{"id":6266,"date":"2015-05-26T16:49:32","date_gmt":"2015-05-26T16:49:32","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2015-05-26T16:49:32","modified_gmt":"2015-05-26T16:49:32","slug":"drive_bys_salivate_over_impending_supreme_court_ruling_on_obamacare","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2015\/05\/26\/drive_bys_salivate_over_impending_supreme_court_ruling_on_obamacare\/","title":{"rendered":"Drive-Bys Salivate Over Impending Supreme Court Ruling on Obamacare"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Listen<\/a><\/p>\n

RUSH: Have you heard the latest about Obamacare? This is so good. The left, Tom Harkin and Baghdad Jim McDermott, that\u2019s who it is, right? (interruption) Is it Baghdad Jim McDermott or is it Jim Moran? One of the two — and Tom Harkin, they\u2019re wringing their hands over the fact that Obamacare — well, they\u2019re not using the term “Obamacare.” They\u2019re complaining about all of the people who are underinsured, all the new signatories, all the new sign-ups for Obamacare, but they\u2019re underinsured. <\/p>\n

And you know what the problem is? They\u2019ve all signed up and they\u2019ve got Obamacare, but they can\u2019t afford to use it because the deductibles are so high, and the deductibles are so high because of Obamacare. So people have been forced into buying health insurance, and it is too expensive to use. And so now, Baghdad Jim McDermott — it is Baghdad Jim, right? Baghdad Jim McDermott and Tom “Dung Heap” Harkin now are demanding more money and different rules and all kinds of changes to Obamacare because, for some reason, I mean, something got past \u2019em. <\/p>\n

They made sure people that didn\u2019t have insurance got it but now that they\u2019ve got it they can\u2019t afford to use it. (laughing) I\u2019m sorry to laugh, but it\u2019s so classic. This is what you get when you don\u2019t read the bill. So, anyway, that\u2019s just a little off-shoot on insurance. <\/line><\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: I mentioned earlier the Drive-Bys are salivating over a Supreme Court decision that they think could come any day. And we are nearing the end of the term and once you get into late May, early June, that\u2019s when decisions start to be handed up, or down as it were in this case. The Drive-Bys are so excited \u2019cause they think the Republicans lose no matter what happens. This is the Burwell case and it\u2019s about subsidies. <\/p>\n

I have just two stories here, but it\u2019s all over CNN, it\u2019s all over MSNBC. They just can\u2019t wait for this. Because if the Supreme Court rules that Obama violated the Constitution and violated Obamacare by setting up subsidies in states that they were not set up by the states and therefore they were illegal, and if the Fed exchanges have to be taken down, if the subsidies end, then the Drive-Bys think, “Oh, my God, this is great. The Republicans are gonna get blamed because they\u2019re the ones that took the case to court. So all these Obama people are gonna have their subsidies taken away, and the Republicans are gonna be blamed for it, oh, we love that,” \u2019cause that is really what turns \u2019em on, folks, is any time they can construct a scenario where the Republicans get blamed for taking things away from people, which, of course, is not what is happening here. But that\u2019s one way. <\/p>\n

Now, the Republicans anticipating that they might, quote, unquote, win the case and the Supreme Court might invalidate the subsidies the Regime set up, the Republicans, you\u2019ve seen it as well as I have, a number of \u2019em running around saying, “We have to do something. If we win this case, we gotta have something ready to go, because we can\u2019t be seen as the ones taking subsidies and money, health care away from people.” So the Republicans are supposedly running around trying to create an immediately installable app, if you will, that will maintain people\u2019s subsidies legally after the court strikes them down. In which case Obama wins, after he loses. <\/p>\n

The other side of this is that if the Supreme Court upholds Obama and claims that there was nothing illegal, it was just a simple matter of people misinterpreting words and the federal subsidies that Obama started in states where there were no exchanges, those subsidies can stay in place, then the Republicans get shot down and the media gets to go after \u2019em again as failing to take benefits away from people. The people will be said to have won again and have been protected again by the court from the Republicans who do nothing more than take things away from them. <\/p>\n

The media can\u2019t wait. Because they\u2019ve got it covered no matter what district court the Supreme Court decision is, that the Republicans lose and lose big, both realistically, substantively, and image and brand-wise, they just can\u2019t wait. <\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Well, let me show you what I mean here. New York Times <\/a>story on the Supreme Court decision coming up, and the headline is this: “Four Words That Imperil Health Care Law Were All a Mistake, Writers Now Say — They are only four words in a 900-page law.”<\/p>\n

Wait a minute now. Obamacare is not 900 pages. More like 2,200 pages. What are they talking about? Well, anyway, “They are only four words in a 900-page law: ‘established by the state.\u2019 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.”<\/line><\/p>\n

There\u2019s nothing ambiguous about “established by the state.” And that\u2019s not the only time the point is made in the law, that only the states will establish subsidies. And look, just to remind you about this, this was a political trick that the Regime played. This is not a mistake. In order for customers, people, citizens, Americans, you, to get a subsidy to help you afford the unaffordable Obamacare, you have to sign up in a state exchange. And the only way a state can offer subsidies to its citizens is to sign up to Obamacare. <\/p>\n

Well, it was a trick. It was designed to force Republican governors to embrace Obamacare and sign up and help the rollout by offering their people subsidies, people that live in their states, because Obamacare in and of itself is unaffordable. But a lot of Republican governors didn\u2019t sign up. They didn\u2019t establish the exchanges. The Regime thought it would be a slam dunk. Obama thought it would be a slam dunk to force Republican governors to set up exchanges in order to offer subsidies. But about 26 or 27 governors said “psst you” and didn\u2019t. And so on now it was Obama in trouble. <\/p>\n

Now less than half the people in this country have access to subsidies on a health care reform that makes it unaffordable. So Obama said, well, you know what, we\u2019ll just offer subsidies through HealthCare.gov. The law says you can\u2019t do that. The law says those subsidies can only come when established by the state. And so now the Obama people said, “The state means any government. We weren\u2019t talking about the states. We were talking about any state, like the United States is a state, like Moscow is a state, Russia is a state, well, we\u2019re a state here. We\u2019re not talking about individual states.” But throughout the law it was clear they were talking about individual states as opposed to a federal exchange. <\/p>\n

It was done on purpose. It was done on purpose to hornswoggle and force Republican governors who oppose Obamacare to embrace it, and they didn\u2019t. So Obama and his boys panicked because now, after all the hullabaloo about $2,500 less premium expense, keep your doctor, keep your plan, after all of those lies it was gonna become obvious to people that this was unaffordable.<\/p>\n

So they moved fast, and they started offering subsidies through the federal HealthCare.gov, which is not legal. The law says specifically that subsidies can only come from the state. So we\u2019ve had this massive Supreme Court case over those four words and their meaning and the argument. And the New York Times is doing journalistic malpractice here by claiming those four words are ambiguous. If you read the whole health care law, there\u2019s nothing ambiguous about those four words. <\/p>\n

“How those words became the most contentious part of President Obama\u00c2\u2019s signature domestic accomplishment has been a mystery,” says the Times. “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?”<\/p>\n