Jonathan Gruber’s testimony before Congress on this week was a series of apologies, evasions, denials, and outright lies.
The MIT professor widely acknowledged to be the “architect of Obamacare” began his opening remarks by declaring: “I was not the ‘architect’ of President Obama’s health care plan.” He later refused to say how much money he’d made off his consulting and speeches on Obamacare. But the most staggering and consequential falsehood spoken by Gruber came when he tried to explain away his previous claim that states do not qualify for subsidies under Obamacare if they do not set up their own exchanges (the subject of a case before the Supreme Court that could destroy the law).
Gruber said during his opening prepared remarks:
During follow-up questioning, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan pointed out that Gruber’s explanation doesn’t make sense. “The law requires the federal government to create Obamacare exchanges in states that refuse to create the exchanges for themselves,” Amash said. He was right: The law clearly states the secretary of Health and Human Services “shall” establish an exchange in states that fail to do so. So, Amash continued, “What did you mean when you repeatedly said that the citizens of some states may not quality for Obamacare tax credits?”
“When I made those comments, I believe what I was saying was reflecting uncertainty about the implementation of the federal exchange,” Gruber insisted. “I don’t recall exactly what the law says.”
Gruber was clearly lying to Congress. At the very same 2012 speaking engagement in which he said states don’t get subsidies if they don’t set up their own exchanges, he acknowledged that the federal government is directed to set up exchanges in states that decline to do so.
Gruber: Yeah. So these health insurance exchanges–you can go on MAHealthConnector 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 in this 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 that if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits [emphasis added].
You can watch Gruber’s 2012 remarks here: and his explanation to Amash here (via Jason Pye of Freedomworks):
And watch Gruber’s 2012 remarks here (via Ryan Radia of the Competitive Enterprise Institute):
As lawsuits challenging the legality of Obamacare subsidies made their way through the courts, liberals roundly mocked the notion that Obamacare made subsidies contingent upon states setting up their own exchanges. In 2013, Gruber himself told Mother Jones that the lawsuits were “screwy…nutty…stupid”:
Gruber’s 2012 remarks are significant
1. They show that it’s not crazy.
2. They create political space.
. I don’t think anyone would deny that Gruber understood the law better than Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Max Baucus or any other politician who played a role in drafting the bill. As the New York Times reported.
9-0
Will not
Cannon: It creates the political space for the Court to do the right thing.
Why this matters so much is not that it suggests legislative intent:
1. it says secretary shall He’s right, and anyone with a passing understanding of the law knew that this was the case.
2. Not legislative intent Pruitt:
3. POlitical space to do the right thing.
during questioning from Representative Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan.
Gruber: In the law it says if the states don’t provide the
