Obamacare Architect Caught On Tape Again Saying Subsidies Are Only Supposed To Go To State Exchanges (Audio)

Obamacare Architect Says Again That Subsidies Were Only Supposed To Go To State Exchanges – Daily Caller

While Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber has brushed aside a video of himself arguing that Obamacare subsidies are only allowable in state-run exchanges as a “speak-o” – or verbal typo – a second audio tape has now emerged of Gruber making the very same comments yet again.

“That is really the ultimate threat – will people understand that gee, if your governor doesn’t set up an exchange, you’re losing hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits to be delivered to your citizens,” Gruber says in the audio clip, resurfaced by Morgan Richmond and John Sexton. “So that’s the other threat, is will states do what they need to do to set it up.”

Gruber made the comments in a public appearance at the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco in January 2012. Gruber’s argument in the clip is even stronger that only state-run exchanges will be given premium tax credit subsidies.

At issue is a phrase written repeatedly in the Affordable Care Act that allows premium tax credit subsidies only for exchanges “established by the state.” Two appeals courts split earlier this week on whether the phrase makes subsidies in the 36 states that didn’t create their own exchanges illegal. Gruber, a chief author of the law, has repeatedly called the cases “nutty.”

But the audio recording is the second to emerge this week that shows that before the lawsuits were brought against the federal exchanges subsidies, Gruber appeared to believe that only states that ran their own exchanges would receive the payments.

In response, Gruber said his comments were a “just a speak-o – you know, like a typo.”

.

.

.

New IRS Form Proves President Asshat Lied About Obamacare Tax (Video)

New IRS Form Proves Obama Lied About Individual Mandate Tax – ATR

On Thursday the IRS released a slew of draft 2014 tax forms. The new draft Form 1040 shows a new surtax line has been created for the payment of the individual mandate surtax – see line 61 of the 1040:

.

.
President Obama has repeatedly denied that the surtax is in fact actually a tax. The most prominent example was a heated exchange on ABC’s This Week in Sept. 2009, when George Stephanopoulos confronted Obama with a dictionary:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I – I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax – “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…

OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that.

Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion. [Transcript]

.

.
It was always obvious that the penalty for not complying with Obamacare’s individual mandate was just another surtax:

* The surtax is collected by, and enforced by, the IRS.
* As shown by the newly released draft Form 1040, the surtax is paid as part of normal income tax filing by taxpayers.
* The individual mandate surtax was written into tax law itself by the Obamacare statute.
* Revenues derived from the individual mandate surtax have always been scored by the Congressional Budget Office as tax revenue.

Famously, Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that the individual mandate surtax is in fact a tax. However, that does not compel conservatives to agree that Obamacare’s individual mandate is Constitutional. The same decision declared the individual mandate unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. Conservatives can accept that this surtax is a tax increase without accepting the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

The Obamacare individual mandate non-compliance surtax is one of at least seven Obamacare taxes that violate the President’s “firm pledge” not to raise any tax on any American making less than $250,000 per year. Thorough documentation of Obama’s promise can be found here.

.

.

HHS Report: 1.3 Million Obamacare ‘Enrollees’ May Not Even Be American Citizens

1.3 Million Obamacare ‘Enrollees’ May Not Even Be American Citizens, Admits HHS Report – Daily Sheeple

Trouble is brewing in Washington as those who still consider legitimate the national healthcare takeover known as Obamacare try to figure out which enrollees are even eligible for coverage. A new report issued by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) admits that nearly 1.3 million Obamacare enrollees, or about 16 percent of the overall total, cannot be verified for legal status in the U.S. – in other words, most, if not all, of them are illegal immigrants rather than American citizens.

.

.
The shocking figures can be found on page 11 of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) report, entitled Marketplaces Faced Early Challenges Resolving Inconsistencies with Applicant Data. According to the figures, 1,295,571 “inconsistencies” – this is a politically correct way of implying missing or fraudulent data – found on Obamacare applications involved issues of citizenship, national status or lawful presence in the U.S., meaning applicants did not or could not verify this important information.

“The Federal marketplace was generally incapable of resolving most inconsistencies,” admits the report, noting that a large percentage of these faulty applications will likely never be resolved, at least not until the eligibility verification system becomes operable. “Without the ability to resolve inconsistencies in an applicant’s eligibility data, the marketplace cannot ensure that an applicant meets each of the eligibility requirements for enrollment in a [Qualified Health Plan] and when applicable, eligibility for insurance affordability programs.”

Nearly Half Of Total Obamacare Enrollees Cannot Be Verified As Eligible

What this implies is that the entire Obamacare program is nothing but a giant free-for-all, with absolutely no checks or balances in place to ensure that abuse and fraud don’t run rampant. Between abnormalities with income, employment verification and legal status in the U.S., it appears as though the bulk of Obamacare enrollees are either criminals, deadbeats or illegal aliens who don’t even belong in the country.

Of the roughly 8 million applicants who have signed up for Obamacare as of this writing, nearly 3 million of them cannot be verified by the current system as eligible, according to the HHS. And at this point in time, there is no way to ever verify them, as admitted by the Inspector General, further proving the massive swindle that has been levied on the American people by the Usurper-in-Chief who, ironically, has his own eligibility inconsistencies.

Four State-Run Exchanges Admit They Have No Way Of Verifying If Obamacare Enrollees Are Legal Citizens

Beyond the federal debacle, at least four state-run Obamacare exchanges are also incapable of verifying applicant eligibility. The HHS report explains that four of the 15 state marketplaces – Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon and Vermont – haven’t figure out a way to resolve their “inconsistencies,” either. Much of this is due to their enrollment systems never having been designed with the capacity to verify applicants, a major oversight (or, perhaps, a deliberate design flaw).

Three other states – Hawaii, Colorado and Minnesota – have also had problems with inconsistencies. But these states sloughed the mess onto their state Medicaid offices, which are now having to individually verify each application by hand.

“One year ago, conservatives warned that the Obama administration’s decision to use the so-called ‘honor system’ for income eligibility was merely a backdoor way to get as many individuals on the public dole as possible,” wrote Wynton Hall for Breitbart about the ongoing dilemma. “The Office of Inspector General determined that ‘the federal marketplace was generally incapable of resolving most inconsistencies.’”

.

.

Thousands In Connecticut Dropped From Obamacare Coverage Due To Technical Glitch

Connecticut Obamacare Exchange Tech Glitch Drops Thousands From Coverage – Daily Caller

Thousands of Connecticut Obamacare customers are facing coverage uncertainty after computer glitches estimated incorrect subsidies or randomly dropped them from their health plans without warning – even though they’d paid premiums.

.

.
About 3,900 customers of Access Health CT, the state-run Obamacare exchange that has been one of the more successful health care marketplaces thus far, were incorrectly told they qualified for Medicaid due to a computer glitch, The Hartford Courant reports. Other customers received bills from their insurance companies that displayed a different amount than they’d agreed to on the exchange website – and at least 903 customers were unceremoniously kicked off their coverage without warning.

The problems were caused by faulty 834 insurer forms, which caused significant problems at the federal exchange website HealthCare.gov as well. The forms detail the amount of premium tax credits customers qualify for. The “system error” in the 834 forms was discovered on July 1, CEO Kevin Counihan said after state Republicans inquired about customer complaints over dropped coverage.

Some of the customers received paperwork and made premium payments, but have somehow lost their coverage anyway, WTNH reports. Others were told to wait for further paperwork to fill out before their health plans could be activated, but never received the extra forms.

One customer described her frustration with trying to actually access the coverage she purchased for her son.

“Well May comes along when it was supposed to start and I start saying, ‘We don’t have a card, he needs a card, can you send us a card,’ and they still didn’t tell me there was an issue until he went to a walk-in clinic at the end of May and found out he had no coverage,” said Diane Nadeau.

The exchange said Nadeau’s son was dropped from his plan for lack of payment, but Nadeau insisted that despite repeated attempts to get a bill for the exchange plan her son signed up for, no one ever answered her.

“I’ve been calling you like 20 times to find out where the bill is, how much it is, and how we can make a payment to you,” Nadeau charged.

After finally reaching state officials, Nadeau was told that if she made a payment the very same day, her son would have coverage July 1 – two months after his health insurance was supposed to begin.

“This is going to be bumpy,” Kevin Counihan said. “There are going to be some glitches and, you know, big surprise, we got them and you know what guys, we’re going to get more.”

Counihan said the problems are temporary and that, despite customers’ reports, their coverage will be restored.

“I say temporarily with great deliberation, because they are not losing their coverage,” Counihan said.

The exchange will begin contacting customers who did not receive paperwork or were dropped from their coverage beginning July 11, according to WTNH. Officials hope to have a permanent fix to the glitch by July 18.

.

.

ObamaCare failure #367

Longer, and I mean LOOONNNGGER waits in the emergency room. Via Fritz

Hey, this wasn’t supposed to happen! Long wait times in ERs due to ObamaCare

Wait times for seeing doctors have become an issue even outside the VA, which was a totally predictable outcome of ObamaCare. What wasn’t predicted was that the impact on wait times would be seen in emergency rooms, since one of the arguments for ObamaCare was to shift patients out of ERs and into clinics with an expansion of coverage. One California television station reported on lengthening ER waits, and notes that the trade group for ER providers lays the blame on the new health-insurance system:

I guess we are all vets now, waiting, and waiting for medical care

HHS Inspector General: 1,295,571 Obamacare Enrollees May Or May Not Be Legal Citizens

HHS Report: 1,295,571 Obamacare Enrollees May Or May Not Be Legal Citizens – Big Government

A devastating new Health and Human Services (HHS) Inspector General report released on Tuesday reveals that the Obama administration has yet to determine whether 1,295,571 of the over 8 million Obamacare enrollees are U.S. citizens lawfully in the country.

.

.
The finding, located on page 11 of the report, states that 44% of the remaining 2,611,780 application “inconsistencies” are related to verifying “Citizenship/national status/lawful presence.” Another 960,492 application inconsistencies were related to verifying whether subsidy applicants provided accurate income information.

Moreover, the Inspector General report only covered the federal Obamacare exchanges to determine how the Obama administration resolved verification problems through December 2013. As for the 15 state-run Obamacare exchanges, the report says four–Oregon, Nevada, Vermont, and Massachusetts–are simply “unable to resolve inconsistencies.”

As the Washington Post reported in May, as many as one million Obamacare enrollees may be receiving incorrect taxpayer-funded subsidies due to Obamacare’s continued technical failures and inability to properly verify income and citizenship eligibility.

One year ago, conservatives warned that the Obama administration’s decision to use the so-called “honor system” for income eligibility was merely a backdoor way to get as many individuals on the public dole as possible.

The Office of Inspector General determined that “the federal marketplace was generally incapable of resolving most inconsistencies.”

Obamacare will cost U.S. taxpayers $2.6 trillion over the next ten years.

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
HHS Inspector General Reports Millions Of Data Inconsistencies In Obamacare Applications – Washington Examiner

Applications for insurance coverage through President Obama’s health care law submitted in the final three months of 2013 contained millions of inconsistencies in which information such as income and immigration status could not be independently verified by the federal government, according to a June report from the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The inconsistencies may have resulted in individuals receiving an improper amount of subsidies, or subsidies that they shouldn’t have been eligible for in the first place – something that could require them to repay the money in future tax bills.

In other cases, inconsistencies led to bizarre outcomes. According to the report, “one marketplace cited situations in which infants and young children included on applications were erroneously identified as incarcerated.”

At issue is the information that individuals are asked to submit when they apply for coverage, such as income, citizenship status, Social Security number, or incarceration status. In theory, once data are submitted, they are supposed to be checked in a massive storage database known as the “hub,” which gathers data from multiple federal agencies.

“In some circumstances, the marketplace cannot verify an applicant’s information through available data sources,” the report explained. “When this happens, it is referred to as an inconsistency. This may arise when Federal data available through the Data Hub or data from other sources are unavailable or do not exist, or because the information on the application does not match the data received through the Data Hub or from other data sources.”

According to the HHS inspector general, applications submitted to the federal exchange in the opening months of Obamacare – October 2013 through December 2013 – contained over 2.9 million inconsistencies, of which more than 2.6 million, or 89 percent, remained unresolved as of Feb. 23, 2014.

To be clear, this does not mean that 2.9 million separate individual applications contained inconsistencies. Every applicant is prompted to answer a series of questions, and thus any given application can contain multiple inconsistencies. HHS could not provide data on the number of applications that included at least one, so there’s no way of saying what percentage of the total number of applications were affected. An inconsistency also doesn’t necessarily mean information is inaccurate, either, it just means it can’t be matched with available data.

The federal government has had an easier time resolving discrepancies related to Social Security numbers, while income and citizenship or lawful presence status have proven more challenging.

These numbers pertain only to the federal exchange that serve residents of 36 states, not the 15 states running their own exchanges.

.

.
The HHS inspector general also received reports from 11 states running their own exchanges disclosing an additional 1.2 million inconsistencies, though the states could be counting differently and thus the federal and state numbers cannot be easily combined.

“During our review, 4 of the 15 State marketplaces reported that they were unable to resolve inconsistencies (Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, and Vermont),” the report read. “They attributed this inability to failures in their information technology systems.”

While the government is awaiting more documentation from individuals to resolve inconsistencies, those individuals are allowed to receive benefits for 90 days. However, according to the report, “because of the Federal marketplace’s inability to resolve most inconsistencies, we were unable to determine the number of applicants who may have exceeded the 90-day inconsistency period or for whom the inconsistency period was extended by the Federal marketplace because the applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort in obtaining satisfactory documentation.”

In a response, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said that most inconsistencies are still within the 90-day window, but that Obamacare gives the authority to the Secretary of HHS “to extend the 90-day inconsistency period for applications for coverage for 2014.”

The inspector general noted that resolving inconsistencies was considered a lower priority in the early months of the Obamacare rollout due to the pressing technical problems facing the website. But the report concluded that, “marketplaces must resolve inconsistencies to ensure that eligibility determinations for enrollment in (qualified health plans) and for insurance affordability programs are accurate.”

The report recommended that CMS “develop and make public a plan on how and by what date the Federal marketplace will resolve inconsistencies” and bolster oversight of state-based exchanges.

In its response, CMS said that the inconsistencies were to be expected.

“It is not surprising that there are inconsistencies between some information provided by application filers and the electronic data sources, and, in fact, this issue is addressed in the Affordable Care Act,” CMS wrote. “This is the first year that consumers have applied for coverage through the Marketplaces. Therefore, consumers are inexperienced with the eligibility process, which could lead to application mistakes.”

Some of the issues could be explained because different data is available, CMS said. “For example, the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) tax data is generally two years old (i.e., tax return information for 2012 is used to verify income attestations for coverage for 2014.),” according to CMS.

The few million inconsistencies represents a “small number” compared to the “hundreds of millions of possible data inconsistencies,” given that any application can contain over 20 different pieces of data.

CMS said it agreed with the inspector general’s recommendations and was continuing to resolve the inconsistencies – manually, at first, until it develops an automated system later in the summer.

.

.

Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Hobby Lobby In Obamacare Contraception Case

Supreme Court Pares Back Obamacare’s Contraception Mandate – The Blaze

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Obamacare cannot force companies to pay for emergency contraceptive coverage for their employees that could lead to abortions, in violation of their religious beliefs.

.

.
The 5-4 ruling delivered a huge victory to conservatives who have worked for years to scale back the various mandates of the controversial healthcare law.

The Court decided that Obamacare cannot be used to require for-profit, closely held companies to provide certain birth control drugs and devices – such as morning after pills – that could cause abortion.

The case was brought by Hobby Lobby, a Oklahoma-based retail chain owned by the Green family. The Greens said they are willing to cover 16 of the 20 birth control methods mandated by Obamacare to its employees, but not four others because the risk of abortion goes against their religious beliefs.

The company argued before the Court that the Obamacare mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which says the government cannot place burdens on the exercise of freedom of religion.

“Providing these objectionable drugs and devices violates the deeply held religious convictions of the Greens – the sole owners of their family businesses – that life begins at conception,” the company’s website says. “Yet refusing to comply with the federal mandate would subject them to an untenable choice of paying substantial fines or discontinuing the outstanding and affordable health insurance plan currently provided to their valued employees.”

The majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito agreed with that argument. According to SCOTUS Blog, the Obama administration failed to show that the broad contraception mandate is the least restrictive way of advancing its interest in ensuring access to birth control. The Court also ruled that the decision applies only to the contraception mandate, not other insurance mandates, such as those involving vaccinations.

Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that the government could pay for this coverage if it wants to make it available, but cannot compel a company to do so.

The decision deals a big hit to the Obama administration, which defended its interpretation of the law as something that forces companies to provide all manner of birth control methods to workers.

Republicans in Congress welcomed the high court’s ruling.

“Religious liberty will remain intact and all Americans can stay true to their faith without fear of big government intervention or punishment,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). “Our nation was founded on the principle of freedom, and with this decision, America will continue to serve as a safe haven for those looking to exercise religious liberty.”

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) called the ruling a victory for religious freedom and a defeat for the Obama administration’s “Big Government objectives.”

“The mandate overturned today would have required for-profit companies to choose between violating their constitutionally-protected faith or paying crippling fines, which would have forced them to lay off employees or close their doors,” he said.

“The president’s health care law remains an unworkable mess and a drag on our economy,” he added. “We must repeal it and enact better solutions that start with lowering Americans’ health care costs.”

The case is Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby, referring to Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell. She replaced Kathleen Sebelius earlier this year – prior to that, the case was Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby.

The case is second big blow to Obama from the Supreme Court in as many weeks. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that President Obama’s 2012 “recess” appointments were not legal, because Obama made them when the Senate was not in recess.

That ruling prompted Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to say the decision was the biggest rebuke to a sitting president since 1974, when the Court decided unanimously that President Nixon must release the Watergate tapes.

Also related to abortion, the Court last week struck down a Massachusetts law that said people can’t stand on a public road or sidewalk within 35 feet of an abortion clinic.

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
The Supreme Court Deals Blow To Public-Sector Unions – Business Insider

The Supreme Court on Monday limited the power of public-sector unions to compel employees to pay contributions, dealing a setback to public-sector unions.

But the 5-4 decision, written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, wasn’t as sweeping as some union advocates had feared.

“This is a substantial obstacle to expanding public employee unions, but it does not gut them,” SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein wrote.

Unions had been concerned that the court would strike down laws in 26 states requiring teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public-sector employees to pay dues to the unions that negotiate contracts on their behalf, even if the workers don’t want to become union members.

The court hedged somewhat, but the decision is still a setback for public-sector unions. In a 5-4 decision written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, the court “recognized a category of ‘partial public employees’ who could not be required to contribute to union fees,” according to SCOTUSblog. Unions worried the court would rule all public employees could not be forced to pay, which would dry up their ranks and their coffers.

“It remains possible that in a later case the Court will overturn its prior precedent and forbid requiring public employees to contribute to union bargaining. But today it has refused to go that far. The unions have lost a tool to expand their reach. But they have dodged a major challenge to their very existence,” Goldstein wrote.

The case, Harris v. Quinn, stemmed from a challenge in Illinois involving in-home care providers. Illinois uses Medicaid funds to pay in-home care workers, but turnover was high at the low-paying jobs. In response, more than 20,000 in-home car workers organized and joined the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), after executive orders from Govs. Rod Blagojevich and Pat Quinn, both Democrats, classified them as “public employees.”

The National Right to Work Foundation brought a challenge to Quinn in 2010, arguing workers who didn’t want to participate in the union shouldn’t have to pay the dues.

.

.