It’s a good thing Barack Obama destroyed the rule of law in this country, or the latest video of motor-mouthed ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber would kill the President’s health-care scheme stone dead in the fastest Supreme Court ruling in history.
You may recall that ObamaCare is heaving its disreputable bulk back to the Court for judgment on whether the federal exchange (which 35 states use) is allowed to dispense subsidies (without which nobody can afford those mandate-bloated ObamaCare insurance policies.) The Affordable Care Act explicitly states that only exchanges run by states can give out subsidies, but the dogged defenders of this hideous law claim that was just a “typo.” Gruber has, in past appearances, strongly implied that the federal exchanges weren’t supposed to give out subsidies, but he dismissed those statements as “speak-os.” (In case you’ve forgotten how idiotic ObamaCare is, and how dishonest its creators are, that’s the exact word Gruber used.)
Liberals blew a zillion pixels on screeds that insisted we were all just misunderstanding Gruber, or he just tripped over his tongue. Why would the designers of the Affordable Care Act sabotage their own magnificent supra-Constitutional law by planting legal bombs in its subsidy mechanisms, all but ensuring the demise of the program when the American people discovered how much it actually costs?
Well, here comes the latest hugely embarrassing Jon Gruber video, a January 2012 appearance in which he confirms without ambiguity that federal exchange customers aren’t supposed to receive subsidies, and explains exactly why: “If you’re a state and you don’t accept an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes to support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to support all the states in this country.”
None of that is surprising – it’s exactly how critics of ObamaCare say the subsidy trap was intended to work. There are contemporaneous comments from the Affordable Care Act’s designers, including Gruber, to support that interpretation. Evidently some of the ObamaCare con artists realized the subsidy trap could backfire on them, grokking the possibility that most states might choose not to create exchanges, which is how things eventually shook out. The subsidy trap was supposed to make the “choice” of states to create exchanges an illusion, just as your “choice” not to participate in ObamaCare by keeping the health care plan you liked was a lie, but that would only work if most of the states did create exchanges, and the few holdouts collapsed under pressure from their constituents.
Instead, ObamaCare is unpopular with the American public, only a few states set up exchanges, and some of those exchanges didn’t work out very well. The loss of subsidies for federal customers is more likely to finish off ObamaCare than pressure reluctant state governments to fall in line. This video is the clearest, most indisputable evidence yet uncovered of how the subsidy trap was intended to work, and it should be utterly fatal to the Democrats’ hopes of keeping the Affordable Care Act alive in the Supreme Court. The idea that laws can be rewritten on the fly, without due process, to meet the current needs of desperate politicians is despicable; rewriting them in clear defiance of what the drafters “really meant” reduces American government to satire.
But these are satirical times, so who knows? The Supreme Court hearing on ObamaCare should consist of a few minutes spent watching this video, followed by a unanimous verdict of “You gotta be kidding me, geddouddahere!” from all of the justices (ideally set to music, and led by Justice Antonin Scalia.) Instead, it will probably remain a lengthy nail-biter.
Meanwhile, this and the rest of America’s Funniest Totalitarian Home Videos will doubtless come up when Jonathan Gruber drops by the House Oversight Committee next week. Would someone be so kind as to pull the media’s heads out of Elizabeth Lauten’s dumpster and ask if they plan to break the hardest “news” embargo in history to report on these developments?