A Lesson About Reading Legislation

Well it would seem at this point that the Democratic legislators in the halls of our Congress would now know the perils of NOT READING massive legislation and NOT KNOWING what is in that myriad of "statutory language" as it applies to the Affordable Care Act, also affectionately known as Obamacare.

I can now tell you without a doubt that the Democratic Party owns Obamacare lock, stock and barrel and will once again in 2014 pay the price for deceiving the American public as they did in 2010. The deception just keeps just running deeper and deeper as we "find out what is in it."

First there was airhead Pelosi's making such a stupid comment about not reading the bill before passing it and that was followed up by Senator Max Baccus making an equal fool of himself concerning who does what, when and where in the legislative process.

So now lets talk FACTS for a few. The statutory language in Obamacare clearly states that any tax subsidies to be administered by the IRS in assisting Americans needing help to pay for health insurance will only apply to subsidies for people who buy their coverage from exchanges "established" by the States. The states in question refer to insurance exchanges established in ACA section 1311. Go read it if you haven't read that plain statutory language.. It says nothing about granting them to exchanges run by HHS. Those are discussed in ACA section 1321. The statutory language is perfectly clear and unambiguous.

Now the Obamacare cheerleaders are contending that it was just a "drafting error" to have used that clear as a bell language after the District Court of Washington DC pointed out that the IRS does not have the statutory authority to grant across the board subsidies to all. So lets listen to what one of the chief drafters of Obamacare said at the time about reading laws before they are passed. What is it that we pay these part time legislators to do if not their jobs? Keep in mind that Max Baccus threw in the towel and is gone now. He reads the handwriting on the wall just not the legislation.

They then start wanting us to read the minds of the mindless to determine what their "intent" was in using that very plain language. In this case it was the general will of the Democrats in Congress minus every Republican sitting there. Again the Democrats own Obamacare so remember that in November 2014. They "meant" for the subsidies to apply to everyone. If that is the case why does the law discuss who gets what and from where in two different sections of the ACA? That argument is using typical liberal language of don't look over there because what we meant is over here.

To further the fallacy of their argument is the fact that during the crafting of the bill in secret Republicans repeatedly brought up the very fact that none of them could read the bill. Why? Easy answer really because the legislative text hadn't been written. The Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Max Baccus, voted on what's called "conceptual language." There was also a certain degree of anticipation in the process that some states would NOT set up their own exchanges. That's pretty clear too.

So "conceptual language" met the reality of the statutory language and now they don't like it one bit.. May I suggest that the next time they read the actual language "before" voting and not afterward.

Speaking of "experts" former Chairman Baccus, it happens that one of those supposed experts who helped write the statutory language was a Mr. Jonathan Gruber. Gruber is a known MIT health expert who also assisted in writing the Massachusetts' law which is proving to also be very problematic. Gruber, way back in 2012, stated the following," it was actually important that subsidies didn't apply to federally run exchanges."

Well I'll be. The reasoning of Gruber was? That language would be the incentive for states to set up their own exchanges. That is coming from an individual who helped write that very clear statutory language. The New York Times at that time reported that Gruber went to Capitol Hill to assist Congressional staffers in writing the specifics into the bill.

The bottom line is that the crafters (law makers) passed "conceptual language" then hired "experts" without mentioning who they supposedly wanted subsidies to apply to. That's a fact not conjecture. Right from the horse's mouth facts. The "experts" they hired did intend that those subsidies would not to apply to federal exchanges, just state exchanges. They then wrote that very plain language into two different sections of Obamacare as previously mentioned. It says that subsidies will not apply to federal exchanges, only state exchanges. The leadership of the Democratic Party subsequently refused to post the legislation in statutory language so that it could be read before it was passed.

So what was the result? The Democratically controlled Congress, which now owns the fiasco called Obamacare, voted on a piece of trash legislation that was written by people whose intent was that tax subsidies will apply to state-established exchanges and state exchanges only. Obama has taken it upon himself to change the statutory language which isn't within the powers given to him by the US Constitution.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: From Winston Churchill comes this, “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

Footnote: Since publishing this here is an update about Gruber. Seems he wants to dig a deeper hole. http://bighealthreport.com/13150/obamacare-architect-caught-in-huge-lie-over-exchange-subsidies/

As Always,

The Frog Prince