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.
Hope all had a fun and safe New Years:
Pogo – Actually “healthcare” and “medical Ins” are definitely tied. A hospital may be required to save a life and stabilize prior to release….but they are under no requirements to then provide possible “life saving” medicines. Not sure what news source could have actually said otherwise, but in real life people do die due to lack of medical insurance.
Brad S – Were you trying to say that healthcare costs were not increasing above the rate of inflation prior to the ACA? If one wanted (doubt anyone here will want to do this) to look at the medical insurance cost curve, one could see a the biggest change in the curve occur when healthcare companies switched from mutuals (owned by policy holders) to stock companies. Just curious – if Wall St. sells investors on 10% – 15% year over year returns, just where did you think those returns were coming from? The “magic” hand of the market?
Karen – Wow! You sound like you have the worst health insurance situation ever in the history of the planet. I suggest you show your scenario to fox news or some other right wing outlet. You’ll likely soon be receiving payments to appear on TV and relay your unique outrage. Of course, that might result in someone actually reviewing your statements. btw – this year our “private” insurance premiums went up over 10%, along with a 4 four figure increase in our in network and out of network deductibles as well as an increase in our out of network co-pays. Maybe there are others with similar cost problems that they just do not incessantly complain.
Chip – selective memory is awesome – isn’t it. But for years we heard conservatives rail about “individual responsibility”, skin in the game, not leeching off society, etc…….. And all of a sudden a 100% turnaround when a democrat also wants to enrich private insurers.
David M – 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. Can you cite any? That said, if you want to use the big bad federal government to force states to accept lower limits, less coverage, etc……. what industry people have sometimes called “Garbage” or “Bankruptcy” insurance then by all means get on your soap box and demand the federal government FORCE states to accept coverage with pretty pictures, but less coverage when a major health emergency arises. I imagine there might be a few bankruptcy attorneys salivating over the possible increase in clients.
DBQ – sorry to hear about your husbands Diabetes and lack of coverage. We fortunately had and still do have coverage – wouldn’t in a certain so called “utopian” private marketplace. Hope he and your family are well.
It’s not just me whose insurance is now unaffordable because of the ACA. Everyone with unsubsidized insurance under Obamacare (i.e. the self employed, small business owners, or anyone else who doesn’t work for a company with benefits) now finds it costs far more than before and they have far less choice.
The salient question is, is this OK? Even if the poor now have health care, which is arguable due to the failings of Obamacare, is this how we do it, by impoverishing the middle class, taking affordable health care AWAY from one group and giving it to another?
Would you be OK if you lost your access to health care, had to pay as much as a second mortgage for insurance, and still had to pay out of pocket to see a doctor? Would you be OK with that if it gave health insurance to the poor, or would you be upset that you just lost your middle class status, WITHOUT being able to get subsidies, welfare, or any other assistance? Is that a humane solution to the problem of improving Medicaid/health care for the poor? Would you burn your house down and live in a box “for the poor” or would you say, what a stupid idea, go back to the drawing board and start over immediately?
Or is it just OK if it happens to “other people”?
Anarchist 2.0 said ..
I didn’t feel it necessary.
Of course you don’t. Why would any intellectual consider a system that has worked for 50+ years, meets the no pre-condition exclusions, includes effective portability, and could be easily made available to the indigent with means testing application vis a vis subsidy, and not require myriad new bureaucrats in an agency that has never managed anything like it. Fine roll out there…with a database created by perhaps the lowest bidder, based on an RFQ/RFP written by people without a shred of health care insurance experience themselves. that was unnecessary because another agency already has one that works smoothly….plus staff you can reach by telephone fairly easily. The horror!
Funny how Rep Issa’s proposal (only the latest attempt by a bipartisan many), HR 3319, was only 3 pages long, and could have the necessary adaptations within 6 pages. Compare to the PPACA’s thousands of spot drivel & mandates…which are only necessary because most any person could see it was junk if not coerced. The only point you make that I agree with is the tendency of the institutionalized in government to satisfy the various PAC’s and businesses who lobby them.
BTW..I was a military “Fed” and have a bit of experience there of how empires get built from thin air. I assure any rebellion I exhibited, even when I objected to blatant law-breaking, was met with similar dismissive thought to yours.
Isaac – I agree that monopolies, or what approaches them, in the insurance industry is bad for consumers. Lack of competition is bad for consumers. More competition helps drive prices down, but our government keeps reducing competition, plus they piled on required benefits which made premiums soar. Why do 26 forms of birth control have to have no copay? Why not a copay for anyone who is above the poverty level? Why 26? Why not 15? Can’t people plan their families with 15 choices?
DBQ has pointed out that insurance is not the only avenue to health care, just one approach. Nick has pointed out that previously we had what amounted to catastrophic coverage, and paid to see a doctor, which self regulated costs. There are many ways to reduce the cost of health care, and increase quality, but the government is hyper-focused on mucking up the insurance industry.
Anarchist:
“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). You missed that like. . .you know, kind of like how everything you can’t explain seems to mysteriously fly by you without notice.”
Actually, no, that exact statement has been the subject of several of my posts on multiple threads, but, you, like, missed it. (Are we talking like the blonde Muppet now?)
The issue in those previous threads is that Obama, Pelosi, et al knew this would increase the cost of health care to the point that it would be unaffordable, but lied to get it passed. Remember, like, the “it will save American families $2500/year” Lie of the Year?
And you are to recall my suggestion for those who think single payor is a fab idea – to write a concise bill and pass it on its merits instead of lying about it.
“Which you, insanely enough, posit to be the poor.” The purpose of Obamacare was supposed to be a solution to the uninsured poor. To get it to pass, they had to sweeten the deal for health insurance companies by forcing everyone to get insurance. Otherwise, they would have gone out of business, and they would have put their considerable clout behind fighting this bill. So they got their support with similarly untruthful assurances, but then drove the price of health insurance up so high that the end goal is for people to start calling for the very single payor system that they defeated at the polls when they had affordable insurance.
The federal subsidies grant the poor health insurance, which is literally the definition of wealth redistribution. Since it takes away affordable health insurance from the middle class to do so, this is a bad thing.
We do need a humane solution to health care (notice the word “care” and not “insurance”) for the poor, but Obamacare is not it.
“They’ve got you so turned around that you’d claim that a hobo splattering like a bug on the windshield of a speeding dumptruck was an example of “liberals edistributing of wealth” if the driver was forced to pay for the funeral.”
You keep attributing opinions that are not mine. Repeating this does not make it true.
But, there I go winning hearts and minds and making new friends in a mature discussion of ideas on the blog again.
Off the record, he’s a pretty honest guy!
Insurance companies are soulless, I worked for them. But, the government is even more soulless, and also astonishingly incompetent. I CHOOSE insurance companies. Dems want to take away my CHOICE. “There is no freedom w/o choice.”
“Brevity is the soul of wit.” Shakespeare
Paul
The traffic goes both ways. Canadian doctors are happy to make money off of Americans who trundle North to get less expensive procedures done. A lot of Canadians retire in Arizona, Florida, etc and do so just as a lot of Americans retire in Central American countries, spend their money there, etc. You cherry pick meaningless examples to argue against implementing a system that would lower costs all around, not necessarily change the level of health care, and provide for supplemental private insurance.
Chip
Regarding the words freedom and choice, they are indeed vacuous words. One can enjoy freedom of religion but what about freedom from religion. One can have the freedom to choose between health insurance plans that offer supposed choices when in fact there are no choices as the premiums are set by the reinsurers in other countries. As a previous commenter stated, the words freedom and choice are easily juxtaposed between arguments of polar opposites, or perhaps I said that. One side’s freedom is the other side’s restriction.
The words to focus on are monopoly-somewhat more specific than freedom and choice, and less costly-irrespective of the selective and for the most part irrelevant arguments, statistics abound that prove the system enjoyed by Americans in the most costly in the Western World for the same product.
What it comes down to is arguments against using proven models based on irrelevant circumstances: The VA is constantly under scrutiny and as is typical in life, one never hears about the good stuff, Canadians do come to the US for treatment that is not available in Canada and they are reimbursed by their provincial health insurance plans-we’re talking about health insurance, Paul, not health care. Who reimburses Americans who can’t find affordable treatment in the US? Just as in the late sixties and seventies American cars offered almost unlimited choices in poorly built automobiles, built to last three to five years, that got terrible mileage, and polluted. The same arguments were heard then, freedom to choose, buy American, Jap scrap, Euro trash, etc.
I saw a beat up Mini Minor in Gibralter in the 60’s, when Franco was pressuring GB to get out. There was lots of patriotism and explanations of why it was better for Gib to remain British, after all the inhabitants wished it so and Franco was just Franco. Regardless of whether or not it was right or wrong to remain British or allow the ‘Rock’ to go back to Spain, feelings were strong. At the same time the British auto industry was dissolving, giving way to better built cars from Germany and Japan. Britain had had a captive market for decades but now was losing. Their cars were garbage. Union Jacks were painted on every surface of the Mini, along with the words, “It may be rubbish, but it’s British rubbish.” I am reminded of that moment in that time of failure when I read the arguments against installing a better, more cost effective system of administering the insurance part of American health care. Again, I’m talking about the insurance or administration part of the equation. I have experienced the duplicitous and deceptive workings of Aetna and it can’t get any worse than being threatened by a collection agency because the doctor’s office neglected to fill in a form correctly and Aetna wouldn’t pay the cost. Aetna and the rest of the parasitical system designs it so that there are four people working the books for every nurse and doctor. Even then they can’t keep up with the quagmire.
Talk to the doctors and nurses and you will hear a pretty accurate description of where our money goes.
America is a great country but it can learn from successful paradigms of other countries. After all that’s where we came from.
issac – there is nothing cherry picking about difficulty getting a drs. appt after the first of the year. Arizona has a dr. shortage to begin with and that is compounded by out Canadian friends getting elective services done here.
Aridog-
“I note that you have not addressed my assertion that a workable alternative was and is available”
I didn’t feel it necessary. We have a Western world full of workable alternatives from which to choose. It’s not a matter of whether a better system can be conceived, it’s whether the political will exists within either party to implement a better system. It doesn’t. Ultimately, exorbitant costs in healthcare benefits a few giants in the financial sector that underwrite the insurance, and if anything should be apparent to a halfway aware American, it’s that the financial sector does what it damn well pleases.
Karen-
“Oh, I can help out with that.”
No you can’t. Trust me.
“In exchange for making our premiums unaffordable, the government added subsidized uninsured people, who got health insurance for vastly reduced cost. ”
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). You missed that like. . .you know, kind of like how everything you can’t explain seems to mysteriously fly by you without notice. I imagine this comment will go right in your memory hole as well.
“Literally this is the definition of “wealth distribution” – taking from one group and giving it to another.”
Which you, insanely enough, posit to be the poor. This is so far from that that your opinion qualifies as crazy talk. We have a huge number of uninsured not because they just never wanted insurance, but because they can’t afford it. Now the prices are higher for those that can’t afford it just as they are for those that can. Health insurance has become even more out of reach for most, but now those that can’t afford it will be held in violation of the law for failing to purchase, from a private party, what they already can’t afford. So now those poor will be fined, audited, and eventually jailed for not buying health insurance.
And, conservative that you are, you honestly view this as some sort of win for the impoverished classes. You need to turn off that right wing bullsh!t you fill your head with. They’ve got you so turned around that you’d claim that a hobo splattering like a bug on the windshield of a speeding dumptruck was an example of “liberals edistributing of wealth” if the driver was forced to pay for the funeral.
Anarchist 2.0…. with all of your rhetoric, I note that you have not addressed my assertion that a workable alternative was and is available, with minor adaptations. One that has worked for 50+ years and has the infrastructure in place. No worries, you have a lot of company, especially in Congress and Executive Branch.
Anarchist:
“And how many persons with private insurance applied for appointments they never received?”
Are you seriously asking this question? I hope you are being facetious. But in case you are in earnest, let me explain.
In the private sector, if a doctor’s office is booked for 9 months, or won’t return your calls, you go find another one. You vote with your feet. You cannot do that with the VA or single payor. You have to go to the VA. You’re stuck with that wait list, with no return phone calls.
Anarchist:
“Again, Nick, where is wealth being taken from and moved to in this instance? Describe to us exactly how wealth is being redistributed.”
Oh, I can help out with that.
The government caused our health insurance premiums to skyrocket. But we do not get more for that huge premium. We get less – less doctors to choose from, less drug formulary, we lost our off-formulary benefits entirely, and our network is now geographically restricted. Don’t live in the same area as the cancer specialist that could save your life? Too bad.
In exchange for making our premiums unaffordable, the government added subsidized uninsured people, who got health insurance for vastly reduced cost.
Literally this is the definition of “wealth distribution” – taking from one group and giving it to another.
At a certain level, this can be a good thing, such as Welfare. We take from taxpayers and give to the poor. However, when it reaches the point where the government takes health care access and affordability AWAY from one group to give it to another, that is bad. The more you work, the worse off you are, because you do not qualify for subsidies.
Building roads and bridges is not wealth redistribution. Taking money, goods, or benefits from one group and giving it to another is wealth redistribution. Literally. And there is a range where this is deemed a virtue and when it is considered confiscatory.
Hope this clears things up. Although, from the tenor of your conversation, I gather that you are not seeking mutual understanding or enlightenment of why critics oppose this bill.
“It’s quite informative that you consider “choice” and “freedom” to be vacuous words, tho.”
It actually is, when you consider what is actually communicated by those terms. “Freedom”, for example, has no real definition at all. If you put some thought into it, it’s fascinating how many terms we hold dear to the point of even proclaiming our willingness to die for, but which actually have no definition aside from the completely subjective interpretation that each person applies within his own mind.
That actually touches on Alan Moore’s thoughts on magic- that it is real, as long as you understand that it exists within the mind. That’s one reason why different occult practices passed down through the ages are so focused upon languages and symbols. Words and phrases (keeping Moore’s definition of magic in mind) have power over the human mind that cause humans to do and to think very odd things with little to no actual evidence in objective existence to confirm the validity of those words within their minds.
issac said..The US is the only country that is obsessed with defending the right to get reamed by the private sector. It is as if vacuous words such as choice and freedom could be filled by any con artist with some snake oil to sell.
I suppose it’s unrealistic to expect you to base your long screeds on facts rather than anecdotes, but I had still thought it was reasonable to expect you to read the comments in the very thread you’re posting in. (Specifically, my 3:10)
Apparently not.
It’s quite informative that you consider “choice” and “freedom” to be vacuous words, tho.
karen-
“over the past 10 years, over 63,000 Veterans applied for an appointment that they never got. ”
And how many persons with private insurance applied for appointments they never received? You probably don’t even realize that without that information, the statistic you quoted is completely meaningless, don’t you? Your assumption here is a worse logical fallacy than comparing apples to oranges; it’s comparing apples to nothing.
Come on Karen, you seem reasonably intelligent. You can do better than that.
Aridog,
I believe we are at another “house divided” point in our republic where we have to decide to give ourselves over completely to the administrative state or begin to unwind the massive bureaucracy that engorges itself on laws like the Affordable Care Act. I respect Professor Turley for having the humble character to take a stand against the means the government uses to produce the ends he might actually support. He honorable and if he ran for public office he would have my full support.
This article is about the 2016 election cycle that somewhat addresses your post and I also wanted to cite a piece from it regarding our stability as the republic the framer’s envisioned:
“There is no more insightful and aphoristic summary of the Constitution’s separation of powers system than Alexander Hamilton’s near the beginning of Federalist 78, in the context of explaining why the judiciary ought to be the “least dangerous” branch of the federal government:
‘The Executive branch not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.’
Force, will, and judgment–three distinct but complementary powers for three distinct but complementary branches. Combine any two and dangers to liberty abound. Most critically in our time, combining executive force with legislative will produces every opportunity for selective enforcement of oppressive rules–the exact opposite of what Hamilton suggests should be the aim of all government: “a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.””
http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/29/a-2015-new-years-presidential-resolution/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=41f42251e1-RSS_DAILY_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-41f42251e1-79248369
“this is about wealth redistribution.”
Jesus Christ, arguing with you people is like arguing with the Borg. You people don’t even require of yourselves the faintest clue what you’re talking about. Everything revolves around buzz words that you are trained to repeat like parrots, but never to have the slightest understanding of. The term “redistribution of wealth”, for instance. Where is this wealth being redistributed Nick? Put your thinking cap on, try real hard on this and you may get it. . .The wealth is being redistributed from the individual to the health insurance companies that are now free to charge what they want because refusal to pay on the part of the individual is now met with sanctions by the IRS.
Again, Nick, where is wealth being taken from and moved to in this instance? Describe to us exactly how wealth is being redistributed. This is a very simple question, I’ve already provided the answer, but the odds are still a million to one that you’ll f*ck this up royally.
If you believe in single payor, or universal Medicare, here is a novel idea:
Write a concise bill and pass it on its merits. Do not lie to the people of the US about what it will do, or say we have to pass it to know what’s in it.
According to an internal VA audit (which is likely an understatement due to destroyed records), over the past 10 years, over 63,000 Veterans applied for an appointment that they never got.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/09/politics/va-audit/
That is single payor.