Year End Reflections - Part III

The very liberal state of Vermont had what they thought was a good idea - a single payer healthcare system. However, Governor Peter Shumlin recently put an end to those plans. Said the Governor: "It was clear to me that the taxes required to replace health-care premiums with a publicly financed plan that would best serve Vermont are, in a word, enormous."

The higher taxes would have hurt the citizens and businesses in Vermont. The Governor was unable to justify the negative impact on his state's economy. But notice what else he said, a "plan that would best serve Vermont." Could it be that he realized that not only would the taxes be enormous in order to provide quality healthcare to the people; but that if he lessened the tax impact it would result in a lower standard of care, with long waits for treatment and less choices. Did the Governor have a conservative moment? Did he actually let reality dictate his beliefs and policy? Good for him!

Meanwhile, SCOTUS will be hearing a case next year on an issue that could have a major impact on the ACA. The issue is whether or not the subsidies available to Obamacare enrollees are only available to those who enroll through a state exchange; or can those who enrolled through the federal exchange (because their states did not set up a state run exchange) also be eligible for the subsidies? As most states did not set up their own exchange, the impact on Obamacare could be enormous.

Paul Krugman, the award winning far-left columnist for the New York Times, said in his 11/10/14 opinion piece that it was all much ado about nothing. The drafters merely made a typo in referring to "state" run exchanges. Anyway, he said you could ask them. Okay, let's ask Jonathan Gruber, one of the main architects of Obamacare. Gruber: "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." (Comments by Gruber on 1/18/12.)

Recall that SCOTUS upheld the ACA by calling the penalty/fine a "tax." (See 7/1/12 post discussing the Supreme Court decision.) The statute said it was a fine, Obama said it was a fine. So now we have a challenge to the law as to whether "state exchange" also means "federal exchange."

Will the Chief Justice be all in? It was Chief Justice John Roberts who voted with the four liberal Justices to uphold the ACA by rewriting the statute and calling the "fine" a "tax." It seems to this writer that it will be just as easy for Roberts to rewrite the statute yet again in order to define "state" as also meaning "federal" with regards to the exchanges. The Court has no power to write or rewrite legislation. But we know the four liberals on the Court will put their agenda ahead of the law. Will Roberts?

Gruber also said the bill was intentionally written with a lack of transparency. Said Gruber: "Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass." Because Gruber believed the ACA was an important piece of legislation, and as a typical left-wing elitist also believed he knew what was best for the American people, he had no compunction about the lies and lack of transparency surrounding the ACA. But Gruber was not an elected official. Our top leaders, Obama, Reid and Pelosi, also had no compunction about lying. After all, the ends always justify the means to these people. Truth is not a value in and of itself.

So will Roberts be all in? I hope not; but if the past is any indication, he will allow the enrollees in the federal exchanges to get the same subsidies as those in the state exchanges. He will be all in.