We previously discussed the statements of Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who played a major role the ACA, or “Obamacare,” where he repeatedly endorsed the theory at the heart of the recent decisions in Halbig and King by challengers to the ACA: to wit, that the federal funding provision was a quid pro quo device to reward states with their own exchanges and to punish those that force the creation of federal exchanges. That issue will now be decided by the United States Supreme Court. Gruber caused a considerable controversy when, after he had denounced the theory as “nutty” during the arguments in Halbig and King, he was shown later to have embraced that same interpretation. Having been paid almost $400,000 as an architect of the ACA, Gruber has become a major liability in the litigation. Now Gruber is back in the news with an equally startling admission that the Obama Administration (and Gruber) succeeded in passing the ACA only by engineering a “lack of transparency” on the details and relying on “the stupidity of the American voter.”
Gruber’s remarks were made on a panel given roughly a year ago on Oct. 17, 2013. Notably, this was at the height of the tension over the ACA. While I have long supported national health care, I was critical of the sloppy drafting of the ACA, the federalism conflicts contained in the individual mandate provision, and the unsupportable claims made by the White House in selling the Act. The last concern was the subject of Gruber’s comments. Gruber told the crowd that the “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.” He also said that “basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”
Gruber also later states that New York Sen. Chuck Schumer (D.) is someone who “as far as I can tell, doesn’t understand economics” while calling a staffer for Sen. Olympia Snowe (R., Maine) an “idiot.” The later reference appears to be a reference to aide William Pewen.
The specific comments on the bill are transcribed as follows:
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass… Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”
I was concerned that these lines were taken out of context so I watched the video below:
What is fascinating is that Gruber is open about what has long been hidden in this Administration: the lack of transparency as a tactical political vehicle. The ACA was pushed through by a muscle vote on a handful of votes while the Administration made claims that he later had to admit were misleading at best, such as the President’s repeated assurance that citizens could keep your current insurance policy if you liked it.
Gruber also admits that the Administration crafted the law to avoid it being supported by a tax despite Chief Justice John Roberts’ later decision that it was a tax. Gruber says that, while he would have preferred to be honest and open, such considerations had to be set aside in the interests of passing the law — even by less than honest means.
In a truly ironic twist, the University of Pennsylvania tried to pull back the admission on the lack of transparency by pulling the video:
It was too late. The video was out.
In fairness to Gruber, he was doing what an academic is supposed to do in honestly assessing what he believed occurred in the historic passage of the ACA. While he later sought to deny the earlier comments that he made on the state exchanges (in a less than candid moment), there is thus far no comment from him on this latest video. As in the earlier admissions, there has been little relative coverage by the mainstream media of the comments. Once again, the lack of media attention is surprising given the importance of Gruber to the ACA and the Administration.
UPDATE: Gruber went on MSNBC to say that his comments were “inappropriate” while the host insisted that his comments were misunderstood as “nuanced” observations.
Elections have consequences. The uncovered story is there are 31-19 Rep to Dem guvs now, w/ similar state house numbers. It was a landslide, leej, no matter how you look @ it. As I said, this wasn’t approval of Rep, it was an absolute rejection of the Dem agenda, lawlessness and incompetence.
Example of what electorate said:
In Arkansas, voters raised the minimum wage while electing a senator who opposed it. Coloradans defeated an anti-woman “personhood” amendment but elected a man who once supported it.
The repubs stoked fear of Ebola and a fictional immigrant invasion. They used the ISIS beheadings for an ad to try and portray pres as the cause (as opposed to keeping soldiers off the ground while getting 50 countries to sign on in the fight, a terrible thing, after all McCain, Graham et al want(ed) us to go it alone against ISIS)
Typical and reminiscent of their Willie Horton ads against Dukakis.
.
You’re correct LeeJ. Without gerrymandering they never would’ve won the House in 2010. 2016 will prove to be interesting.
LOL
repeatedly been shown the election was more a showing of what gerrymandering does for a party then speaking for the electorate as a whole..
I saw it. There are many liberal Wall St. people. Hell, Corzine was elected Dem governor of NJ. I read all sources and business HATES Obamacare, as do the US public. If this election didn’t convince you, nothing will. I get it. As I said earlier, you like it, your friends like it, etc. I accept and stipulate to that. The Dems got whacked a week ago because the majority hate it.
Nick you ignored my comment before the quote. The quote is not from her but from a wells fargo investment guy. He is not MSNBC
leej, Rachel Maddow?? Come on. I watched some of her last Tuesday. She is not a legit source.
Correction, 133 years…
“Citizens United ushered in a boom in dark money. Therefore, there is lack of integrity at the outset……..”
Swarthmoremom,
You do realize Citizens United did not invent corruptible politicians, right? A lack of integrity, as you say, is not new to our republic or any other culture for that matter; it’s part of human nature. There will always be those desiring to influence government for purposes outside its constitutional duty and those politicians willing to be influenced. Our job is to weed them out of contention for office and if that fails, remove them at the first opportunity. Instead, the electorate has failed to heed this warning provided 137 years before the Citizens United decision.
“Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature … If the next centennial does not find us a great nation…it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.” – James Garfield 1877
Its from MSNBC but the quote is from a wells fargo investment officer:
While many of the more conservative Republicans elected on Tuesday made their opposition to the Affordable Care Act a touchstone of their campaigns, there is much less appetite on the part of business leaders for wholesale changes to the health care law.
For one thing, many of the insurance exchanges are finally working well, and businesses have adapted to the new landscape. Even more important, added demand from the newly insured is likely to increase profits in sectors like hospitals, pharmaceuticals and medical devices.
“Anything regarding the Affordable Care Act is going to be a stretch,” said John K. Lynch, regional chief investment officer for Wells Fargo Private Bank.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/health-care-fight-pits-gop-against-its-private-sector-allies
leejcaroll – Well Fargo Bank offers its employees a Cadillac health insurance policy. I do not know why they would be involved in Obamacare
Well Byron, good luck with that. Those who get Medicare are not necessarily destitute, or should they be. We still take care of our own in this country. They are seniors or the disabled. Those who have children and are poor enough, get Medicaid. There would be a HUGE outcry if these programs, SS, SSDI, Medicare or Medicaid would seriously be in danger of being repealed.
Karen, Some of the folks here have posted numerous comments and not touched the subject of the post even once. As I learned as a PI, you learn as much by what people don’t say, as by what they do.
Annie:
It is troubling and perplexing. Medicare ought to be phased out or kept only for the truly destitute.
Observer Well, whoever you are, you seem to not know that it is Citizens United not Citizen United. lol
Karen, the fact that to some it is not a big deal IS the big problem!
I thought Romney ran a highly successful business. Kerry was a soldier.
Nick – only those heavily subsidized would want this coverage. Otherwise, it’s catastrophically more expensive.
But give it a few years. Unaffordable health care coverage for the middle class will just be accepted as the new norm by a jaded public unwilling to reign in the ruling government elite.
And, seriously, the above topic of this post should not be in any way controversial. This kind of political fraud should be universally denounced, with political consequences swiftly meted out. It’s unbelievable that people actually disagree on this issue, or bring up the line of Caesars as an excuse.
It is irrelevant if you like the result, intention, or penmanship of anyone involved. It was deliberate fraud on the voters, and there IS NO EXCUSE.
Darren:
I think we’ve turned our back on the Mr Smith Goes to Washington type.
Although many decry the duopoly, cronyism, pork, special interests (pick a feature, DC is loaded with them,) there seems to be this undercurrent that only a seasoned politician will do for higher office.
We used to have farmers, soldiers, businessmen, or other citizen of the “real world” take a turn at leading us. But now those types of people are absolutely ridiculed. We, as a people, seem to prefer those whose specialty is theory, rather than anyone who’s ever run a company or other endeavor out in the real economy.
I, for one, would like to see someone in higher office who’s actually run a successful business, invented something, created some great work, or otherwise actually DONE something, used authority, and created some result. We have think tanks and advisory panels for the theorists.