Health insurer lost $720 million on ObamaCare exchanges last year

Health insurer lost $720 million on ObamaCare exchanges last year: https://t.co/mA5jW9CTBl pic.twitter.com/5TgqPRhO0O

— The Hill (@thehill) January 19, 2016

Government Not Surprised Obamacare Co-Ops Lost Money https://t.co/ZrtHQbkDwB via @DJAliMeyer pic.twitter.com/NXsMu1fnpo

— Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) January 21, 2016

Top Obamacare Official Accepts No Responsibility For Health Insurance Co-Op Fiascos https://t.co/ohsRBcQuO6 via @dailycaller

— Kris Held,MD (@kksheld) January 22, 2016

'Administration wins health care’: Supreme Court rules Obamacare subsidies are legal

Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Obama Administration 6-3 In 'King v. Burwell' http://t.co/ZVo9a6fOUp pic.twitter.com/ZpgJdjA1kM

— IJReview (@ijreview) June 25, 2015

'Administration wins health care’: Supreme Court rules Obamacare subsidies are legal http://t.co/GD03y1jp0i

— TwitchyTeam (@TwitchyTeam) June 25, 2015

Scalia describes the Court's ruling as the "defense of the indefensible." http://t.co/YqDLsTyC7t

— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) June 25, 2015

Scalia's opinion re #KingvBurwell is perfect.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) June 25, 2015

More scathing Scalia dissent quips ==> #SCOTUScare https://t.co/CliFz6I1YZ

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) June 25, 2015

"the SCOTUS favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites" - Justice Scalia

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 25, 2015

To find for Obamacare, SCOTUS ruled laws now means whatever courts say was *intended*... compared to, you know, what the law actually says.

— Razor (@hale_razor) June 25, 2015

Aloha: Hawaii sends its Obamacare exchange to the death panel

Aloha: Hawaii sends its Obamacare exchange to the death panel http://t.co/Cdt8Ny60RN

— Jazz Shaw (@JazzShaw) June 7, 2015

Supreme Court tries to make sense of poorly drafted Obamacare language

◼ Supreme Court justices divided sharply Wednesday as they heard a third challenge to Obamacare, grappling with the law’s poorly drafted language and trying to decide how broadly Congress intended for the government to pay subsidies to help Americans buy insurance.\ - Tom Howell Jr./Washington Times

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who saved Obamacare in 2012, rarely spoke up during the session, while Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court’s most frequent swing vote, expressed serious concerns about both sides’ arguments.

The justices are slated to decide the case, known as King v. Burwell, by June, and it seems certain that the administration will have to win the support of either Justice Kennedy or Chief Justice Roberts to prevail.

Obamacare channels Orwell

◼ "If you want to get a sense of how Orwellian the law actually is, just look at the section cited by Verrilli — 1321. - Washington Examiner

Toward the end of Wednesday's oral arguments in the latest Obamacare case to make it to the Supreme Court, Donald Verrilli, U.S. Solicitor General, argued that the administration's interpretation of the healthcare law was the most deferential to states. The argument, apart from coming from an administration that has consistently asserted a robust role for the federal government, was a bid to win over Justice Anthony Kennedy, a key swing vote, who raised concerns about the federalism implications of the suit....

Verrilli argued that the law's text "is designed to afford state flexibility" and that the challengers' interpretation would contradict this. He added, "It would be an Orwellian sense of the word 'flexibility' to use it in the manner that petitioners say the statute uses it, because it's the polar opposite of flexibility." The implication was that this would be preposterous.

In truth, Orwellian semantics are a standard aspect of Obamacare, a law that's named the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" even though in reality it has triggered the cancellation of individual health insurance plans, narrowed choices of doctors and hospitals, and jacked up the sticker price of insurance.

If you want to get a sense of how Orwellian the law actually is, just look at the section cited by Verrilli — 1321. It promises "state flexibility," as he noted, but starts by instructing the secretary of Health and Human Services (a federal official) to "issue regulations setting the standards for meeting the requirements" for states creating exchanges, offering health insurance through the exchanges and managing risk in the insurance market. It also says the federal government can impose "such other requirements as the Secretary determines appropriate." So any state that sets up an exchange must abide by a mountain of federal regulations and that it can only offer insurance policies that meet the federal definition.... KEEP READING

NEW GRUBER VIDEO CONFIRMS FEDERAL OBAMACARE EXCHANGES AREN’T SUPPOSED TO GIVE SUBSIDIES

◼ It’s a good thing Barack Obama destroyed the rule of law in this country, or the latest video of motor-mouthed ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber would kill the President’s health-care scheme stone dead in the fastest Supreme Court ruling in history. - John Hayward/Human Events @Doc_o

You may recall that ObamaCare is heaving its disreputable bulk back to the Court for judgment on whether the federal exchange (which 35 states use) is allowed to dispense subsidies (without which nobody can afford those mandate-bloated ObamaCare insurance policies.) The Affordable Care Act explicitly states that only exchanges run by states can give out subsidies, but the dogged defenders of this hideous law claim that was just a “typo.” Gruber has, in past appearances, strongly implied that the federal exchanges weren’t supposed to give out subsidies, but he dismissed those statements as “speak-os.” (In case you’ve forgotten how idiotic ObamaCare is, and how dishonest its creators are, that’s the exact word Gruber used.)



Liberals blew a zillion pixels on screeds that insisted we were all just misunderstanding Gruber, or he just tripped over his tongue. Why would the designers of the Affordable Care Act sabotage their own magnificent supra-Constitutional law by planting legal bombs in its subsidy mechanisms, all but ensuring the demise of the program when the American people discovered how much it actually costs?

Well, here comes the latest hugely embarrassing Jon Gruber video, a January 2012 appearance in which he confirms without ambiguity that federal exchange customers aren’t supposed to receive subsidies, and explains exactly why: “If you’re a state and you don’t accept an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes to support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to support all the states in this country.”

American Commitment's Jonathan Gruber FAIL video on Obamacare

◼ The Sound of this Video Destroying a Key White House Obamacare Claim Can Be Heard in Every State - IJReview

Obamacare architect caught LYING about subsidy ‘typo’ on MSNBC

◼ It’s just a typo! Got it? - The Right Scoop

Well that’s not entirely true...

See, these people will lie right to your face and not even blink. And that is evil.

Obamacare Health Care Exchanges are Democrat Party Front Organizations

◼ IBD has tracked how these exchanges are being set up, and basically the health care exchanges in these states are going to be Democrat political action committees, funded with your tax dollars. - Rush

RUSH: I hate to do this to you, but the Investor's Business Daily had an editorial yesterday, and they have discovered the purpose of Obamacare. It has nothing to do with health care. The purpose of Obamacare got nothing to do with your health, and nothing to do with your insurance.

It's about building a permanent, undefeatable, always-funded Democrat majority. One example: The exchanges. We're being told that the government's running way behind on setting up the exchanges, and we're being told it's because the bill so complicated, big, unmanageable. Nobody could possibly get this done on time. IBD has tracked how these exchanges are being set up, and basically the health care exchanges in these states are going to be Democrat political action committees, funded with your tax dollars.

They're going to operate under the guise of selling you your health insurance when in fact what they're going to be doing is providing employment for Democrats and Democrat voters and Democrat operatives. They are going to use the exchanges to give out money to sympathetic Democrats and people who vote for other Democrats. I'll give you the details. It's on a par with how I've tried to explain that the stimulus was a money-laundering operation for Democrat campaign coffers. READ THE REST, at the link.

◼ Using ObamaCare To Create A Permanent Democratic Majority - IBD

...Amazingly, California legislators passed a law that the exchange could keep secret for a year who received the contracts and indefinitely how much they were paid. California's open-records laws would otherwise prohibit such secrecy.

Last week, Republican U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and four other Republican senators on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee called for an investigation of California's concealing information on contracts awarded using federal taxpayer money.

What is known so far suggests that California politicians are exploiting health reform to enroll millions of the uninsured in the Democratic Party and fill the coffers of left-wing interest groups with taxpayer money....

◼ David Rivkin and Elizabeth Foley: An ObamaCare Board Answerable to No One - David Rivkin and Elizabeth Foley/Wall Street Journal