- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Obamacare Appeal --- Jonathan Gruber doing more work
Posted on 11/16/14 at 7:06 am
Posted on 11/16/14 at 7:06 am
Jonathan Gruber is the gift that keeps giving, and giving . . . and giving! 
The new Obamacare appeal will be heard by SCOTUS in March.
It hinges on whether the IRS can apply regulations for tax-credit subsidies to ACA policies purchased outside of the 14 state established exchanges. IOW, can the IRS legally award tax-credit subsidies to enrollees who purchased their coverage through Federal Exchanges, rather than through the individual State Exchanges?
Here's how a portion of the law addresses subsidies (premium assistance):
If citizens of the 36 nonparticipating states cannot receive exchange subsidies (premium assistance), the ACA will collapse. The Feds argue nonparticipant exclusion was "never" their intent.
Enter the now infamous Jonathan Gruber:
There were some here who claimed the SCOTUS case would have nothing to do with Gruber and the Gruber revelations. This sort of blows all 4 doors off of that premise.
Since Gruber will be a part of the thing, I wonder if the SCOTUS justices consider themselves "stupid American voters"?
The new Obamacare appeal will be heard by SCOTUS in March.
It hinges on whether the IRS can apply regulations for tax-credit subsidies to ACA policies purchased outside of the 14 state established exchanges. IOW, can the IRS legally award tax-credit subsidies to enrollees who purchased their coverage through Federal Exchanges, rather than through the individual State Exchanges?
Here's how a portion of the law addresses subsidies (premium assistance):
quote:"An Exchange established by the State" is detailed in the ACA, and the phrase is used repeatedly throughout the Law.
The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
LINK
If citizens of the 36 nonparticipating states cannot receive exchange subsidies (premium assistance), the ACA will collapse. The Feds argue nonparticipant exclusion was "never" their intent.
Enter the now infamous Jonathan Gruber:
quote:So Gruber insists the law was written specifically to exclude subsidies for nonparticipating states.
Questioner: You mentioned the health-information Exchanges for the states, and it is my understanding that if states don’t provide them, then the federal government will provide them for the states.
Gruber: Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will. The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its backstop, I think partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it. I think 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’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, and that they’ll do it. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this.
LINK
There were some here who claimed the SCOTUS case would have nothing to do with Gruber and the Gruber revelations. This sort of blows all 4 doors off of that premise.
Since Gruber will be a part of the thing, I wonder if the SCOTUS justices consider themselves "stupid American voters"?
This post was edited on 11/16/14 at 7:09 am
3
Posted on 11/16/14 at 7:22 am to NC_Tigah
Not familiar with the intricacies of the USSC, but isn't it just both sides presenting their case? Meaning, there are no material witnesses...
Even if they could call Gruber, he would just plead the fifth, so that he ensured he wouldn't contradict anything he officially said on record or presented in writing previously.
Even if they could call Gruber, he would just plead the fifth, so that he ensured he wouldn't contradict anything he officially said on record or presented in writing previously.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 7:31 am to Lsut81
quote:
Even if they could call Gruber, he would just plead the fifth, so that he ensured he wouldn't contradict anything he officially said on record or presented in writing previously.
A couple things.
Gruber couldn't plead the Fifth -- this isn't a criminal action nor could it lead to anything criminal against Gruber.
Second, the Supremes can do pretty much anything they want. Scalia could ask the Solicitor General, "You claim it's just a typo, but didn't one of the architects of this bill claim that it was done intentionally to coerce the states into developing exchanges?"
What could the Solicitor say? That he's unaware of any such comments. He'd risk being laughed out of the court.
The only argument the Obama administration has is that you shouldn't read the passage as written in PLAIN ENGLISH, or as how the "architect" described it. Rather, you should let the Obama administration violate this law that they unethically shoved through Congress because their Dear Leader will look like an incompetent fool if they don't.
There's no doubt the Lil Ruthie the ACLU scumbag, the Wise Latina, and the Forever dateless dyke will all bow to their Messiah.
I can't see anyone else on the Court falling for such bullsh!t.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 7:36 am to MMauler
quote:
There's no doubt the Lil Ruthie the ACLU scumbag, the Wise Latina, and the Forever dateless dyke will all bow to their Messiah.
He mad.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 7:36 am to MMauler
quote:
Gruber couldn't plead the Fifth -- this isn't a criminal action nor could it lead to anything criminal against Gruber.
Just out of curiosity, how can he not? How can he be compelled to testify
Seems like him stating something under oath for a USSC case would be on the record and allow for him to be indicted for saying something completely different on the govt paperwork he has previously submitted
And along those same lines, Lerner was able (would have been able to if done right) to plead the fifth in a congressional hearing that was not a criminal hearing.... How is this any different?
Just asking the questions
Posted on 11/16/14 at 7:39 am to Lsut81
quote:
Just out of curiosity, how can he not? How can he be compelled to testify
There's no testimony before the Supreme Court -- or appellate courts. This would have had to have been done at the district court level.
Appellate courts are generally confined to the record established at the district court level. But, the Supreme's can take judicial notice of pretty much anything they want.
Where Gruber may be in trouble is at the district court level. He signed a amicus brief stating that the provision was merely a typo and it was never intended that people who get insurance through the Federal exchange wouldn't be entitled to subsidies.
CLEARLY he lied in that brief and the district court could hold him in contempt or the Justice Department could look into perjury charges -- I'll hold my breath waiting for Odumbf*ck's Justice Department to do anything ethical.
This post was edited on 11/16/14 at 7:42 am
Posted on 11/16/14 at 7:41 am to MMauler
quote:
There's no testimony before the Supreme Court -- or appellate courts.
And thats what I was asking... I didn't think there was any witnesses or testimony.
So basically, the only thing that can be presented to the USSC by the opponents of the law is "Here is something that Gruber, one of the architects of the legislation said in public... not on record or in an official capacity of a government employee"
Basically a big pile of nothing
Posted on 11/16/14 at 7:41 am to Lsut81
If his shite is not part of the record, it will not be considered.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 7:44 am to baybeefeetz
It can be considered as the Supremes can take Judicial Notice of anything they wish. I'm sure it will be pointed out in the many briefs that will be filed and it will pretty much make any argument that it was just a "typo" look completely f*cking ridiculous as it will show that not only was there a "possible" reason for writing it that way, but also that it was done intentionally.
One really good thing about this case -- it will show who the true hacks are on the Supreme Court. Only a complete f*cking moron who is completely willing to sh!t and p!ss all over the Constitution to achieve their political agenda could even think about ruling in favor of the Odumbf*ck administration. This one should be 9-0 and the "debate" should last all of about 10 seconds.
One really good thing about this case -- it will show who the true hacks are on the Supreme Court. Only a complete f*cking moron who is completely willing to sh!t and p!ss all over the Constitution to achieve their political agenda could even think about ruling in favor of the Odumbf*ck administration. This one should be 9-0 and the "debate" should last all of about 10 seconds.
This post was edited on 11/16/14 at 7:52 am
Posted on 11/16/14 at 7:55 am to MMauler
You may be right in the sense that no one can call them on their bullshite if they too judicial notice of something, but the federal rules of evidence limit what a judge can take judicial notice of. The Gruber videos would not fit in there.
And the poster that earlier said Gruber could not take the Fifth in a civil case is just flat wrong. I mean really, really, wrong.
And the poster that earlier said Gruber could not take the Fifth in a civil case is just flat wrong. I mean really, really, wrong.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 8:05 am to FalseProphet
quote:
no one can call them on their bullshite if they too judicial notice of something, but the federal rules of evidence limit what a judge can take judicial notice of. The Gruber videos would not fit in there
They're the court of last resort.
Do you really think that the Supremes should just let Obama's Solicitor General stand there and LIE HIS A$$ OFF and say that it was just a "typo" and that there is no possible reason why it would have been written that way -- AND -- no one in the Obama administration or in the Congress ever thought that people who signed up through the Federal exchange wouldn't get a subsidy????
THIS presents the exact scenario when the Supremes SHOULD take Judicial Notice.
HERE'S an article on Judicial Notice at the Appellate Level --
quote:
Under Fed. R. Evid. 201[f], judicial notice of adjudicative facts may be taken at any stage of the proceedings, including on appeal. In practice, appellate courts frequently take judicial notice of both adjudicative and legislative facts presented for the first time on appeal, whether requested by a party or on their own initiative. See, e.g., Hotel Employees & Rest. Employees Union, Local 100 of New York, N.Y. & Vicinity, AFL-CIO v. City of New York Dep't of Parks & Recreation, 311 F.3d 534, 540 n.1 [2d Cir. 2002]; In re Indian Palms Assoc. Ltd ., 61 F.3d 197, 205 [3d Cir. 1995].
Here's another quote from the article --
quote:
Rule 201(b) allows judicial notice of adjudicative facts that are "not subject to reasonable dispute" because they are "generally known" or are "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."
Here, Gruber is on video. There is NO reason to question the validity.
This post was edited on 11/16/14 at 8:25 am
Posted on 11/16/14 at 8:37 am to FalseProphet
quote:
And the poster that earlier said Gruber could not take the Fifth in a civil case is just flat wrong. I mean really, really, wrong.
Technically, anyone can take the Fifth at any time.
But, what would be the point here? Why would he be taking the Fifth. Everything is on video. Asking him, "here's the video -- is that you on the video?" Do you really think he'd respond, "I take the Fifth"?
Posted on 11/16/14 at 8:37 am to FalseProphet
quote:The states will argue exchange subsidies were designed as tools of Federal coercement.
but the federal rules of evidence limit what a judge can take judicial notice of. The Gruber videos would not fit in there.
The Feds will claim their design was nothing more than accidental typos.
Gruber was heavily involved in design and analysis of the ACA. So you are saying that when the Feds' arguments fall 100% antithetical to Gruber's attestations, SCOTUS justices will not consider that fact? You feel it will have no influence privately or publicly on their impressions?
I find that an incredible supposition.
There is another angle though IMO.
Roberts twisted his ACA ruling based on the thought that SCOTUS should minimize interference with the electorate. 2012 was coming up. If We the People did not want Obamacare, We the People had a remedy in the next election. However, that belief was predicated on We the People having facts fairly at our disposal to make an informed decision. Again, Gruber makes it clear We the People were maliciously duped.
If you think that concept will not enter into Spring conversations in Robert's chambers, I'd have to believe you're naive. Will it be explicitly stated as such in the final ruling? Probably not.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 9:17 am to MMauler
quote:
Where Gruber may be in trouble is at the district court level. He signed a amicus brief stating that the provision was merely a typo and it was never intended that people who get insurance through the Federal exchange wouldn't be entitled to subsidies.
quote:
[ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 25, 2014]
No. 14-5018
__________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
__________________________________________________________________
JACQUELINE HALBIG, ET AL.,
Appellants,
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.,
Appellees.
__________________________________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (NO. 13-623 (PLF))
__________________________________________________________________
BRIEF AMICI CURIAE FOR ECONOMIC SCHOLARS
IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES
=================
Excerpts from the Amicus Brief . . . .
=================
The well-known Gruber Microsimulation Model (“Gruber Model” or “GMSIM”) predicts that if subsidies are unavailable to low- and middle-income individuals on the federally-run Exchange, premiums would increase. The Gruber Model further demonstrates that those increases would be dramatic. For the typical subsidy-eligible participant
=================
The predictions of the Gruber Model are corroborated by real world experiences. Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey tried to implement insurance reforms barring discrimination without simultaneously ensuring wide participation through subsidies and mandates
=================
In economic literature and the popular press, the interrelation among the ACA reforms is often described as a “three-legged stool.” See, e.g., Jonathan Gruber, The Impacts of the Affordable Care Act: How Reasonable Are the Projections?
=================
Economist and MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber has developed a sophisticated economic model that allows for a robust prediction of outcomes in the health care system, depending on various policy changes. The Gruber Microsimulation Model (“GMSIM”) utilizes two primary sets of data: (1) Fixed information on individuals, derived from 2011 Current Population Survey data and updated to 2013 and later years; and (2) varying information on policy parameters, which inform the changes in price and eligibility of various forms of insurance. See MIT Economics, Jonathan Gruber, Documentation for the Gruber Microsimulation Model at 2-3, available at https://economics.mit.edu/faculty/ gruberj/lightread. The GMSIM has been cited as one of the leading options for modeling health insurance reforms such as the ACA.
=================
B. The Only Reasonable Interpretation of The ACA’s Provisions,
Structure, and Purpose Is That Congress Intended To Make
Subsidies Available To Participants On The Federally-Run
Exchange.
All three legs of the stool – guaranteed issue, the individual mandate, and premium subsidies – are necessary to achieve the ACA’s goals. And it is impossible to parse the statute without concluding that Congress understood and intended all three legs to work together. It is absurd to argue that Congress set up a federally-run Exchange while simultaneously denying participants the subsidies necessary to make the Exchange functional.
LINK
Posted on 11/16/14 at 9:23 am to baybeefeetz
What? Man...brush up.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 9:35 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Economist and MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber has developed a sophisticated economic model that allows for a robust prediction of outcomes in the health care system, depending on various policy changes.
Knowing what we now know, I have a few questions.
Is this an unbiased model?
Has it been peer-reviewed?
Is it even a valid model wherein the methods of determination are transparent and factual?
Opinion question: Right this second, which model would you bet your house on is the more legitimate model A) Gruber's Economic Model for ACA or B) IPCC Reporting model for climate change?
Posted on 11/16/14 at 9:51 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
NC_Tigah
Great thread. This is probably the most concise thread concerning Halbig we have on the poli board. Bookmarked.
quote:
MMauler
Thanks for answering the question concerning the "rules" around what SCOTUS can consider and cannot consider. I posed this question in another thread and the answer was "SCOTUS" has the liberty to include whatever they want if they feel that information is material to the case being adjudicated. Nice backup.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 10:49 am to Janky
quote:
There's no doubt the Lil Ruthie the ACLU scumbag, the Wise Latina, and the Forever dateless dyke will all bow to their Messiah.
He speak the truth.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 11:18 am to NC_Tigah
Did you even read what I typed? I never said they wouldn't consider it, I only pointed out that the rules of evidence don't allow them to.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 11:23 am to FalseProphet
quote:But that really is not true, is it?
I never said they wouldn't consider it, I only pointed out that the rules of evidence don't allow them to.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News