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.
Sandi, you are wrong. Medicare DOES may for prostate exams.
http://www.medicare.gov/coverage/prostate-cancer-screenings.html
SWM, I don know what I’d do without Medicare. I love it too. Precisely, there are many plans to supplement Medicare.
Annie, My husband went on Medicare this year and loves it. His office visits, tests, and day surgery were covered 100 percent. I have not idea what supplements these posters here buy but they need to get better informed about their choices.
Sandi, I had had my annual physical, call it whatever you want. I had extensive labs( blood work) and a thorough exam. I know what an physical exam is, I was a nurse for 35 years. Who knows maybe my doc has a social conscience and gave me a freebie. My exam was thorough.
Sandii, did you read any of the comments I made about Medicare at all? I clearly stated several times it’s not FREE, we pay a PREMIUMS and use supplementals.
Sandi, “It only took 3 comments to get to Bush.” Bush signed the medicare reform bill that that included prescription drug coverage. It, also, got off to a rocky start so yes it is relevant.
Annie, my husband just had his annual “finger” physical and we were billed for the whole thing. If you see your Dr. For something else, and he checks other things, Medicare pays. My objection is they pay for Mammograms, but not Prostate exams. I think that’s sexist!
Sandi, perhaps you didn’t see, but said that it WAS NOT SINGLE PAYER several times now over the last two days and at least once on this thread. Looks like I need to use ALL CAPS, when saying this.
*************************
on 1, November 11, 2014 at 11:54 amAnnie
Also poll after poll shows that seniors and disabled who have Medicare, love it. It isn’t Single Payer, before someone comes along to claim it is.
Darren, A quote “That will live in infamy.”
Annie, Medicare is not single payer. We pay for it and then a portion of the bill. It only took 3 comments to get to Bush. We don’t use Medicare Part D because there are lots of drug benefit plans out there, better and cheaper. The one thing I would like to understand is why, when someone brought up it’s a tax, didn’t it get sent back to Congress to amend? Other courts do this. If it had been sent back to change all euphemisms for tax to TAX it probably would never have passed. The current problem should be fast tracked. We shouldn’t have to be in limbo until June about this major problem.
Why no Veterans Day post?
Dennis, I just read your background. Kudos for your volunteer work helping people w/ problems w/ govt. healthcare. But, golly, I’m surprised there are any problems w/ govt. healthcare!! Hopefully there are dedicated and knowledgeable people like yourself helping veterans through the failed VA system.
And FYI, worked as a nurse for 35 years.
Then WHY do you constantly DO IT Spinelli? You do not respect other’s privacy. I think your continued presence here on RIL is a gift given to you by JT and you do not seem to know it.
I receive Medicare, NOT Medicaid. The rest of my medical history is NO ONES business here, UNLESS I give out that information about MYSELF.
I apologize Mr. Turley. I knew this exchange would get you emailed. I know better than to wade into those waters.
Thank you JT, I didn’t see you deleted him until after making my last comment, you can delete it if you see fit.
Dennis, Spinelli does not know me, nor is he authorized to give out any private info about me, my employment staus, my form of healthcare. He has NO idea about what he asserts about other commenters here. And if he truly knows about private info about over commenters here, he is violating the civility rules by revealing it on this blog. JT has strict rules about respecting other’s privacy here. Now do you see why I said there were creepy weirdos who invade other’s privacy here?
Nick Spinelli has had a comment deleted under the civility rule.
Dennis, I did not know those unique exclusions to the age 65 requirement for Medicare. I have bookmarked your blog. I’m up for Medicare in a few years, God willing!