NYT Tries To Whitewash Obamacare Disaster

"We have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Not a single Republican vote in either house of Congress.

In other words, this was a Democratic bill.  It was the Democratic Party foisted this burden on the American public.  Them, and them alone.

But they screwed up, of course.  The rollout of the web site didn't work.  Not near as many people signed up as they thought would.  State insurance exchanges are failing.  Premiums went through the roof.  And the best laid plans of the socialists are, one again, a 5-4 Supreme Court decision away from gutting the law.

What?  What's that?  There's another case before the Supremes?  Yes, there is, and we'll know the outcome in a month or so.  And according to the so-called paper of record, it's all over a little sloppiness related to four measly words:

They are only four words in a 900-page law: “established by the state.”

But it is in the ambiguity of those four words in the Affordable Care Act that opponents found a path to challenge the law, all the way to the Supreme Court.

How those words became the most contentious part of President Obama’s signature domestic accomplishment has been a mystery. Who wrote them, and why? Were they really intended, as the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell claim, to make the tax subsidies in the law available only in states that established their own health insurance marketplaces, and not in the three dozen states with federal exchanges?

The answer, from interviews with more than two dozen Democrats and Republicans involved in writing the law, is that the words were a product of shifting politics and a sloppy merging of different versions. Some described the words as “inadvertent,” “inartful” or “a drafting error.” But none supported the contention of the plaintiffs, who are from Virginia.

That sounds so reasonable, so sincere.  It's also complete an total el toro poo-poo.  Those idiots at the NYT seem to forget there's this little thing out there called the internet and we don't have to rely on their faulty recollection of events anymore:

Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who helped design the Massachusetts health law that was the model for Obamacare, was a key influence on the creation of the federal health law. He was widely quoted in the media. During the crafting of the law, the Obama administration brought him on for consultation because of his expertise. He was paid almost $400,000 to consult with the administration on the law. And he has claimed to have written part of the legislation, the section dealing with small business tax credits.

After the law passed, in 2011 and throughout 2012, multiple states sought his expertise to help them understand their options regarding the choice to set up their own exchanges. During that period of time, in January of 2012, Gruber told an audience at Noblis, a technical management support organization, that tax credits—the subsidies available for health insurance—were only available in states that set up their own exchanges.

A video of the presentation, posted on YouTube, was unearthed tonight by Ryan Radia at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank which has participated in the legal challenge to the IRS rule allowing subsidies in federal exchanges. Here’s what Gruber says.

What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this. [emphasis added]

Here’s the video, which according to YouTube's date stamp was uploaded by Noblis on January 20, 2012. The relevant passage starts around minute 31.

Who are you gonna believe, the NYT or your own lying eyes (and ears)?

The NYT just isn't being honest.  It's as simple as that.