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.
Oh I see, you’ve confused productivity with quality. By your logic, Mcdonald’s is a great restaurant because of the number of people they serve.
Karen’s only mistake was assuming that you could figure out the relative quality of VA and private-practice cardiologists all by yourself.
Karen,
Great work! You realize that once they start tossing in the ad hominen attacks you’ve won the debate? Let it give you peace knowing they’ve got nothing other than incivility to offer. ;D
It’s funny how the self-proclaimed authorities on health care around the world don’t seem to be aware of the variety of European experience or the trend toward greater reliance on the private sector where reforms are proposed. It’s as if those people know something that fans of single-payer don’t.
Consider The Netherlands:
Following the introduction of a comprehensive reform package in 2006, universal medical care coverage in the Netherlands has been achieved not through a predominantly government-run system, as in the UK, but through an insurance market that aims to be patient-focused and competitive. Thus, although the government acts as regulator of the system, monitoring quality and ensuring universality of care, it no longer manages the majority of funds and nor does it control volumes, prices or productive capacity.
Then there’s Switzerland, which already relies 100% on private health insurers, and where voters recently overwhelmingly rejected a referendum proposal to switch to single-payer.
But why look at actual facts when you can rely on the anecdotes and baseless assertions of people like issac and Anarchist?
It’s too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving taxicabs and cutting hair. –George Burns
Aridog-
“That “division” you speak of did not prevent a rather lopsided vote in favor of the ACA did it? ”
No. The far left in congress was far too small a faction to influence the direction of the Democratic party. I’m opposed to the ACA (as well as our health insurance before the ACA), but I probably would have voted for it if I were in congress because it at least provides one improvement- those with pre-existing conditions can now find health care. I wouldn’t support scrapping the ACA however, because we have no reasonable alternative. The ACA can be reformed, and I personally believe that is what should happen. However, it won’t happen. We don’t have elected that represent the population, they represent special interests,
And remind me to do my homework if I ever decide to pick a fight with Isaac.
Anarchist – you have serious reading comprehension issues with anything I’ve written, and resort to ad hominem attacks when you’re over faced with data and facts.
I have a sincere concern, and people like you wrecked my family’s finances. It’s hardly whining to complain.
Why don’t you try doubling your cost for health insurance, have to pay out of pocket to see a doctor, and have your deductibles go up by 1100%, and then have some disdainfully call you a “whiner?”
The financial sector has its share of sins, but it didn’t give us Obamacare.
Obama, Pelosi, and Democrats did.
Thanks so much for your “help.” You must really hate the middle class. You caused great financial hardship on millions of people. Own it. Admit it. You and your political ilk hurt a lot of people. When you tell yourself you care more about people than fiscal conservatives, you are deluding yourself, based on the actual facts, and what Gruber himself said was the point of Obamacare. Hurt one group to try to help another.
Fiscal conservatives seek for people to live within their means, and not destroy themselves with debt. Liberals consistently seek higher and higher levels of unsustainable debt. Hence the “homeownership is a right” theory that led to the subprime loan meltdown, as people with bad credit were given home loans with no money down which they then obviously defaulted on, and lost their homes. Again, thanks for “helping.”
Nate, and yes, if you had to pay $12,000/year for premiums, and still have to pay out of pocket to see a doctor, that would adjust your view.
Nate:
No, they were not outliers. In fact, many senators brought complaints from their constituents to President Bush and President Obama. The VA gave fraudulent figures trying to make their turnaround look good, and make those long waits seem like outliers.
And 3 weeks to see a regular doctor is not good. In fact, it’s terrible.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/06/09/va-says-more-than-57000-patients-waiting-for-first-visit/
57,000 patients have waited more than 90 days for their first appointment. And those figures are given by the VA, which has been proven to lie to make themselves look better.
Our military deserve the best health care, not the worst, and the shortest wait times. I honor you for your service, and I think 3 weeks for you to see a doctor is ridiculous, and 57,000 people (at least) waiting 3 months to see a doctor is shameful.
When I need to see a doctor, I can get in right away. (Although I have to pay out of pocket because so few doctors accept Obamacare.)
Karen (once again
“Once private practice cardiologist handled the workload of 8 VA cardiologists, because the VA doctors don’t get paid to work harder or more efficiently. ”
Oh I see, you’ve confused productivity with quality. By your logic, Mcdonald’s is a great restaurant because of the number of people they serve. The sh!t they serve is, like your cute like statistic, so irrelevant that it isn’t even to be considered.
More brilliant analysis from you Karen. keep up the stellar work.
Anachrist 2.0 – so, if I have this right, your analogy is that if you are a solo cariologist you operate like McDonald’s but if you have a practice of 8 cardiologists you operate like Modern Steak.
Isaac:
“Flipping the argument to selected examples to prove the worth of for profit private health care insurance,”
I guess you didn’t read how I thought that nonprofit health insurance companies were a great idea, and would likely do well in a competitive market. I agree that monopolies, or what approaches monopolies, drives prices up and competition down. In fact, I have remarked many times that fiscal conservatives, like me, wanted to open up competition across state lines.
Obamacare destroyed competition, and shrank the pool of insurers to choose from, and the pool of policies to choose from to basically one.
Competition is good for consumers.
Karen, DBQ and Nick,
This heathcare/health insurance debate will never be settled by math because it’s not about the math; it has its root in the fundamental role of government. If one believes government is inherently good as opposed to necessary, then its limits become meaningless. You can frame any of these debates by that and see why nothing gets resolved.
Jonathan Gruber hasn’t disclosed anything new to those that believe necessary government has constitutional limits. What he’s done is provide documented evidence of how the progressive sausage is made and the main ingredient is the ignorant and apathetic American people.
We have generations of citizens inculcated with the theory of the righteous, administrative state. They have been taught to believe that is the ‘proper’ role of government and that the constitutional supports it. I don’t begrudge these truly ignorant because it’s not their fault. These are the folks that Gruber’s videos might shock just enough to entertain reasonable alternatives to big government dependence.
Karen (again)
“My husband worked for 20 years, and had multiple surgeries to repair the cost to his body, to build middle class financial security that Liberal policies have now threatened. ”
Keep whining and playing the victim and blaming “liberals” for your misfortunes, honey. George Bush and Greenspan presided over arguably the largest economic fraud in history, which has thrust most of the population of the world into deeper poverty while the wealthy have been making money hand over fist ever since, but it’s “liberal” policies that have eroded your middle class status. riiiiiight.
It’s too bad you “conservatives” only see class warfare as the middle class and lower fighting for equal representation and protection from government, and choose to fight for the right of the wealthy to rob the rest of us blind.
Here’s why you’re completely useless- you’re a reactionary without the understanding of political philosophy necessary to have any cohesive view underlying your schizophrenic outrage. If you had ever done more than worry about your own net worth, you would understand that there’s a bigger picture of which health care is a small part, and that picture isn’t the result of political affiliation but rather the result of concentrated money and power.
The financial sector robbed the middle class blind because the middle class was too comfortable to pay close enough attention to their eroding political clout. The middle class is seen as necessary to stabilize a capitalist society, but we live in an “innovative” financial system now that is open to experimentation, like eliminating the middle class and maintaining control of a capitalist society by brute force alone- militarized police forces, massive prison populations, lack of political representation, omni-present surveillance systems. . .you know, all those things you adore because you actually believe they are protecting you from “terrorists” like your masters in right wing media want you to believe.
And now that you realize you have no power and no security, you immediately do what you’ve done that got you into this mess in the first place- you blame other powerless Americans, slander them all with the meaningless pejorative “liberals” and demand that those powerless people are victimizing you. You are too delusional to follow the money and realize the basic reality that where the money has flowed since the economic meltdown occurred is where you will find the source of all of our ills. No, you’re too ignorant to consider criticism of your adored masters because that would be “liberal”.
And you wonder why no one takes you fanatics seriously.
“Let me explain how math works.”
I’m just proud of you for being capable of even spelling “math”.
Me too Nate, I love his quip about not getting herpes twice. LMAO!
Anarchist,
I must say…
Your presence has put a bunch of smiles on my face.
Touché.
Anarchist 2.0 said …
Karen, you have apparently forgotten the debate over single payer health-care and a public option in the ACA that divided Democrat support on the ACA when it was first introduced.
Nice dodge. That “division” you speak of did not prevent a rather lopsided vote in favor of the ACA did it? Not one Republican, not even a RINO. I’d call that a “division” that makes no difference in semantic terms. YMMV.
BTW…calling anyone ignorant rather defeats your arguments on the face of it.
I rarely agree with you, but have on occasion, as well as some others here, but I doubt calling you or them ignorant, or accused them of being ignorant merely because we disagree, would advance my position.
Paul C. Schulte said …
Karen – we know that the military has too many generals.
Too many generals is true, counting military flag ranks per se. (900+ now) Far worse is the number of “flag ranks” in the civilian side of government today. We’re not talking a few hundred, but thousands. These are the people who actually set policy and make “rules” then enforce them as if they were law. Among many, Lois Lerner was a prime example. No qualifications for her IRS job, came from the FEC of all places. Qualification in the fundamentals of the functions to be overseen is very frequently not necessary in the SES ranks. My inside estimate is no better than 1 out of 10. Yes, the Senior Executive Service (SES) positions, all appointees, quite political in basis, are “flag rank” positions, with their own flags that are de rigueur flown or hoisted for them when ever they show up in the hinterlands offices. Makes one feel to gag. Cut them all by 75% and go from there. Cutting civil servants (they are below and not part of the SES) does not do anything but add more SES ranks to oversee less functionality….thus having available time to invent & write more “rules.” Any time you hear or read about this or that federal office “reorganizing” understand that it means fewer civil servants and additional SES grades…every time in my experience. Result: less “service” and more “rules.”
“Anarchist – you are willfully blind if you think you can separate Liberal Democrats from Obamacare. Repeating a false statement does not make it true.”
Oh, the irony. Karen, you have apparently forgotten the debate over single payer healthcare and a public option in the ACA that divided Democrat support on the ACA when it was first introduced. I wouldn’t say you’re willfully blind however, just willfully ignorant.
“Obamacare is the albatross firmly around their necks.”
Our system of healthcare has been an albatross around our necks for decades. The problem with you reactionary conservatives is that you’re entirely capable of whining and playing the victim, you’re just incapable of offering alternatives. I say we adopt a system of healthcare like they have in Denmark, which has been proven objectively to be a far superior system. However, one of you parrots will shreik “socialism!” and the rest of the herd will be arming themselves for revolution due to the fear of that one word, which they couldn’t accurately define with an OED, Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, a gun at their heads, and a thousand years to contemplate it.
“I don’t know how Liberals look anyone in the eye.”
We’ll add that to the mile long list of things you don’t know, sweetie.
Ms. S,
You’re certainly welcome to believe whatsoever you wish, but I do find it odd that you keep on referring to outliers in the VA experience with 9 month wait times and people dying.
My direct experience was nothing like that at all; it took 3 weeks for the earliest appointment available, then another week to see the specialist I needed. And that was the worst of my personal VA experiences. On the whole, I have nothing but positive things to say about the VA, with the caveat that wait times can be a bit long. If I had my druthers, I’d rather use the VA than my employer provided medical coverage.
Although now that I just perused my medical benefits guide, those aren’t as bad as I initially thought either. But I don’t have to pay directly for any premiums either, which would certainly change my perception of the matter.
Karen
Flipping the argument to selected examples to prove the worth of for profit private health care insurance, examples that have next to nothing to do with what you are rebutting, leads me to request that you: stay on topic, research in a linear manner apples to apples, and segment the situation looking for ways to reduce the per capita health care costs in the US which stand at well over twice what they are in peer countries for the same procedures.
Furthermore, with over 1,200 health insurance companies in the US it would seem that through competition prices would be controlled and service would be better. However, everyone of those companies is underwritten or insured by, ultimately, a half dozen global corporations, AIG, Lloyds, Swiss Re, Munich Re, etc. They set the costs of insurance, not the 1,200 US private parasites. If you believe that this system will save you money then I have several bridges I would like you to look at.
The same thing happened to the US auto industry. From the late sixties to the late eighties, Americans stopped buying inferior US made cars that got terrible gas mileage and changed so often among so many models that psychologists actually coined the phrase, ‘The misery of choice’ when referring to the prospect of picking a new car from dozens of makes multiplied by dozens of models, none of which had everything one needed, and most of which were planned to become obsolete within three to five years.
Read up a little and you will see some amazing similarities in the arguments against government mandates for fuel efficiency and pollution control, with the arguments for having 1,200 private health insurance companies. The big question is what does it mean to be American, the freedom to choose who is going to ream you or the freedom to choose whether to get reamed or not?
By the way, if you are a libertarian, Republican, or any one of those that doesn’t believe in global warming, (not saying that you are Karen), then read this,
Written by Ken Burridge on 03 January 2014
Munich Re, the world’s biggest reinsurer, says that reinsurers should take into account the fact that climate change has boosted natural catastrophes when they price weather disaster insurance. Re-insurance companies such as Munich Re and others like Swiss Re help the insurance industry to cover the cost of major damage claims like hurricanes, earthquakes and floods.
Natural Disasters 1900-2011
Natural Disasters between 1900-2011 are on the rise Munich Re blames climate change
In 2011: The company said their study showed the number of weather-related loss events in North America nearly quintupled in the past three decades, compared with an increase factor of four in Asia, 2.5 in Africa, two in Europe and 1.5 in South America.
Munich Re faced its second-costliest natural catastrophe year on record in 2011 after multiple natural disasters generated a claims bill of $116 billion.
Natural disasters in 2011 exerted the costliest toll in history — a whopping $380 billion worth of losses from earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, tsunamis and more. Only a third of those costs were covered by insurance. That figure ignores completely any expenses associated with sickness or injuries triggered by the disasters. And except for quake-related events, climate change appears to have played a role in the growing cost of disasters, insurers said.
Munich Re said reinsurers should prepare to face more weather-disaster claims in the future and seek to mitigate the losses by raising premiums. The company also said that tighter building regulations and better flood management needs to be addressed.
Resources: http://www.emdat.be/disaster-trends
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) has along history of standardized data compilation, validation and analysis. It provides free and open access to its data through its website. One of CRED’s core data products is the EM-DAT the International Disaster Database.
And yet we taxpayers paid Gruber a boatload of money.
He’s laughing all the way to the bank.
Isaac – any questions?
Why single payor failed in VT, besides, obviously, the math:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/12/21/6-reasons-why-vermonts-single-payer-health-plan-was-doomed-from-the-start/
Gruber had predicted that it would SAVE Vermont $1.6 billion over 10 years. However, VT was going to have to actually DOUBLE its taxes to pay for it.
“…at a hearing to discuss the Vermont report, the Obamacare architect (Gruber) was confronted by a letter from a former state senator, who argued that “any Hsiao-Gruber type health care mega-system will inevitably lead to coercive mandates, ballooning costs, increased taxes, bureaucratic outrages, shabby facilities, disgruntled providers, long waiting lines, lower quality care, special interest nest-feathering, and destructive wage and price controls.”
From the article:
1. “The market-oriented way to bring prices down is to give consumers more control of their own health care dollars, like they have in every other aspect of the economy. If you as an individual control the money, you’re going to shop around for the best combination of quality and price. If somebody else is paying for the care, you’re less likely to care about how much anything costs.”
2. “not only would Green Mountain Care cost more by covering more people than Obamacare, it would cost more by forcing everyone to obtain more financially generous coverage than people currently have. Is it any wonder that the costs of such a plan were prohibitive?
But Vermont’s single-payer religionists were not to be deterred. “We can move full speed ahead with what we need without knowing where the money’s coming from,” assured Anya Rader-Wallack, Shumlin’s special counsel for health care reform.
But not forever. Shumlin postponed issuing a report on the plan’s proposed costs until January 2013, a few months after the 2012 elections.”
(Sound familiar, Democrats postponing bad news until after an election?)
3. “The Vermont plan would have required a 160 percent tax increase”
4. “The Green Mountain plan sought to require hospitals and doctors to accept Medicare-like reimbursement rates for their privately-insured populations. Because private insurers pay providers more than Medicare does, this would have amounted to a 16 percent cut in payments to doctors and hospitals, according to the analysis by Avalere Health. Needless to say, the doctor and hospital lobbies weren’t big fans of the Vermont plan, and fought furiously to sink it.”
(Remember I’ve spoken before how Medicare and Medicaid pay very low, so doctors and hospitals charge those with private insurance, and the uninsured, far higher to make up the difference. And here’s another chilling quote, “But a word of warning for conservatives: hospitals have lobbied as furiously in favor of Obamacare, because it spends more money on them, as they have against single payer.”)
5. “Michael Costa’s briefing outlined several other rosy scenarios from earlier estimates that didn’t pan out. Vermont originally assumed that the state would receive $267 million from Washington in the form of an Obamacare waiver. The revised estimate was only $106 million.
They originally estimated $637 million in state Medicaid funding; that number had to be reduced by $150 million due to budget constraints. The ongoing recession reduced Vermont tax revenues by $75 million over the 2016-2017 time frame.”
They didn’t get as large an Obamacare waiver as anticipated, or as much Medicaid funding (which we all pay for).
6. They could not prevent people from getting insurance from another state.
My favorite point of the article is, “What’s remarkable, then, about Shumlin’s attempt at single-payer health care is not that it failed. What’s remarkable is that he wasted the state’s time and resources on something that attempted to refute the laws of arithmetic.”