Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley
Evidence continues to mount that the Republican states which filed amicus briefs for the plaintiffs in the King v. Burwell Supreme Court Obamacare challenge lied to the court. Over the past few months, Huffington Post has been examining various states' documentation of policy meetings, legislative hearings, local news reports, speeches, etc. to find any evidence at all that state lawmakers talked about pre-King what they now say they all knew—that the law was written to exclude subsidies to people buying health insurance on the federal exchange.
A very strong case in point: Alabama. Republican Gov. Robert Bentley had actually campaigned on setting up a state-based exchange, and initially pushed hard to make it happen. That included setting up the Alabama Health Insurance Exchange Study Commission, which was tasked with determining costs, processes, working with stakeholders, etc. Did the possibility that the state's residents couldn't receive the subsidies if the state didn't create an exchange ever come up?
"No. No. No. That was never, never brought up," [state Sen. Jim McClendon (R)] McClendon said in an interview with The Huffington Post last month. "I was unaware of that stipulation in the Affordable Care Act, and I would almost have to guess that anybody involved in this process was not aware of it. I was a little surprised when it came up eventually. Nope. I was the chairman of the commission and I was totally unaware of that."
In other words, according to McClendon, at no point during the commission's five meetings between September and November 2011, nor during a legislative debate that stretched into the spring of 2012, did anyone conceive of the most significant consequence that could result from Alabama opting for a federally run health insurance marketplace. The commission ended up unanimously recommending a state-run exchange.
By the time that recommendation was made, Republican opposition to the law and anything at all having to do with it had solidified, and even Bentley flip-flopped. But in making that decision, there was no "realization" that some 165,000 people would be left out in the cold, unable to afford insurance without the subsidies. In fact, three more members of the commission who talked to HuffPost completely deny that possibility ever occurring to them. Two members of the commission, though, say they totally knew about it, one of whom is a former representative who was forced to resign after pleading guilty to corruption charges and the other an insurance industry representative who says he has the notes to prove it, but refuses to make those notes available.
okay you could make an argument that they didn't know given their track record for hair trigger attacks on anything Obama they could have been the anal SOB's they are and went for the monkey wrench toss hoping to put a halt to ObamaCares without thinking or seeing pass that alone, or they could be the lyin' SOB's that they are and new exactly what the ramifications would be. they have shown a propensity to inflict damage on popular programs by Pres. with little concern of we the people being in that jackpot, either way it's intentional only just those they want to vote for them first time and oldies are the ones their bad aiming hits.
as to that 165,000 i really think they knew and categorized them as collateral damage the acceptable cost to just get a slap on Pres. your health and well being is worth little less than gnat crap to them but your vote priceless, time to make your health and well being numeral uno and your vote if it's for them let's say equal to their obligation to you and yours. 2016 recognize
