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.
Nick
Thanks. Some people get Medicare prior to age 65 if they have been on Social Security Disability for more than 24 months or have ALS or ESRD. As for the other commenter not being on Medicare, that explains a lot
One can be on Medicaid @ any age, two different programs.
All
Correction: I said in a comment directed to Annie at 2:15 pm 11/11 that — depending on gender — a physical exam includes a procedure involving the healthcare professional’s finger. The procedure I have in mind is actually a separate code under Medicare and will be covered by Medicare at any time — once a year — for a 20% co-pay. If you really want to irritate your healthcare professional and you are of that gender, tell him or her that you would like to come in just for that procedure.
They do not respond to the facts, they attack the messenger. I would ignore, Dennis. It won’t change.
No first of all you give no click to show what he said or how it was taken out of context and nmade to be something it was not, (and I said, but you love to ignore that, that what Gruber said was wrong, meaning a wrong thing if it was the case so I am not giving him a free pass) 53 seconds out of 1 1/2 hours again
ANd again he was wrong but this is more of what he said “Mark [Pauly] made a couple of comments that I do want to take issue with, one about transparency in financing and the other is about moving from community rating to risk-rated subsidies. You can’t do it politically. You just literally cannot do it, okay, transparent financing…and also transparent spending.” Gruber said. “In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in—you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed, okay. 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 lahttp://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/11/10/aca-architect-the-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-led-us-to-hide-obamacares-tax-hikes-and-subsidies-from-the-public/w than not.” This from article by the right leaning forbes opinion writer.
Sadly he is and was right. Oh first of all it was not the voters who passed the ACA so his disrespect for the voters is meaningless, absent his disrespect for them. You cannot do it politically.
He is also wrong we already subsidize those who don’t have health insurance/can’t afford it so this is nothing new, just a better, to my mind way of doing it since many who couldn’t get insurance, pre existing conditions, etc can and do now have it. They are subsidized thru the state and federal gov’t through medicare, and other state and fed programs.
Dennis,
I just had my yearly physical, I’m not sure what the heck you want. My care is excellent. I don think you know as much about Medicare as you suggest or you have an agenda to disparage it. That is exceedingly clear.
Dennis, There are some people here who NEVER admit when they are wrong or when they get caught dissembling, and never apologize for transgressions. It’s the hardcore liberal credo.
I have no problems what so ever getting my meds, they are affordable. I don’t like Medicare Part D being administerd through private health insurance companies and we would’ve been better served to incorporate it into regular Medicare who could’ve negotiated prices. It is NO problem accessing Medicare coverage, either A, B or D.
Annie
I actually know quite a bit about Medicare which is why I get disturbed about people like yourself distributing bad information about it. Medicare absolutely does not cover an annual physical exam. You apparently do not understand the difference between an annual wellness visit and a physical. See the description of a wellness visit on page 60 of “Medicare and You.” At a physical, something physical happens… typically with tongue depressors and a stethoscope and the medical professional’s hands (and depending on gender, finger).
Dennis, Medicare is a god send to many who have had no coverage. Medicare is popular among Americans, something you cannot deny. It serves me well. Better than no healthcare.
LeeJ, some people would love for the disabled to simply disappear from the face of the earth. Why do we hear more of this rhetoric from Glibertarians? I will never forget the people yell, “Let them die!” during the Presidential debates.
Annie
Just to be clear, no one was asking for any personal information. All you had to simply say was that you do not really depend on Medicare but really depend on a private Medigap Medicare supplement plan. Of course you get the same coverage as provided with the private health insurance your daughter’s family has; you have private health insurance. However you still probably do not have the annual out of pocket spending limit guaranteed to those under 65 and –depending on where you live and when you signed up–AARP could have chosen not to sell you that Medigap insurance if it felt you had a preexisting condition — again something that is not allowed for people under 65,
You’re right, Medicare is great! For such terrible coverage, you have to have to deal with two or three insurance companies and still have no vision, dental, hearing, self-administered drug coverage or coverage of important preventive care. (Since you say you are not hiding anything, I guess you mean to say that you are taking the risk of not having Part D prescription drug coverage. If you do have Part D, make that three or four insurance companies and still no catastrophic coverage)
want a cookie?
No thanks. I make my own cookies and wouldn’t touch one you made with a ten foot pole.
LeeJ,
I don’t understand this entrenched attitude by ideologists. Even Tea Party seniors held signs saying, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare!” Poll after poll show Americans on both sides of the political spectrum love SS and Medicare. I would suggest that these ideologues, opt out of Medicare Part B when the time comes and then they can remain true to their ideologically driven ideas.
@ leejcaroll
So…taking a few seconds out of a presentation is a bad thing Gruber…this is NOT keeping it in context when it is someone you agree with. But it is perfectly find to do the same thing. Isolating a few seconds of a lengthy monologue from someone keeps it IN context when it is someone you don’t like or don’t agree with, Limbaugh.
One is acceptable to you and one isn’t even though they are essentially the same thing.
Got it.
The hypocrisy is incredible. Some people are so completely unaware of their own selves…. it is amazing.
That’s nice DBQ, want a cookie?
Dennis Byron,
And Medicare most certainly does cover an annual physical. You are not informed about Medicare, that is obvious.
DBQ, my articles refute yours.:)
And mine yours.
Checkmate
Dennis, I try to not reveal private information about myself here on a public forum. BUT I will do so in this case, risking some weirdo invading my privacy again. I most certainly do rely on Medicare and I do use an AARP United Healhcare supplemental policy. I get excellent care and have not had one issue with finding a doctor. Use the same clinic and even some of the same docs my daughter’s family who have private health insurance does. I am not hiding a damn thing as I said several times now that we are ALL aware that Medicare does have deductibles. DUH.
DBQ I heard what Rush said. I don’t know about any lawsuit but he said what he said, it was not taken out of context. Had it been unlike a lot of you folk here, I defend both sides when their rights are abridged or their words taken out of context (53 seconds of 1 1/2 hours???really??) to make them appear to be saying what they didn’t as well of course as acting as though this is new information.