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.
\Hmmm. So does this mean that Sarah Palin was right about Obamacare, and therefore SMARTER than all the Democrats and the liberalish talking heads??? Oh my, but I bet there is a run on psychiatrists about now.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter\
————————————
S.Fromm (any rel to Erich Fromm?), I had never thought that the most intelligent president and administration in the history (according to MSNBC), will make people like Sarah Palin look much smarter than them…wow, incredible achievement.
Great link Annie!
http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/HR_676_2013.pdf
HRH 676 Expanded Medicare for All
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, Feb. 14, 2013
Contact: Mark Almberg, communications director, (312) 782-6006, mark@pnhp.org
A national physicians group today hailed the reintroduction of a federal bill that would upgrade the Medicare program and swiftly expand it to cover the entire population.
The “Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act,” H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and 37 other House members, would replace today’s welter of private health insurance companies with a single, streamlined public agency that would pay all medical claims, much like Medicare works for seniors today.
Proponents say the publicly financed plan would vastly simplify how the nation pays for care, improve patient health, restore free choice of physician, and yield substantial savings for individuals, families and businesses.
“The evidence is clear: an improved-Medicare-for-all program is the most equitable and cost-effective way to assure that everyone, without exception, gets high-quality care,” said Dr. Andrew Coates, president of Physicians for a National Health Program, a nonprofit research and advocacy group of 18,000 doctors nationwide. “Nothing less will do the job.”
“A single-payer program would assure truly universal coverage, cover all necessary services, and knock down the growing financial barriers to care – high premiums, co-pays, deductibles and coinsurance – that my patients are running up against, often with calamitous results,” he said.
Coates, an Albany, N.Y.-based internist, continued: “Such a plan would save over $400 billion a year currently wasted on private-insurance-related bureaucracy, paperwork and marketing – money that should be used to care for patients. Such a program would also have the financial muscle to negotiate with drug and medical suppliers for lower prices, and would further save money through lump-sum budgeting for hospitals.
“In short,” he said, “the enactment of Rep. Conyers’ bill would take us much further than the 2010 health law, which despite its modest benefits will not be able to control costs and which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will still leave 30 million people uninsured in 2023.
“Surveys have repeatedly shown that about two-thirds of the public supports a Medicare-for-all approach,” Coates said. “And a recent survey of physicians shows that a solid majority now favor government legislation to create national health insurance.”
“As a doctor who sees hard-pressed patients every day, I can tell you that the need for fundamental health care reform has never been greater,” he said. “It’s time to stop putting the interests of private insurance companies and Big Pharma over patient needs. It’s time to adopt a single-payer, improved-Medicare-for-all program in the United States.”
*****
Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org) is a nonprofit research and educational organization of 18,000 physicians who advocate for single-payer national health insurance, an improved Medicare for all. To speak with a physician/spokesperson in your area, visit http://www.pnhp.org/stateactions or call (312) 782-6006.
An interesting takeaway from Mr. Gruber’s videos is his assertion that the people supporting the ACA, including those elected to office MORE THAN ONCE to pass it, are the idiots. All those that have been opposed to this law are not whom Mr. Gruber successfully targeted. How special is that? 🙂
leejcaroll – Obamacare is not an investment opportunity, so why would an investment banker from Wells Fargo be concerned? Paul Large returns have been made by those that invested in hospitals and certain insurance companies since the onset of obamacare. People buy more insurance, take their prescription drugs and the hospitals get paid. duh
Hmmm. So does this mean that Sarah Palin was right about Obamacare, and therefore SMARTER than all the Democrats and the liberalish talking heads??? Oh my, but I bet there is a run on psychiatrists about now.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
It’s hard to take people seriously who suggest Medicare take over the entire population when it’s running out of money with the people it already serves.
It definitely needs to be reformed, because people may not like it as much once 2030 hits, and they start receiving less benefits.
Excellent post Tom. Good analysis of the history of Medicare and the potential decline or survival of the program.
Tom – great point. I do agree that we need to have serious discussions and debate on how to make Medicare self-sustaining. Because according to the trustees, Medicare will be unable to pay full benefits by 2030, and Social Security will have the same problem in 2 YEARS.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/28/usa-fiscal-health-idUSL2N0Q310320140728
So the MSNBC host thinks we misunderstood “nuanced” observations about the stupidity of American voters?
Guess we know what MSNBC thinks about the intelligence of its viewers, as well . . .
Tom,
Excellent post and who cares about spelling errors.
Paul Schulte-I’m still stuck with this *##!* onscreen keyboard that does not allow me to proofread before posting. Please overlook the spelling errors “if” instead of “of”, etc.
So to you, and others, my apologies/excuses for the sloppy presentation.
Tom – no apology necessary. BTW, have you made it to Arizona yet?
JP Morgan, a big Obama contributor, has made almost $600 million dollars processing SNAP cards.
Good HBO concert for vets on now.
This is part of the reason why the Democrats lost so many seats.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/food-stamp-recipients-top-46-million-36th-straight-month
There are testimonials from people who love their Medicare benefits, as well as less favorable comments from some less satisfied with the Medicare system.
The original beneficiaries-e.g., someone born around 1900…lived Medicare. I think their monthly premiums were $3.00 per month, and the deductibles and copays were minimal.
It’s worth noting that the c. 20 million original Medicare enrollees had paid $0 in lifetime payroll taxes. And the “tax bite” for the following generations was not that large-originally.
Among the first wave in the Medicare Ponzi Scheme, there may well have been 3,000,000, 5,000,000, 7,000,000 in genuine need of this type of governmental assistance. But it was “an insurance program”, so virtually everyone was rolled into this massive new government program. The early “Bonanza recipients”, as well as future generations destined to pay into a system that promised old age insurance years hence.
The “fee for service” characteristic of Medicare, and the insulation of enrollees from direct exposure to /interest in actual costs, was a very large contributing factor to exploding health care costs over the past 45-50 years. By the mid-1970s, I began to believe that these built-in tine bombs cause a massive train wreck down the road.
The path of least resistance, at least from a political standpoint, was a “pass it on” scheme involving higher taxes, larger deductibles, copays, and premiums, and an increasing reliance in “general revenues” to make up the shortfall.
I think roughly half of total Medicare costs are paid for from general revenues, so is fantasy to believe that the Medicare program is self-funding-or sustainable in its current form.
At my age, and with the clout of “the senior lobby”, etc., I won’t face any particular financial “short-changing” from the program in its current form. Relative to my taxes paid in, I will likely get my money’s worth, and then some.
It won’t be the “Bonanza” that the original generation got, nor the net payback (benefits relative to taxes paid) of my parents’ generation. But as a member if the “Third Wave” if baby boomers entering, or about to enter the Medicare plantation, I can not realistically expect the cost/benefit kinds of returns given to the early Ponzi Scheme participants.
I think a few…a very few…politicians have seriously taken a hard look, and presented fairly specific proposals, for trying make Medicare a genuinely sustainable programs for future generations. Paul Ryan is one if those few, and ANY proposals to seriously alter of reform the program is politically risky, and will get demogogued to death.
Whether it’s Paul Ryan’s program, or an alternative, realistic proposal that seriously deal with economic realities, they deserve serious consideration and debate.
Or many, perhaps most, are content with the status quo. The status quo is essentially to perpetuate, and accelerate, any inter-generational screwing of future ‘beneficiaries” if Medicare.
Uh Paul, because he is an investment banker and talking about an economic issue?
leejcaroll – Obamacare is not an investment opportunity, so why would an investment banker from Wells Fargo be concerned?
Nick, you can ignore the gerrymandering, you can deny the lies the repubs used but at the end of the day it was not we are FOR the repubs or against the Prez. It was geographical and I can well imagine in 2016 when a lot more seats are up in democratic districts you will be one of the first to complain they won because of gerrymandering
leejcaroll – did you take civics? Senators run at large. More Democratic seats are up next time but gerrymandering only would have something to do in the House which runs every 2 years.
anon, CNN did not have it probably because it is an old story It is as not as FOx etc have on their sites, “breaking news” because all they show is 53 seconds of the 1 1/2 hour interview, from 2013 and say nothing about it other then look what Gruber said.
LOL. I have seen alcoholics and addicts w/ less denial. As I’ve said, it is FASCINATING to see, absolutely fascinating.