Commentary: “Drafting Error” May Wreck Obamacare (August, 2014)

By John McClaughryJohn McClaughry

What Obamacare’s backers dismissed as a “drafting error” may wreck it in the courts – and the self-styled architect of the bill, Shumlin consultant Jonathan Gruber, is on the hot seat for telling the truth and then trying to explain it away.

*          *          *

The future of Obamacare is hanging by a legal thread, thanks to what its supporters have passed off as a mere “drafting error”. Now MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, selected by Gov. Shumlin to receive yet another juicy contract to try to make sense out of Green Mountain Care, finds himself uncomfortably in the spotlight of the legal issue.

The Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ObamaCare) contemplated the creation of health insurance exchanges in every state. An earlier version in the Senate mandated states to create such exchanges, through which federal tax credit subsidies would flow to persons buying government-approved insurance.

But somebody in the Senate realized that the Federal government cannot just mandate the states to do whatever Congress wants. So the final Senate bill, that became law, offered incentives to the states to create their own exchanges. It also authorized the federal government to create a backup exchange in case states declined to create their own.

The incentive was the availability of billions of subsidy dollars to insurance buyers in “exchanges created by the state under section 1311”. However the law did not provide for such subsidies to flow through a backup federal exchange created under section 1321.

To the dismay of the Obamacare backers, only fourteen states attempted to set up exchanges. (Vermont Health Connect – $170 million – remains an inoperable disaster.)

Undaunted, the Obama IRS simply rewrote the law to allow the subsidies to flow through the federal exchange (Healthcare.gov) as well as through what the law allowed: “exchanges created by the state”.

In Halbig v. Burwell, decided July 22 in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges emphatically held that the law plainly says “exchanges created by a state”.  The Obama administration cannot revise it to read “exchanges created by a state or anybody else”.

If individuals can’t get credits because there is no state exchange, they can’t be penalized for not having insurance. Similarly, if no employee of a large (more than 50 employee) company can receive a credit, the company can’t be penalized for having employees claiming credits.

Concurring, Judge Raymond Randolph quoted the great progressive Justice Louis Brandeis: “What the government asks is not a construction of a statute, but, in effect, an enlargement of it by the court, so that what was omitted, presumably by inadvertence, may be included within its scope. To supply omissions transcends the judicial function.”

The Obama White House predictably denounced the Halbig decision. It argues that the President and Congressional Democrats intended to create a vast scheme to subsidize health insurance, so never mind what the law they passed actually says.

Ultimately the legal issues will be settled by the Supreme Court. It’s notable that even some liberal justices on that Court have written powerful opinions refusing to allow the executive branch to redefine the plain language of the law as enacted. The result may well be that the economic framework supporting the act will crumble if the credits are not available on federal exchanges.

Now back to Jonathan Gruber. He has made himself a consulting money machine by claiming to be the leading authority on Romney Care and ObamaCare. He was also the co-author of the 2011 Hsiao Report to the Vermont legislature ($300,000) that underlies  Act 48 (Green Mountain Care).

Just after the Halbig decision, a researcher unearthed a January 2012 videotape of Obamacare authority Gruber explaining to an audience that “If you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits” – which corroborates exactly what the Obamacare opponents have been arguing in the courts.

Gruber is now mightily embarrassed for having been caught blurting out the truth. In a subsequent New Republic interview, Gruber pleaded the equivalent of temporary insanity, but the damage is done. But fortunately for him, Peter Shumlin has dished out another $400,000 contract that may ease his pain.

– John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute (www.ethanallen.org).

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

jim bulmer September 2, 2014 at 3:03 pm

How much longer will Vermonters put up with Shumlin and his stupitity? We’ve got too much of that in the White House and our steller three in Congrss

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.
Read more...

Latest News

Roll Call! Senate Votes for 24 Hour Waiting Period for Handgun Purchase (20-10), 2019

. S.169 – AN ACT RELATING TO FIREARMS PROCEDURES . PASSED in the State Senate on March 21, 2019 by a vote of 20-10  . Purpose: To impose a 24 hour waiting period...

Here Comes the Back Door Carbon Tax

March 22, 2019 by Rob Roper Due very soon on the House floor is a measure to double taxes on home heating fuel and dyed diesel fuel. The...

Paying People to Move Here is Still Not Good Policy

March 21, 2019 by Rob Roper A recent headline boasted, “Attracted by the promise of $10,000, new workers start arriving in Vermont.” Great. How many? Eighteen. Forty-seven when...

Proposal  5 to Amend the VT Constitution

March 18, 2019 by John McClaughry Proposal 5 to amend the Vermont Constitution to promote “reproductive liberty”, is now under Senate consideration. I don’t propose to discuss the...

An AP Climate Story

March 15, 2019 by John McClaughry Here’s an interesting story from Associated Press, dated June 29, 1989: “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped...

Video