ON DECEMBER 17TH THEY WILL HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS IN KING V BURWELL.
WIKI: King v. Burwell, Halbig v. Burwell, Pruitt v. Burwell, and Indiana v. IRS are a set of related lawsuits challenging U.S. Treasury regulation, 26 C.F.R. § 1.36B-2(a)(1), issued under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The challengers argue that the text of the ACA only allows for subsidies on state-run exchanges, and that the regulation as implemented by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), providing for subsidies on state-run exchanges as well as federal exchanges, exceeded the authority Congress granted to it.THERE ARE VIDEO'S OF GRUBER ARGUING THAT THE SUBSIDIES WERE DESIGNED TO INDUCE THE STATES TO SET UP EXCHANGES. HE HAS SINCE RIDICULOUSLY CLAIMED HE JUST MISSPOKE EVEN THOUGH HE MADE THE ARGUMENT SEVERAL TIMES.
SO SOME PEOPLE MIGHT ACCEPT GRUBER'S RIDICULOUS EXCUSE AND DISCOUNT HIS ARGUMENT, BUT COULD THEY DISCOUNT IT IF OBAMA HIMSELF MADE THE SAME ARGUMENT?
I THINK NOT.
THAT'S WHY I THINK THIS IS A BOMBSHELL VIDEO:
YOUTUBE: Published on Sep 23, 2013 President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle attended the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Phoenix Awards Dinner at the Washington Convention Center Saturday night.
While extolling the benefits of Obamacare less than 10 days before the opening of the new health insurance marketplaces, the president said that "you can offer your family the security of health care ... for less than your cell phone bill."
WHEN OBAMA ARGUES THAT THE REASON ONLY 60% OF THE UNINSURED WILL PAY LESS THAN THEIR CELLPHONE BILL FOR MONTHLY HEALTHCARE INSURANCE, HE ARGUES THAT IT COULD BE MORE IF ONLY MORE GOVERNORS WOULD SIGN UP - IN OTHER WORDS: IF ONLY MORE STATES WOULD HAVE EXCHANGES.
THUS HE IS TACITLY ADMITTING THAT THE PLAINTIFFS IN KING V BURWELL ARE CORRECT:
THE SUBSIDIES WERE ONY FOR THE STATE EXCHANGES.IT'S OVER.
THANK THE LORD!