Affordable Care Act Timeline, or...

"And there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth..."

Interestingly, this was all predicted over 4 years ago.

Let's see what the people who like actually supported the law say... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-obamacares-authors-said-they-actually-meant/

Now, what do you make of that?

The guy's an asshole.

Gruber is the New Benghazi. They'll be just as disappointed with this outcome as they were with that one. Wonder what they'll find to shriek about next?

Here's a better one. https://cei.org/blog/obamacare-architect-admitted-2012-states-without-exchanges-lose-subsidies "Obamacare architect" wow! He obviously ramrodded the whole thing and conspired to put a clause in the bill that would potentially sink the whole deal. Yeah, I'm convinced.

Oh yeah, that conspiracy is just awesome!

I sense you're being sarcastic when it comes to your use of the word 'conspiracy' -- but when you have a group of people all engineering a fraud, yes, it actually is conspiracy. That's what Gruber is describing in that clip and in others; he, along with others, conspired to deceive the American people regarding the effects of PP/ACA.

Even Elijah Cummings is pissed at Gruber. Just not for the reason an ethical person would be.

Insightful commentary on Gruber's testimony.

The court suit is over "legislative intent".

Details, details!

I wonder which of the "taxation is theft" crowd will throw the biggest tantrum if the Supreme Court doesn't do things their way?

And, of course, the Four Horsemen of the Derpocalypse who wanted to turn back the clock to Lochner are already on record in NFIB v. Sebelius as finding that the Congressional intent was clearly to allow subsidies on the Federally run exchange. Their argument about the severability of Medicaid expansion was premised in large part on that notion. It will be interesting to see them walk that back, if only for once again exposing their utter contempt for the rule of law.

Your post contains far too many Big Words, not to mention facts. Our own Derpotologists will only be even more confused...

No doubt. Just goes to show that whatever they have to say about the PPACA is woefully uninformed.

If only Obamacare's cheerleaders here had the ears of Elijah Cummings, they could calm his panic over Gruber's comments. Why, oh why, won't Mr. Cummings come here to be soothed by those who are more in the know about the situation than he is?

This is what happens when infotainment is mistaken for actual news.

Intriguing analysis of the deception involved in the passage and defense of Obamacare.

The "deception" was calling a tax a fee which just gets a big eye roll out of me. That Republicans are trying to make a big deal out of something so trivial five years after it happened just tells us how little of substance they have to say.

So you don't mind government lying to everyone in order to get what it wants. Bully for you, but many of us feel differently about it.

Is there a difference between a tax and a fee? I see most people use the terms interchangeably, especially using fee when it regards funding a specific program rather than general revenue. It is only quite recent that some have decided that there is a meaningful difference.

The only thing resembling a meaningful difference is that "tax" is a four letter word in some circles.

That's just phrasing (calling it a fee instead of a tax) and is nothing of substance wrt the bill itself. Yes, if after five years this is the best your side can come up with then they have nothing of substance to say.

The difference between a tax and a fee is that if it was a fee, the ACA would've been found unconstitutional by John Roberts and entirely thrown out.

That's so incorrect that I can't help but think you knew it was wrong when you typed it.

So you think there is something fundamentally different between a tax and a fee? Come on, man, that is splitting hairs on a single term and ignoring the important body of the bill.

Weren't you the one complaining the bill was 2000 pages or something? Now those 2000 pages don't matter and the only important thing is if a fee is called a tax? Yeah, right.

"Grubergate, Grubergate, Grubergate!"

The thing is Gruber wasn't even that important. He went to the white house one time, that's it, and he mostly was asked about specifics of Romney care not Obamacare.

It sounds an awful lot like he was a minor bit player who was talking big to make himself look more important. Yet Republicans lie and claim he was the "archetect".

This is meaningless bullshit and everyone knows it.