This week we discussed another videotape of Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who played a major role the ACA, or “Obamacare,” making revealing and highly embarrassing statements about the strategy behind the passage of the Act. Gruber had already previously attracted controversy with statements where he 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 uproar 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. Gruber has become a major liability in the litigation. Gruber then was 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.” Now a new videotape has surfaced from Gruber speaking at the University of Rhode Island in 2012 and expressing the same contempt for the intelligence of citizens — suggesting again that they were hoodwinked to “the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.” Gruber was paid roughly $400,000 to help design the ACA by the Obama Administration, but he is proving far far more costly in its aftermath.
The latest comments came with discussion of the so-called “Cadillac tax” which mandated that insurance companies would be taxed under the Act. It was the idea of then Senator John Kerry, who Gruber describes as his “hero” in using the naiveté of voters against them. He explains that taxing individuals would have been “politically impossible” so Kerry and the Administration opted to tax the companies with full knowledge that the cost could be passed on to citizens:
“So basically it’s the same thing. We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”
In another view taken from at an October 2013 event at Washington University in St. Louis, Gruber also refers to the “Cadillac tax,” and says “They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference.”
In fairness to Gruber, (putting aside his obvious low opinion of the American people) his frank discussions are consistent with speaking as an academic. However, such machinations are rarely confirmed by high-level consultants or officials. 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. There was a great deal of cynicism and misleading representations made during the ACA debates — reflecting a deep-seated contempt for the intelligence of the American voter. Gruber however seems to celebrate the success in using what he viewed as the stupidity of citizens, to quote his earlier comments, to secure passage of the ACA. It is the triumph of the ends over the means — the mantra of Beltway denizens who view more principled actors as naive chumps. What is shocking for many outside of the Beltway is of course the moral relativism and cynicism reflected in such comments, but Gruber is the norm in Washington. He is the face of the consequentiality morality that has long governed this city.
What is different is that he admits it.
The video below shows an honest and frankly insightful account of how the tax issues are addressed as well as the merits of such tax systems. It is the type of lecture that occurs on many campuses but the lecturer is rarely the architect of the underlying legislation. It is the combination with the earlier videotapes that has fueled the ongoing controversy, even though this is less confrontational. Actually, the far more significant statements were found in the first videotape where Gruber expressly endorses the theory of challengers in King and Halbig. Those statements are likely to be cited in the ongoing litigation and Gruber later effort to dismiss them as unintentional or off-the-cuff seemed less than honest.
The fact is that academics are often caught in a dilemma in moving between the political and academic worlds — worlds based on different values. Where the political world values opaqueness and evasion; the academic world values transparency and clarity. Gruber is a brilliant and highly distinguished academic and his lectures satisfy his obligation to be honest and accurate. That is precisely why his former associates in the Obama Administration may now find him less than ideal as a political ally.
Several great points DBQ. Obamacare was written so that people were forced to buy coverage that they didn’t want. So you had to buy maternity coverage or mental health benefits or drug abuse treatment or making Nuns pay for condoms and abortions. Elitist douchebags like this Gruber think that they know best and they have to tell you what to do instead of allowing you to do what works best for you and your family.
This guy is the elitist liberal mind in action. They just got caught admitting it.
Jonathan Turley said, In fairness to Gruber, he is again being honest about what happened in the passage of ACA and speaking as an academic.
I do not share your implied admiration for Gruber”s “honesty”. Here is what an honest man (academic or otherwise) would have done: Using the biggest platform available to him (NOT some obscure academic blatherfest) he would have done his best during the legislative debates to clarify for the American people what the ACA was trying to accomplish and how each policy instrument in it was intended to work. If it was, in fact, such a magnificent policy, it would not merely have survived public scrutiny, it would have attained overwhelming support when properly understood.
What we see on these videos is something quite different. It is the candor of a con man bragging about his latest and biggest con to an audience of his fellow con men. To call this behavior “honesty” is to degrade the concept beyond any useful meaning.
Gah….again with the bold html tag not being closed. Sorry
iinsurance companies were making selective decisions about who to cover and how much to charge
This statement right here encapsulates the economic ignorance of the American public.
First. Insurance is not health care. Insuring people against the risk of an event happening is what insurance IS. Car insurance, fire insurance, medical event insurance. The basis of insurance is risk., probability and costs. So naturally, the insurance companies make selective decisions about who to cover and how much to charge. Companies decide WHAT they will cover, what the RISK of an event is and based on that what the cost should be. They are businesses not charities.
Second RISK. The higher the probability of an event occurring the higher the premium is to be sure that there will be funds to cover the risk event. So if you live in the middle of a forest with no fire department nearby in a house with wooden shake roof with a wood stove for heat…..the risk of your house catching fire is higher and you will pay a higher premium. Or the company might calculate that the risk is too high and that they will decline to cover you for fire insurance.
If you are living in a very old house with substandard or decrepit electrical and plumbing, the likelihood of an event is higher an you will pay more. If you are living in an old body with bad plumbing and a bad heart, the likelihood of getting sick or having an insurable even it higher and you will pay more.This is what INSURANCE is all about.
Third PRE EXISTING CONDITIONS. If your house is already on fire, the insurance company is not going to insure you. The event has already happened. If you are already sick, there is nothing to insure against. To expect an insurance company to pay out for something that has already happened is ignorant and economically stupid.
Fourth Health care is separate from insurance. If you are uninsurable then there should be other options…..THIS is what Obamacare should have addressed. Instead of destroying the industry of Insurance and destroying everyone’s existing medical insurance, they should have created some sort of pool to assist people with PRE existing conditions.
Fifth Insurance is not meant to cover everything. Medical insurance should basically cover the most catastrophic events. Those that would be a huge financial hardship. Basic routine events are those that a person can pay out of pocket, or if need be are impoverished, can rely on assistance from a government pool Medicaid for example. When you have car insurance, you are covered for a wreck or major damage to your car. You are not covered for oil changes and to get your tires rotated. If that WERE the case, car insurance would be so expensive that NO one could afford it.
And this is the reason that medical insurance is so expensive. It covers more than it should. More than most people need to have covered or even want to have covered. If people were allowed to choose the coverage that they need and not what the government says they need it would be less expensive. For example…….. I don’t need maternity care, yet I have to pay for it in my insurance premiums. If medical insurance were to cover the catastrophic events and perhaps a few wellness check up procedures and not everything under the sun…..it would be affordable.
Economic stupidity of the American public…..indeed. On display.
APEC’s silly shirts: The awkward tradition that won’t go away
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/11/10/apecs-silly-shirts-the-awkward-tradition-that-wont-go-away/
I wonder if the press will report on any secret deals he might have made with the Chinese or do we have to wait for some guy on the Internet to find a tape.
It is bad enough that he is going around dressed like he is waiting for Spock to show up and celebrate Pon Farr.
http://www.etonline.com/news/2014/11/24113868/set_barack_obama_president_apec300.jpg
Humility comes with self knowledge , something that you do not see in the gait of our president , with or without chewing gum , or in the video clips of Mr. Gruber. All this demonstrates that brilliance in one area is not a guarantee against being totally clueless in much more important aspects of life .
How many years have they had now to come up with a realistic workable plan? What have we heard? “Health savings accounts”. Seriously, it is absurd to think that this would cover healthcare costs. Those who push the notion of health savings accounts expect Americans to be as STUPID as those like Gruber and the ACA did. I think we should be able to solve this issue if it weren’t for lobbyists, greed, power and money. And that should make every one of us Americans ashamed.
Obama created this Rube Goldberg contraption in the dead of night on a party line vote with any attempt at a meaningful compromise. When questioned about his style he replied “I won.”
Even the saps who did his dirty work said they had to “pass the bill” before they could read it.
It was basically an attempt at government taking over a huge segment of our economy to control the lives of ordinary Americans.
It was the basis of the last election and there was an unprecedented repudiation of the President and his party. Remember he said his polices were on the ballot. Take him at his word.
Wait a minute he lies.
Well how about this. “You lost.”
trooperyork – the latest polls are showing the public wants the Republicans to set the agenda for the next two years.
pdxbanana, The highly politicized SC might do it for them.
I think most comments here reflect a strange amnesia about the circumstances that led to the creation of this legislation, and equally seem to have forgotten all the “contaminants” that were thrown into the sausage during its making. To the first point: if private medicine and Big Pharma had been taking good care of all of us instead of running people’s lives into the financial ditch, there would be no need for ACA. Instead, insurance companies were making selective decisions about who to cover and how much to charge. Result: bad health and likely bankruptcy for millions. Similarly, the exorbitant charges for some medicines has thrown even more potential beneficiaries under the bus. To my second point: the legislation was totally porked up and watered down by Pharma and the “hospital industry.” Thus it has ended up as a relatively expensive process that rewards the very parties that created the mess we call a health care system in the first place. So pointing fingers at Obama is beyond absurd; let’s talk about how things got to this point, and how to improve things. This problem started long before Obama came into office, and will continue. At least he has created a start and some sort of dialog. Now the mental midgets who are about to rule the Senate want to undo all of that. Typical: obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, and present not one thing positive to address the problems. Talk about something sickening!
What is most interesting about this information is that it was discovered by a citizen journalist and not by anyone in the media which has engaged in a massive cover up of the malfeasance and criminality of this inept administration. Of course the Obama administration has a solution. It wants to censor and control the internet so it would come under the control of the FCC. This information is still not being reported in the mainstream media since they don’t think the fact that the administration lied about the bill and the fact that they think the American people are “stupid” is something that they should report.
What else is being hidden and covered up?
My sister in enrolled too, Haz. Same experience. Frustrated to tears by the enrollment process, then living in the quiet desperation of knowing the drastically increased deductibles and co-pays are not realistic in her situation, and still afraid to find out if / how much she may or not be credited back for premiums. Her family’s personal experience has been deeply negative and she lost many Facebook friends who were flippant in suggesting it was all for the “greater good”.
SWM,
If the problem of preexisting conditions isn’t addressed in a realistic way by any healthcare plan the Republicans put out, wonder how many conservatives and libertarians here would protest? How about affordable healthcare? That is one of the complaints about the ACA for those who aren eligible for subsidies. How would a Republican plan be affordable and no throw millions of people out of any healthcare again? Looks like hospital costs will rise again as people go back to the days of using the ER as their mode of healthcare. I don’t like the ACA, never did, was angry when Obama rejected any possibility of a Public Option. But the problem of the uninsured and preexisting conditions MUST be addressed and solved. If we Americans can’t come up with a workable national universal healthcare plan, that is embarrassing in front of the rest of the civilized nations.
A law built on a lie is not good for anyone. Although I understand why liberals support it since they love to lie to themselves.
Obama has not made anything better in any aspect of his Presidency. He is a miserable failure.
Obamacare is just the biggest failure. Although the Middle East and the fight against Islamic terrorism is a close second and still has a chance to be his biggest failure.
Is anyone here enrolled in ObamaCare? Hearing your experience would be interesting, if sharing it isn’t too personal.
One of my siblings and her husband have had to enroll, and their experience has been very unfavorable. Premiums doubled, high deductibles and co-pays, their MDs are not in the plan, the medical center they have used is not in the plan. Trouble getting continuing cancer care, etc.
“The negative effects of yanking subsidies in these states would dwarf the “rate shock” that took place and caused such an outcry last year, when new regulations about pre-existing conditions and comprehensive benefits drove up the underlying cause of coverage. Of course, officials could react to a Court ruling by scaling back or stripping away those protections. That would truly restore the status quo in these states.
It would recreate an insurance market in which underlying premiums were frequently low, to the advantage of some young and healthy people who don’t want or need much coverage. It would also create an insurance market in which people with pre-existing conditions could not buy insurance on their own, people priced out of the market would have no meaningful financial assistance, and policies would frequently have skimpy benefits exposing people to financial ruin. As a result, many fewer people would have insurance overall.
Many conservatives and libertarians would prefer this. They say that downsides of Obamacare—like the fact that tax credits are financed through a combination of spending cuts and taxes—are much worse than the upsides. If the Court rules in favor of the King lawsuit, the residents of 37 states may get to decide for themselves whether that view is right.” From the TNR article Disclosure, I live in a state with an exchange so not effected by the dismantling of Obamacare and am not enrolled in it but do have friends with pre existing conditions in Texas that will be affected.
“Obama started the US on the road to a single payer system that will eventually cost Americans a third to a half of what they pay now.”
I think you meant, a single payer system that will eventually cost American a third to a half of what they earn now.
The information in the TNR article is from the Kaiser Foundation which I have included the link to.
Respectfully, TNR isn’t an independent, neutral source for healthcare data.