Anxious much, Sarah?

Sarah Kliff of Vox.com sounds like she needs to take a page out of the playbook of South Park's Eric Cartman who couldn't wait the three weeks for the  Wii video game console to be released so he had himself frozen to spare himself the waiting time from his POV. Although Kliff only has to wait another day or two until the Supreme Court releases its ruling on the Obamacare King vs Burwell case, she is equally as anxious so perhaps the freezing method will spare herself the incredible level of anxiety she is currently enduring. Even though Kliff recently discovered that Obamacare stinks, she is so emotionally invested in that bloated program that she just can't let go. Therefore let us now join our Miss Kliff in the middle of her amusing King vs Burwell anxiety attack:

Are you so gullible as to place your faith in the credibility of the current White House? If so, you might have to find yourself end up eating crow and apologizing to the skeptics for your gullibility as happened to Bloomberg Politics managing editor Mark Halperin on Morning Joe today. Halperin's apology came on the heels of a report yesterday in the Wall Street Journal that despite previous White House denials, it actually had quite extensive contacts with Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber.

Here are some of the details that made Halperin feel foolish for placing his blind faith in the White House:

Andrea Mitchell led off her Tuesday MSNBC show by introducing a presidential speech defending ObamaCare: “President Obama is now about to give his speech on his health care law. A law that faces an uncertain future as we await a landmark Supreme Court decision....The Court could strip 6.4 million people of health insurance subsidies.” Mitchell: “A possibility that might create big problems for Republicans in swing districts.”

Tuesday’s New York Times piece on how the problematic phrase “established by the state” got into and stayed in the Affordable Care Act provoked a great many blasts from lefty bloggers at the plaintiffs’ case in King v. Burwell. Two especially heated posts came from MSNBC’s Steve Benen and Esquire’s Charles Pierce.

Benen, a producer for The Rachel Maddow Show and the primary writer for the show’s blog, claimed that almost no one believes there’s any merit to the plaintiffs’ case: “There are effectively two competing factions: those who acknowledge that the litigation is hopelessly insane, and those who know the case is hopelessly insane but pretend otherwise for the sake of appearances...The case [conservatives are] pushing…is based entirely on a lie.” Meanwhile, Pierce charged that the "preposterous" case emerged from a conservative “alternate universe” sustained by “wingnut welfare."

Say my name. ---Walter White aka Heisenberg in Breaking Bad.

New York Times writer Robert Pear  knows his name but he didn't say it in his article about how four words in the Obamacare law was simply a mistake. Pear quotes a number of people involved in the law's writing process but fails to mention the one who was acknowledged as the architect of Obamacare...until it became politically inconvenient to do so---Jonathan Gruber. And the reason why Gruber's name went unmentioned in the article is because of his claim, recorded for all eternity on video, that only state established health exchanges would be eligible for subsidies.