few of them have the brass balled chutzpah to go so far as to suggest with a straight face that the reason no one caught the problem with the wording was because no one could imagine that there would be states that wouldn't set up exchanges...

Well, I can certainly understand how the authors of this bill could have thought that, given the overwhelming public support and widespread bipartisan backing the legislation had...

Geezus, talk about "not passing the laugh test"...

If the Supreme Court decides to rule that this bill actually means what it actually says, it won't be the Supreme Court that these folks should be blaming for it.

It's their own ideological soul mates on Capitol Hill that should be the object of their wailing and teeth gnashing...

But of course it won't be; the ability to criticize and place blame on others within their own ranks isn't a strong suit with that lot. (That failing is a by-product of what happens when you self-righteously believe that you and those who think like you are on The Side Of The Angels and have a monopoly on the moral high ground. Even when you fuck up it's somebody else's fault because your intentions were "pure".)

There's also a pretty strong argument that can be made that the wording on this was in fact no "mistake", but rather an attempt to strong-arm the states into setting up exchanges that backfired:

In 2012, Obamacare's Architect Agreed With 'Right-Wing' Strategy To 'Gut' Obamacare

Earlier this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia—the second highest court in the land—ruled that Obamacare’s subsidies for individually-purchased insurance could only flow through exchanges set up by state governments. Because only 16 states set up their own exchanges, some on the left are hyperventilating that “right-wing judges” are trying “to gut Obamacare” using “cynical” and “shamefully dishonest” tactics. But now, a 2012 video has emerged of the architect of Obamacare—MIT economist Jonathan Gruber—agreeing that only state exchanges are eligible for subsidies. Does that make Gruber a “shamefully dishonest” Obamacare-gutter?

Gruber was paid nearly $400,000 as a White House consultant during the design and passage of the Affordable Care Act. Gruber then set up a lucrative business consulting for state governments like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Colorado on how to set up their own exchanges. On January 18, 2012, Gruber spoke before the Noblis Innovation and Collaboration Center, headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia.

Gruber then: subsidies only flow through state-based exchanges

In his remarks, Gruber urged state governments to set up their own health insurance exchanges. A member of the audience asked: “It’s my understanding that if states don’t provide [exchanges], then the federal government will provide them for the states.”

Gruber responded: “What’s important to remember politically about [Obamacare] 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.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... exchanges/

If there's been any Liberal criticism of Mr. Gruber, I've missed it...

Of course now he's changed his tune (from the same article):

Gruber now: it’s ‘nutty’ to assert that subsidies only flow through state-based exchanges

As Peter notes, the irony is that a year later, Gruber was deriding as “nutty” and “stupid” the contention that the Affordable Care Act required subsidies to flow through state-based exchanges.

It’s a “screwy interpretation” of Obamacare, alleged Gruber in an interview with Erika Eichelberger of Mother Jones in an article published on January 24, 2013. “It’s nutty. It’s stupid…it’s essentially unprecedented in our democracy. This was law democratically enacted, challenged in the Supreme Court, and passed the test, and now [Republicans] are trying again. They’re desperate.”[Actually, it's not the Republicans who sound "desperate" Mr. Gruber...]

Last Tuesday, Gruber was on MSNBC’s Hardball, where he doubled down on the “criminality” of those who argue that the ACA only allows for state-based exchanges:

" Chris [Matthews], it is unambiguous this is a typo. 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. And why would they? Look, the law says that people are only subject to the mandate if they can afford insurance, if it’s less than 8 percent of their income. If you get rid of these subsidies, 99 percent of the people who would get subsidies can no longer afford insurance, so you destroy the mandate. Why would Congress set up the mandate and go through all that political battle to allow it to be destroyed? It’s just simply a typo, and it’s really criminal that this has even made it as far as it has."

So Mr. Gruber, were you lying then, or are you lying now?

I remember hearing somone on the hill saying, (and I paraohrase) "we have to pass it to know what's in it".
Yeah, I always buy something before I know what I am buying. After all, gotta buy it to know what it is.

I remember hearing somone on the hill saying, (and I paraohrase) "we have to pass it to know what's in it".

That was in fact none other than the erstwhile Speaker Of The House, The Honorable Nancy Pelosi...

The Republicans are pushing to bring back their health plan; it's called "let them die".

Meanwhile, employer-provided health care is being gutted in nearly all large companies.


yrs,
rubato

oldr_n_wsr wrote:I remember hearing somone on the hill saying, (and I paraohrase) "we have to pass it to know what's in it".
Yeah, I always buy something before I know what I am buying. After all, gotta buy it to know what it is.

I heard a doctor mention that a while back. His response, "That is the definition of a stool sample!"

And yet more candor from the ACA Architect:

ACA Architect: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter' Led Us To Hide Obamacare's True Costs From The Public



You’ve got to hand it to MIT economist Jonathan Gruber. The guy dubbed the “Obamacare architect” is a viral YouTube sensation. A few months back, he was caught on tape admitting that Obamacare doesn’t provide subsidies for federally-run insurance exchanges; it’s now the topic of a new case before the Supreme Court.

Today, new video surfaced in which Gruber said that “the stupidity of the American voter” made it important for him and Democrats to hide Obamacare’s true costs from the public. “That was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” said Gruber. “But I’d rather have this law than not.” In other words, the ends—imposing Obamacare upon the public—justified the means.

The new Gruber comments come from a panel discussion that he joined on October 17, 2013 at the University of Pennsylvania’s Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics. He was joined on the panel by Penn health economist Mark Pauly. Patrick Howley of the Daily Caller was the first journalist to flag Gruber’s remarks, which were unearthed by Rich Weinstein.

In fairness to Gruber, American voters are not the only people whose intelligence he questions; elsewhere in the discussion, he describes New York Sen. Chuck Schumer (D.) as someone who “as far as I can tell, doesn’t understand economics” and calls a staffer for Sen. Olympia Snowe (R., Maine)—presumably William Pewen—an “idiot.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... he-public/

I hope it dies a quick death. We need something that makes sense: Full coverage for everyone. I would hate to have my name on this mess. What a legacy.

I agree that this situation is far from ideal, @W, but it is a start (albeit a pretty lousy one). and from what I can see, the best we are likely to get out of congress for a long time. I'd prefer single payor full coverage, but such is likely not to be--especially with the repubs at the helm in both houses of Congress.

As for the OP, I'll wait to see what the SC does; my guess is they won't disturb the tenuous balance that is the ACA.

Dp

The aca will continue until they elect a republican president. If that does not happen in 10 years it will be as big a success and as untouchable as soc sec or we will have modified it into a better, ie more like single-payer, system.



Yrs,
Rubato

TPFKA@W wrote:I hope it dies a quick death. We need something that makes sense: Full coverage for everyone. I would hate to have my name on this mess. What a legacy.

Public policy doesn't often change by grand sweeping changes, it changes in incremental steps. As flawed as the ACA may be, it is far better than the nothing we had before. I hope it can serve as a step to better and more coverage for all Americans. I also hope we can all agree, regardless of party, or creed, that the more people who have decent health care, the better for our country (and the worse for insurance companies ).

As someone who is relying on ACA coverage (in a non-exchange state) for health care as I launch a new business venture, I sure hope it doesn't get gutted.

I've run the numbers a few different ways, keeping worst case scenario in mind for my first year's earnings in my new practice, and either way I don't qualify for a subsidy - so I think that means I'm still okay and will still get the coverage I'm counting on for the price I've been quoted - BUT, my understanding is that if subsidies in non-exchange states are taken away, that might significantly impact the price of coverage for the non-subsidized as well, because the loss of subsidized participants from the plan (assuming they'll just go without healthcare again) will affect the overall costs - which makes sense.

I know there won't be a ruling until late spring and more likely mid-summer, but I'm seriously wondering whether I need to take it in the gut and fork over big bucks for COBRA on my current plan.

It's all very confusing.

I agree that ACA falls far short of what we need, which is single-payer universal healthcare - as proposed by Richard Nixon, a known Communist (after all, didn't he get nice with the Chinese???).

But I also agree with Gruber - many of our politicians AND voters are too stupid to get past inflammatory rhetoric tossed about by monied interests, and the insurance & healthcare industries are powerful lobbies with vested interest in keeping the status quo.

Nixon wasn't a communist...though he was, inarguably, an authoritarian statist.

But I also agree with Gruber - many of our politicians AND voters are too stupid to get past inflammatory rhetoric tossed about by monied interests, and the insurance & healthcare industries are powerful lobbies with vested interest in keeping the status quo.

So, do you also agree with Gruber that therefore deliberately lying to the American people was acceptable because the end justified the means?

though he was, inarguably, an authoritarian statist.

You say that like it's a bad thing....

So we have a smart person posting a brain dead liberal rant against the Court, and when called on it -- namely why aren't you mad at the inept people in your party for doing such a bad job writing this law, just ignores her favorites' incompetence.

By the way, someone posted about this back in July so this has been on it way for awhile. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11523&p=142616&hili ... dy#p142616

They also didn't think of the next attacks on the ACA. The first one being that the law as written only provides subsidies to those who sign up on a state exchange, but the Administration (which now has a startling record of losses before the courts), has decided the subsidy was also meant to extend to people in the 34 states who don't have state exchanges and have to use the federal exchange. Truly a simple drafting change of a few words would have solved this one. (Since a high percentage of the people signed up on the exchanges are subsidized, this could greatly reduce the number of those signed up, most of whom are reasonably healthy). The second attack working its way along is the failure to originate the "tax" provision of the individual mandate in the correct chamber of Congress -- all tax bills must start in the House, but the ACA looks to have been started in the Senate (unless the "gut and stuff" strategy actually is upheld), so the individual mandate could end up being invalidated after all. The first attack seems the stronger of the two to me, and an appellate court decision should be handed down in the next few weeks and a likely SCOTUS review in 2015.

But don't blame opponents for opposing the law, or the courts for doing what they do to decide close calls -- blame the inept politicians who couldn't figure out how to write a bill that didn't have a myriad of legal problems.

Long Run wrote:So we have a smart person posting a brain dead liberal rant against the Court, and when called on it -- namely why aren't you mad at the inept people in your party for doing such a bad job writing this law, just ignores her favorites' incompetence.

By the way, someone posted about this back in July so this has been on it way for awhile. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11523&p=142616&hili ... dy#p142616

The cartoon was meant to be just a little humor injected into the conversation, Long Run. I'm sorry you didn't like the joke.

I didn't post a brain dead liberal rant; I posted two very good articles from TNR taking different positions on the ACA case SCOTUS will decide in this session.

And I'm sorry I didn't recall your mention of this issue from back in July. I'm nearly middle-aged now, and I don't have the ability to recollect all the legal stuff I have to keep in my brain from day to day and also the content of every one of your posts on the board.

Mea culpa!

Jarlaxle wrote:Nixon wasn't a communist...though he was, inarguably, an authoritarian statist.

That comment about Nixon was also a joke, Jarl - you know, everyone calls Obama a Socialist because of the radical ACA, whilst the very Republican Nixon proposed a much farther-reaching healthcare system - so, he must have actually been a Communist!

Get it now?