Yesterday, it was revealed that back in 2012, ObamaCare architect and health economist Jonathan Gruber had been telling people the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act operates exactly as the plaintiffs in Halbig v. Burwell and King v. Burwell claim: it restricts premium-assistance tax credits to those who enroll in ObamaCare coverage "through an Exchange established by the State." Quoth Gruber:
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.
As I explained in a post earlier today, Gruber has changed his story now that the meaning of those words is politically inconvenient. He is now calling such claims screwy, nutty, stupid, criminal, yadda, yadda, yadda. And he's not just saying it to you and me. He has told two federal courts that the Halbig/King interpretation is "implausible."
Gruber scarcely had time to plead temporary insanity with regard to his 2012 comments when someone on the interwebs uncovered another example of Gruber explaining in January 2012 that the PPACA withholds tax credits from states that do not establish Exchanges. I transcribe:
A number of states have even turned down millions of dollars in federal government grants as a statement of some sort. They don’t support health care reform. I guess I'm enough of a believe in democracy to think that when the voters in states see that by not setting up an Exchange, the politicians in their state are costing state residents hundreds of millions and billions of dollars that they’ll eventually throw the guys out. But I don’t know that for sure. And that is really the ultimate threat, is: Will people understand that, gee, if your governor doesn’t set up an Exchange, you’re losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens? So that’s the other threat, is: Will states do what they need to do to set it up?
That's all. Read my prior post for more.
