When your own stick turns out to be a boomerang, or what happens when you step on your own rake !

The latest revelations in the ObamaCare debacle revolve around Obama architect Jonathan Gruber.
You might remember back in 2010 during the fight over ObamaCare mandates ‘we the people’ were told the mandate was a penalty and not a tax.   However, when ObamaCare challenges ultimately reached the courtroom the administration argument was exactly the opposite.  The government argued the mandate was a tax not a penalty; only as a tax could the construct survive legal scrutiny.   This latest Gruber development similarly pretzellian but infinite degrees worse.
The construct of ObamaCare execution relied upon a network of state exchanges to enroll people in the plans.   The problem for the administration was the volume of political opposition to the entire plan itself.   Consequently the Obama administration had to set up a “stick” or punitive punishment if any state failed to comply with setting up the exchange.
The stick they settled upon was a simple premise – financial blackmail.   Any state who did not construct an exchange for their state citizens to enroll in ObamaCare would face a punishment of not being allowed to receive a federal subsidy for their premium.     In essence the goal was to force states to set up exchanges.  To force compliance the carrot was the federal premium subsidy, the stick was financial punishment if they didn’t.

Jonathan Gruber was one of the key architects of this approach.   He repeatedly warned audiences that if their state did not set up a compliant exchange then the enrollees would not get the federal subsidy to lower their individual insurance premium.
Then came the problem.   A few days ago a federal court ruled in the legal ObamaCare challenge case Halbig V Sebellius that, contrary to the Obama administration’s implementation and an Internal Revenue Service rule, Obamacare’s subsidies for private health insurance were limited to state-run health exchanges.

The reasoning for this ruling was simple: That’s what the law says. The section dealing with the creation of state exchanges and the provision of subsidies states, quite clearly, that subsidies are only available in exchanges “established by a State,” which the law expressly defines as the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. (link)

The outcome of the court ruling is devastating to the financial viability within the construction of ObamaCare itself because 39 states did not set up exchanges and instead chose to rely upon the federal government to create the exchange.

Here’s the kicker.  The reason that most states did not set up the exchange was not because of their unwillingness to do so, but rather because the federal government was continually changing the parameters for the exchange construction itself.   States couldn’t get straight answers about implementation dates, qualifications and other qualifying parameters needed for the exchange –  so almost every state gave up in frustration.

The reason for the feds not giving the definitions, was simple.   Politically ObamaCare was toxic and subsequently Obama was continually changing the rules, dates, definitions etc.   It was simply impossible for most states to create the exchanges.

However, now in the face of a court ruling affirming the original intent of the construction, and accepting the “stick” as it was outlined, the law has lost it’s financial foundation.
Facing the court ruling, all of a sudden Jonathan Gruber and the ObamaCare supporters are trying to claim the “stick” was not intended, and in fact they are arguing the ‘stick” never existed.    But there’s a problem – Audio and Video exists of them proclaiming the construction of the stick itself.
Here’s an example of Gruber trying to say he didn’t intend to say what he is known to have said:

But the brutal reality is indeed the formation of a “state exchange” was/is legally mandatory to enrollees gaining federal subsidy for their insurance premiums.
Reason.Com has more on the issue HERE and HERE.
Breitbart has another outline including audio/video HERE.
Despite Jonathan Gruber claiming NOW, in 2014, that he did not say what he is cited as saying in 2011 – 2012 the truth presents a stark contrast. It simply is what it is.
Now whether, like the aforementioned “tax” vs. “penalty” issue, this is enough to derail the framework is a subject yet to be determined. Just like the original ObamaCare legal challenge this one is similiarly expected to reach the Supreme Court.
Will they follow the letter of the law as it is written ? Or, like the previous example, will the Supreme Court interpret the intentions of the law as it was written ?

Ultimately how the Supreme Court decides to approach the law will determine what outcome wins.