Voters Say Delay ObamaCare Until Subsidy Ruling, Legal Challenges Are Exhausted

In July, the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated ObamaCare subsidies for health insurance obtained through the federally-run HealthCare.gov. The ruling was a major blow to the president’s signature health care law, and it teed-up the second time the constitutionality of the law would once again be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court.

On Nov. 7, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the legal challenge to ObamaCare and, now, more voters than not say it is a good idea to delay ObamaCare until the high court has a chance to rule.

A new survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports found a plurality — 47 percent — thinks implementation of ObamaCare should be put on hold until all legal challenges are exhausted, while just 40 percent disagree and 13 percent say they are not sure.

The appellate court said the Internal Revenue Service — thus, the Obama administration — broke the law by offering tax subsidies in all 50 states to offset the cost of health insurance. The administration was attempting to limit the damage caused by the fundamental flaws within the law, such as higher-than-expected risk pools and various other enrollment misses.

The suit maintained that the language in ObamaCare actually restricts subsidies to the 14 state-run exchanges and never authorized subsidies to be given in the 36 states that use the federally run system, or the unsecured HealthCare.gov.

ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber, who is making headlines now that he was caught on tape saying Democrats used a “lack of transparency” and “the stupidity of the American voter” to pass the bill, made a number of comments and accusations after the ruling was handed down, including calling those who say the law should be interpreted as it was written “screwy,” “nutty,” “stupid,” and “desperate.”

The man who recently said that he knew “more about this law than any other economist,” insisted that those who crafted the law “had no intention of excluding the federal states,” and even outrageously proclaimed that anyone who disagreed with that statement was a “criminal.”

“Literally every single person involved in the crafting of this law has said that it`s a typo,” Gruber said in an interview with MSNBC.

However, PPD previously published two videos clearly proving Gruber was — once again — lying. He was lying about the subsidies during the interview with MSNBC and on other occasions, but flat-out admitted that federal subsidies were left out of the bill for political reasons.

In a shocking rebuke of the law, which Americans never wanted and still do not want, Scott Brown was elected in deep Blue Massachusetts to replace the late liberal Sen. Ted Kennedy, a long-time advocate of government-run healthcare.

Democrats simply didn’t have the votes to take up another piece of legislation similar to the even more centralized House bill. They had no choice but to settle on the version that had already been passed in the Senate, which specifically barred ObamaCare subsidies for consumers in states that did not set up SBMs, or state-based marketplaces. The House went on to pass the Senate version, and here we are.

The survey of 1,000 likely U.S. voters was conducted on November 12-13, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95 percent level of confidence.