In the macro, we knew the administration lied to us about ObamaCare – adding 30 million patients to a now-shrinking doctor-pool simply can’t result in better quality care at lower cost while adding to neither deficit nor taxes. That‘s magical thinking (read: child-like fib). We found out that President Obama lied directly to us about the law affecting only those who needed better [or any] insurance – “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan” was named “Lie of the Year” by the Tampa Bay Times’ PolitiFact unit. That wasn’t just a bad guess because the administration knew at the time that ObamaCare only works if it causes all people to hold “approved” policies. It was a lie. But it wasn’t until Jonathan Gruber’s series of speeches surfaced that we found that a principle practice in writing the bill was to obfuscate various features of ObamaCare from the American people, and in the case of the mandates, from government itself. The writing and selling of ObamaCare is, and was based on, a pack of lies.
In a bit of irony, the current dust-up concerning ObamaCare is over one of the few coherent clauses in the 1,700 pages of plain text. Jonathan Gruber stated “that the Affordable Care Act was written so that states that didn’t set up insurance exchanges would also not get tax credits … If you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.” The section dealing with the creation of state exchanges and the provision of subsidies states, quite clearly, that subsidies are only available in exchanges “established by a State,” which the law expressly defines as the 50 states plus DC. True to their nature, the administration is holding that it was just a poorly worded bill and that they [the administration] meant that all exchanges, regardless of who hosts them, are eligible for the tax credit. That is a lie. It was intentionally written the way it was in order to incentivize the states to set up their own exchanges. When only 16 states did so (down to 13 now), the administration just generalized the tax credits to all exchanges. That’s black letter law illegal.
Now, knowing that the incomprehensibility of the bill was intentional, let’s consider the late Lon Fuller, a renowned legal scholar, and his dictum for a law to be legitimate. “A law cannot be considered to be legitimate if those expected to obey it, can’t understand it.” He had seven other criteria for a legitimate law – the people must know that it exists, it cannot contravene an extant law without addressing the conundrum, and so forth. But being understandable by the average citizen is enough to condemn ObamaCare to illegitimacy.
It’s instructive that the authors of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act felt it necessary to obfuscate key features of the bill because they knew the American people wouldn’t want them. They were, in other words, preparing to foist something upon the people that the people didn’t want, and they were going to do it by hiding things and lying about it. This exemplifies the arrogance of today’s liberalism – it must force the unwashed masses (e.g., non-liberals) to “eat their spinach,” because they (liberals) know what is better for them (the unwashed masses). Liberalism has drifted so far left that they now acknowledge that their programs don’t enjoy popular support, so they must resort to subterfuge in order to pass them into law. That’s the antithesis of the democratic process.
If we have learned anything from “comprehensive” healthcare reform and the pending 2,000-page “comprehensive” immigration reform bill, it’s that incrementalism is superior to “comprehensive” for reasons of efficacy, but most importantly, for reasons of veracity. It’s harder to hide stuff in shorter, simpler bills that average Americans can understand. Ideas, if superior, should welcome honest debate. Ideas, even if superior, should not be imposed on an unwilling public in a democracy. An administration should be trusted, even by those in the minority. An administration that casually lies to the people hasn’t earned the peoples’ trust, even those in the majority.
 The bill was purposely written in such convoluted language that the authors could hide from CBO the fact that the “fees” for not getting an “approved” policy were actually taxes.
 Professor, economics, MIT; principle architect of RomneyCare/ObamaCare, and consultant on how to write the bill.