MIT professor Jonathan Gruber has produced a firestorm of controversy over remarks made in various settings about the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) and how drafters like himself relied on the “stupidity” of voters in passing the legislation. It appears that the Gruber hits keep coming, even as he prepares for another round of questioning in Congress. The latest comments from 2009 reveal Gruber saying that Obamacare would not produce affordable health care for many citizens since its focus is coverage not costs. This statement made five months before the passage of the Act from a key architect is in stark contrast to President Obama’s repeated assertions that premiums would go down dramatically. The latest statement will fuel questioning before Congress on whether the White House knew that premiums were unlikely to do down and that people would not be able to keep their current policies as promised by President Obama in selling the program.
Gruber stated in 2009 that Obamacare lacked cost controls in it and would not be affordable for many:
“The problem is it starts to go hand in hand with the mandate; you can’t mandate insurance that’s not affordable. This is going to be a major issue . . . So what’s different this time? Why are we closer than we’ve ever been before? Because there are no cost controls in these proposals. Because this bill’s about coverage. Which is good! Why should we hold 48 million uninsured people hostage to the fact that we don’t yet know how to control costs in a politically acceptable way? Let’s get the people covered and then let’s do cost control.”
That view of the likely impact of the ACA was not only never shared by the Administration, it is in direct contradiction with the statements made by the White House on how costs would decline and people would be able to keep their policies if they liked them.
The latest comments are unlikely to gain Gruber any more allies. Once given millions to advise the federal and state governments on their health care system, he is now persona non grata. Indeed, Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi expressed a complete lack of knowledge of who Gruber is, was, or will be — even though she previously cited his work and he was paid $400,000 as one of the architects of Obamacare and has made over $2 million from HHS.
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.” 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.” His comments of working in Massachusetts (with Mitt Romney) are no less insulting to an array of people.
The latest statement is also likely to serve to increase calls for Gruber and the Administration to produce withheld documents previously demanded by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. This statement is far more important than past comments calling voters or politicians stupid. In 2009, Gruber was saying that the ACA was not about reducing costs but guaranteeing coverage. That seems manifestly true but it was not what the White House was saying at the time or even now. The statements are likely to draw more fire with fines set to increase under Obamacare in 2015.
The statement was again in a lecture by Gruber. Once again, Gruber was displaying the type of honesty and openness that students expect in classroom discussions. That is not the expectation however in political discussions, particularly in Washington. Gruber’s admissions have embarrassed the White House and Democratic leaders who pushed through the ACA on a razor thin vote. This is why academics often find work in politics to be particularly precarious. The nature of our work demands intellectual honestly and transparency that can be a liability in the political world. Indeed, conservative editorial are already proclaiming that “Grubergate” just got “better” .
The cancellation of state contracts is likely to be the least of Gruber’s problems in 2015 as he appears again before Congress.
It’s interesting how I stated that I’m not the only one whose healthcare premiums were made unaffordable because of Obamacare, and Anarchists’ response is that I’m unaware that other people’s rates have increased too. And he apparently hasn’t bothered to read my comments that health insurance is only one approach towards health care, monopolies are bad, etc.
Plus I’m selfish, can’t read, a parrot, self absorbed, and a sweetie . . .
This is very typical of the futility of trying to have a mature, intelligent discussion with any True Believer. All they can do is call names and not address very sincere concerns.
How wonderful would it be if Anarchist got hammered with $12,000 plus dollars a year in premiums plus a $6,000 deductible plus lost his doctors and has to pay out of pocket to see one, and people called him selfish if he complained, or he didn’t care about the poor.
I know, why don’t you give your home to the poor? And your job, and your car, if you have them. If you don’t I’ll claim you don’t care about the poor. That’s about the level of your argument. It’s along the lines of if you don’t do this, you don’t care.
What’s killing Medicare is all the people on “disability.” from all age brackets. They also get Medicare. That was not factored into the actuarial tables. In the past 3-4 decades, in alarmingly increasing numbers, more people are becoming “disabled” killing Medicare. We were not a “victim” culture when Medicare was born. We sure are now!
Yeah, I know, I gave away my “antiquity” by saying “news reel.” Once upon a time in a place far far away, that is how we got our news, other than radio. We even had theaters dedicated to “news reels” only.
Olly…arrogance I can deal with.
I could say rafflaw is “arrogant” but I’ve yet to hear (read) him refer to anyone as chimp-like or anything else intentionally derogatory in nature. When we agree I say so, and when we don’t he doesn’t come back like a 2 year old. Thus I appreciate his view points and read his posts and comments. That also goes for the others here who aren’t on the same page as me who discuss matters in good faith.
Outright intentional insults, made in a fit of sorts, rather than simply state or re-state one’s case, or advance your argument in good faith, amuse me, and assure I will not bother with 2.1 let alone 3.0. I rather doubt 2.0 gives a dang what I think, or anyone else for that matter. When you agree with a point, as I have previously, apparently it is not sufficient agreement. I used to live near people like that…they were North Koreans.
Never felt anyone needed to agree with me or I’d make derogatory inferences….like “chimp.” If I have done it, or anything close to it, I was wrong. If one needs that purposely in their debate arsenal, they lose from the get go. Stamping of feet like a 2 year old in a hissy fit, if disagreed with, is not good faith.
PS: sort of related…North Koreans, as individuals outside the party elite, are very much still Koreans. They would laugh hysterically at the movie portraying little Kim. Even if it is “B movie” crappy. It is customary, in the Korean culture, which is patriarchal by default, for movies and entertainment to make fun of men and show them as fools of the first order. Every Korean comedy & semi-comedic movie I saw had that meme in it somewhere. Bumbling men who depended upon their women folk to keep things straight and sustain order. Men were/are the folk of Makkoli Houses and other distractions. The concept of “face” is easily mocked and made fun of generally when it is known to be entertainment or comedy. However, inside the elite circle of little Kim’s, the concept of “face” is paramount, or you might get killed and fed piecemeal to some dogs. Just ask his uncle. In the NORK inner circle only little Kim may laugh, and never at himself…check out any news reel or video of him and see who else (isn’t) laughing. Or even smiling. Smiling could be suspect. His wife doesn’t count.
Aridog,
I found his arrogance quite fitting in a thread involving Jonathan Gruber. He’s captured the fancy of a couple of popcorn-eaters (not much of a challenge) with his caustic rhetoric but he is not providing anything of substance. I’ll wait for the 3.0 version to see if it improves. 😀
Anarchist said…
… you’ve been reduced to such a chimp-like state …
Nice. Improves your argument and position for sure.
Where some one might read your stuff and learn something, you assure they will not with those kinds of comments. Scroll over territory at its best.
People need to quit thinking medical care costs are a natural phenomenon, like weather. I don’t know what we can do about it at this point. Maybe some sort of gigantic consumer healthcare union where we tell people where to go and how much the organization would authorize paying. I don’t know. It just seems to me this is a problem government created in the first place and cannot solve.
Don’t get mad, Anarchist, get informed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_subsidization
Or, perhaps it’s a concept that you just can’t grasp. It’s simple, but you’ve been reduced to such a chimp-like state from Daily Kos that you just can’t understand it.
Measuring the actual cost of a unit of “healthcare” is tough, which is why so much of the discussion unfortunately focuses on spending–as does Bill W., presumably, in his question for Brad S.
Drawing a line pre- and post-ACA makes no sense when looking at changes in HC spending, b/c what’s happened recently is a continuation of a trend that began in the early 2000’s:
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/cutler/files/health_aff-2013-cutler-841-50.pdf
Brad S. said:
I have determined that the *prices* are hugely inflated in what I believe is an effort by medical practitioners and hospitals to game the insurance system in order to maximize revenue.
What’s true is that the “list price” you see on any hospital bill is generally the starting point in a negotiation process. I have direct knowledge of one major hospital where there’s an office dedicated to negotiating payments with uninsured patients. But insurers usually have already negotiated reimbursement rates w/ the providers in their networks, so the “list price” is even less relevant. Acting as purchasing agents for their policyholders is one of the key roles of insurers.
Karen-
““You missed Gruber’s first lectures in which he explained to his students that no one was ever intended to get cheaper healthcare; that the cost of subsidizing healthcare (paid by taxes collected from the insurer) is passed onto the purchaser (in the form of higher premiums equivalent to the amount taxed).”
“Actually, no, that exact statement has been the subject of several of my posts on multiple threads””
Ok then, you are just upping the bar when it comes to displaying profound cognitive dissonance. You know rates have and are going up, you just have so little concern for other Americans that you have never even considered that those rates are going up for them as well as for you. Typical Fox trained rightie parrot that is so fundamentally self-absorbed that information and perception will never meet in your mind, which is why you can say things like this-
“The federal subsidies grant the poor health insurance which is literally the definition of wealth redistribution.. . .”
We already covered this sweetie. The poor receive their insurance, just like everyone else, insurance supposedly made affordable by a subsidy, which the insurance companies pay through taxation and then pass the cost on to the consumer. The private insurers, and ultimately the large financial institutions underwriting that insurance, are where your wealth is redistributed.
You just can’t grasp that fact. It’s simple, but you’ve been reduced to such a chimp-like state from total adherence to right wing propaganda that you just can;t understand it.
Let’s try a different tack, since it’s apparent you’ll never keep up with the current one,. . . Federal subsidies pay for roads that we drive on. Should we end that, or at the very least, find out which roads the poor drive on and quit paying for them?
Consider your selfishness as if you were considering another. Why would anyone want to share a society with a person like you? What benefit do you imagine a society would derive from your inclusion? I can’t think of one. Help me out here.
“The issue in those previous threads. . . ”
Jesus you need to learn how to learn. Here’s a little tip that would do wonders for your erratic thought processes- The issue is always of secondary importance to the information provided. Typical of your tendencies, you ignore the information given, because actual information is irrelevant for you, and you instead home in one whichever sentence would most clearly be a topical sentence in your incessant “All evil derives from obama” thesis, and then you launch into the same script, completely oblivious to any other statement made by the person you’re responding to. You’re so completely incapable of straying off script to give a reasoned response to the substance of another person’s comment that I’d be shocked if a conversation with you, if measured, would even pass the turing test.
Bill W, in answer to your question:
“Brad S – Were you trying to say that healthcare costs were not increasing above the rate of inflation prior to the ACA?”
Let’s clarify – cost vs. price. I have no way (without spending an exorbitant amount of time) of knowing what the actual costs are of the delivery of medicine. My area of speciality is in business process and software delivery, which I do understand thoroughly. As a small business owner, I also understand the costs of doing business historically,and the impact on my bottom line.
Based on my recent experience with the healthcare delivery system, and research into prices, I have determined that the *prices* are hugely inflated in what I believe is an effort by medical practitioners and hospitals to game the insurance system in order to maximize revenue. The by-product of this gaming is that people without insurance get stuck with the inflated price, because they are not the ultimate customer – the insurance company is the real customer.
Thus my position:
“When you separate the consumer of a service (especially medical) from the payer for said service (government, insurance companies) loyalty and accountability invariably follow the money.”
Actually David “across states lines” is simply forcing lower standards on other states. Standards that may result in other taxpayers or other policyholders having to pick up part of the tab. Its amazing how all of a sudden the big bad federal government is simply doing goody good for the state legislators – should that federal power apply to everything local?
Congrats on you and your family’s health – that is awesome! But do you think your fortune is the norm? or that no one has a major health event! what would a major, or even minor, cancer situation run? Health events, even for those with coverage, are a leading cause of bankruptcy.
Best wishes for your continued good health.
Bill W wrote: “Actually David “across states lines” is simply forcing lower standards on other states. Standards that may result in other taxpayers or other policyholders having to pick up part of the tab.”
It is not forcing any lower standards. It is simply allowing the consumer of medical insurance to determine the standards with their pocket book. If the consumers want higher standards, they are going to be buying insurance from the States with the higher standards.
It sounds to me like either you are afraid of good old fashion competition for services, or you are afraid that the insurance companies will be exposed for lobbying the legislature to adopt policies that increase their profits.
What totally seems to escape your understanding is that insurance is the primary reason why medical costs are so high. If we operated like 100 years ago when the government was not involved in the insurance business, everyone would be able to afford health care. We would not have a Supreme Court Justice claiming that nobody can afford health care without insurance.
DBQ – I meant before the ACA it was up to local legislators. And many states did not see “across states lines” as a benefit to their constituency or taxpayers who might end up picking a larger % of the share due to inadequate insurance. Am sure there is a cost to entering a new state (I was part of a team changing non-admitted paper to admitted in all 50 states – ugh!), but healthcare companies have almost seemed intent on not entering each others markets.
The ACA seems a lousy way to deliver healthcare to only a few – sad in this country there is no real push to care for more.
Enjoy your day/night on the town! I’m likely off for the weekend.
Not taking the bait. Nope. Can’t…my new resolution is to ignore the drive by’s.
I love how people who rag on Medicare accept it when it’s they’re eligible.
I love how you think you’re making a coherent point.
Maybe I’d prefer a diff. system, or none at all. I’d still want to get whatever $$ was coming to me from the system I was forced to pay into when I retired.
I’m in favor of a volunteer military, but if there were a draft and I was called I’d demand a paycheck. Wouldn’t you?
“I love how people who rag on Medicare accept it when it’s they’re eligible.”
Who is ragging on Medicare? I’ve paid into it and my employers have paid into it for decades. Now I’m eligible and am able to use the free benefit AND also pay monthly @$104 per person for Part B as well as purchase a Suppliment Plan. Both of which are much less than Obamacare.
How is this ragging?
Make up other fairytales.
Bill
You may not know, and why should you, that I have been a licensed insurance agent (variable life, health and disability) for over 20 years. Was a registered financial planner (Series 65 and CFP training courses) and had a Series 7 and Series 24 (supervisory) license. Retired now….thank goodness. So I am quite familiar with insurance in my State, (I know that other States have regulations that I was not familiar with and needed to research those for my out of state or dual residency clients).
Cost benefit analysis, risk and reward curves and other planning concepts are somethings that I am also quite familiar with and my choice to forgo comprehensive coverage was a rational one for my circumstances. I wouldn’t recommend it for everyone. However, I HAD the ability to make that choice.. Choice is something that we do not have now.
Just because someone else things that a high deductible plan that doesn’t cover everything under the sun is ‘garbage’ doesn’t make it so for me or other segments of the population. How DARE you or others decide for me!
As for lesser coverage plans being available in your state or other states, that is up to local legislators.
Not exactly. Plans must be obamacare compliant. Read the interview on NPR below.
http://www.npr.org/2013/11/15/245473232/what-makes-a-health-plan-obamacare-compliant
But right now there are no prohibitions from an insurance company entering a market.
This is correct. No prohibitions other than the economic realities of the real world. There is nothing prohibiting me from owning an aircraft carrier either. The likelihood of my doing so is nil.
I’m off to a day and night out of town, so my lack of response is likely because I am busy shopping and not ignoring you 🙂
I love how people who rag on Medicare accept it when it’s they’re eligible.
DBQ – with a dozen+ years at insurance companies (including some medical malpractice on the underwriting side), I know exactly what “across state lines” means and entails for insurers. And yes, sometimes there are costs to entering a new market. Welcome to the real world. But right now there are no prohibitions from an insurance company entering a market. If you believe entering a new market should guarantee an immediate profit, then so be it. But many times, profits will not come until years down the line. It would be called an “investment” and is the nature of doing business.
As for lesser coverage plans being available in your state or other states, that is up to local legislators. But make no mistake about it – the current republican/conservative plan is also to use big government to force insurance standards on states – just different standards. And when those garbage plans do not include full coverage eventually taxpayers or other policyholders will foot part of that bill.
btw – am glad that your hubby is on medicare supplement plan – do you remember how Medicare Supplement was sold to us?
Bill W wrote: “the current republican/conservative plan is also to use big government to force insurance standards on states – just different standards. And when those garbage plans do not include full coverage eventually taxpayers or other policyholders will foot part of that bill.”
Bill, I am 54 years old and have raised 5 children. I have never felt the need for health insurance. I pay all my health care costs directly and neither the taxpayers nor other policyholders have ever paid one cent for my health care. So please stop making up false hypotheticals like, “eventually taxpayers or other policyholders will foot part of that bill.”
You also mischaracterize the republican/conservative plan. What you see as “forcing insurance standards on states” is more descriptive of Obamacare. Allowing individuals to buy across State lines is about individuals being free to choose what standards they want rather than having the State mandate what they think is in my best interest. It is a way of keeping State regulators in check. If everybody started buying insurance crafted toward the regulations in another State, you can bet that the State will re-evaluate its wisdom about what is best for its people. It might just be that they wake up and realize that they were pressured by lobbyists to do what was best for the insurance companies in their State rather than what was best for the citizens of their State.
– insurance “across state lines” ? Do you even know what that means? Because right now I know of no prohibitions preventing insurers from entering a healthcare market in any state.<
@ Bill @
Do YOU know what that means?
Insurers have to apply to each state to offer health insurance and many do not even bother to apply because the conditions are not conducive to doing business. This is why NOW under Obamacare, many States are finding their insurance carriers are even more limited than before
Insurance firms in each state are protected from interstate competition by the federal McCarran-Ferguson Act (1945), which grants states the right to regulate health plans within their borders. Large employers who self-insure are exempt from these state regulations. The result has been a patchwork of 50 different sets of state regulations; the cost for an insurer licensed in one state to enter another state market is often high.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/out-of-state-health-insurance-purchases.aspx
In addition. If you have a health insurance policy in one State, and then move to another State. Your policy may not be available or the company itself my not be allowed to do business in that State.
If you live in a State that does not have an “interstate compact” with another state you cannot buy a policy in any other state. Even if your state does have an “interstate compact” you can only buy a policy within that other state. For example (hypothetical”) If you live in Georgia and they have a compact with Tennessee, but you really would like the deal that Mississippi offers, you are unable to buy anything other than Georgia and Tennessee.
Read this link about the interstate compacts.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/states-pursue-health-compacts.aspx
Also….Bill……I do want to have the option of Garbage Insurance. I have no medical issues. Take no medications. Have no need for a comprehensive plan since I can pay out of pocket for any ordinary medical needs, such as a wellness check up, mammogram etc. All that “I” need is a catastrophic plan. Instead of paying $600 a month for coverage I don’t need…..I chose ( when I still HAD a choice) to put the money into a Health Savings Account with a catastrophic only plan and banked the rest of the funds in a savings account for several years. I now have a very nice cushion in savings since I do NOT have medical costs. THIS SHOULD BE MY CHOICE to buy what others feel is a garbage plan, because it is what I need and what I want.
However, I had to buy a Obamacare eligible plan for this year OR pay a fine. I’m paying a fine since the cost of the plan, which covers basically doo squat, is over $7000 a year for me alone.
Thank you for your concern about my husband. We paid out of pocket for years for his medicines and basic care and the doctors give a very nice cash discount rate 🙂 Now we have a Medicare Supplement plan and have coverage for him and will have for me next year.