Washington (CNN) -- In a 2011 conversation about the Affordable Care Act, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of the law more commonly known as Obamacare, talked about how the bill would get rid of all tax credits for employer-based health insurance through "mislabeling" what the tax is and who it would hit.
In recent days, the past comments of Gruber -- who in a 2010 speech noted that he "helped write the federal bill" and "was a paid consultant to the Obama administration to help develop the technical details as well" -- have been given renewed attention.
In previously posted but only recently noticed speeches, Gruber discusses how those pushing the bill took part in an "exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter," taking advantage of voters' "stupidity" to create a law that would ultimately be good for them.
The issue at hand in this sixth video is known as the "Cadillac tax," which was represented as a tax on employers' expensive health insurance plans. While employers do not currently have to pay taxes on health insurance plans they provide employees, starting in 2018, companies that provide health insurance that costs more than $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family will have to pay a 40 percent tax.
"Economists have called for 40 years to get rid of the regressive, inefficient and expensive tax subsidy provided for employer provider health insurance," Gruber said at the Pioneer Institute for public policy research in Boston. The subsidy is "terrible policy," Gruber said.
"It turns out politically it's really hard to get rid of," Gruber said. "And the only way we could get rid of it was first by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people when we all know it's a tax on people who hold those insurance plans."
(The White House press secretary said at a press briefing in 2010: "I would disagree with your notion that it is a tax on an individual since the proposal is written as a tax on an insurance company that offers a plan.")
The second way was have the tax kick in "late, starting in 2018. But by starting it late, we were able to tie the cap for Cadillac Tax to CPI, not medical inflation," Gruber said. CPI is the consumer price index, which is lower than medical inflation.
Gruber explains that by drafting the bill this way, they were able to pass something that would initially only impact some employer plans though it would eventually hit almost every employer plan. And by that time, those who object to the tax will be obligated to figure out how to come up with the money that repealing the tax will take from the treasury, or risk significantly adding to the national debt.
"What that means is the tax that starts out hitting only 8% of the insurance plans essentially amounts over the next 20 years essentially getting rid of the exclusion for employer sponsored plans," Gruber said. "This was the only political way we were ever going to take on one of the worst public policies in America."
Unions and employers who object in 2018, he noted, "at that point if they want to get rid of it they're going to have to fill a trillion dollar hole in the deficit...It's on the books now."
(When the Cadillac tax was first rolled out, it was explained by Obamacare backers as a tax that would only impact those with "high end plans" -- not all employer sponsored plans. A White House economic adviser in 2009 set "the record straight" by saying "the excise tax levied on insurance companies for high-premium plans, the so-called 'Cadillac tax,' will affect only a small portion of the very highest cost health plans -- a total of 3% of premiums in 2013.")
Gruber's are at about the 30:38 mark here.
Former White House press secretary Jay Carney told CNN that Gruber's remarks in general were "very harmful politically to the president."
Gruber "speaks from the Ivory tower with remarkable hubris about the American voter and by extension the American Congress," Carney told The Lead with Jake Tapper. "Any health care reform that sought to control costs and expand insurance would involve winners and losers. And that's always going to be the case."
Many of the videos were discovered by a Philadelphia-area financial adviser named Rich Weinstein who has spent the last year researching Obamacare after his family insurance premiums doubled. Weinstein told CNN that he had assumed, incorrectly, that since he liked his health insurance plan and he had insurance, he wouldn't be much impacted by the new law.
What Gruber says Obamacare was meant to do is this:
In its first few years, it will impose a massive 40% tax on "Cadillac plans," thus taxing them at a high rate. Thus, effectively getting rid of the exemption for such plans. (which is why large Unions are upset when they realize what this Caddy tax will do to them)
Initially, only 8% of plans would be so affected.
But here's the thing:
The level at which you will be hammered with this 40% tax will only go up, year by year, based upon the slow-moving CPI... rather than the rapidly rising rate of medical inflation.
The result?
As the years pass, more and more health insurance plans will be undulated by the 40% tax, because it will not be adjusted by much each year; and ultimately, virtually all plans will be subject to it.
The way the law is already written. Every year, the "Cadillac plan" level will get lower and lower (well, it will go slowly upwards, but the costs of medical treatment will go up faster than it does), and more and more plans regular ordinary, "run-of-the-mill plans" will be deemed "Cadillac plans" and thus get SLAPPED taxed at a 40% rate.
And employers will, naturally, stop offering them. They don't want to pay a 40% rate.
Thus, pushing everyone to the public exchange, aka Obamacare.
I think the correct way to have handled this would have been to point out that, in fact, the American voting public actually is pretty stupid, by and large.
Ouze wrote: I think the correct way to have handled this would have been to point out that, in fact, the American voting public actually is pretty stupid, by and large.
I can't think from a policy or political standpoint that *discussing* the American voting public is stupid is of any worth. Of course... the ironic thing about Gruber is that it was DEMOCRATS who voted for this, not Republicans.
So, the lesson here is that a bunch of politicians lied to us? How is that news, and how is that unique to Obama and the democrats? Let's be honest, all politicians lie to get what they want, and they all rely on the public to be unable to see through it.
No, it's not right that this happened, but let's not pretend it's the first time it has happened.
Tannhauser42 wrote: So, the lesson here is that a bunch of politicians lied to us? How is that news, and how is that unique to Obama and the democrats? Let's be honest, all politicians lie to get what they want, and they all rely on the public to be unable top see through it.
No, it's not right that this happened, but let's not pretend it's the first time it has happened.
To this degree dude? A lot of fething lies were involved.
Simply stated... Obamacare was also SPECIFICALLY designed to destroy the employer-based insurance market as Gruber admitted. (with Obama's support)
Once the tax-exemption for employer-based plans is effectively eliminated, employers will stop paying for employees’ insurance, as the incentive will be gone, and the coverage prohibitively expensive. Everyone will be dumped into the exchanges. Remember that the employer mandate was effective sidelined by executive fiat some time ago. That was part of the plan, and it will not be reinstated.
The other part is that the lapdog legacy media (ABC, NBC, etc..) were asleep at the wheel... (CNN and Fox are pounding this now). The only equivalent scenario I could come up with for the Iraq War would be if Paul Wolfiwitz were out giving speeches in 2007 that went:
"Sure we rigged the Iraqi intelligence - the oil companies are going to make a fortune! - Moo-who-wah-ha-ha ... suckers!!!!!!! "
Repeatedly.
With John Yoo and Colin Powell in the background saying "Fethin' A!"
I keep thinking it would have been easier to go with public health care rather then the private insurance stuff. It's just so many hoops to go through.
nomotog wrote: I keep thinking it would have been easier to go with public health care rather then the private insurance stuff. It's just so many hoops to go through.
This is the United States. We don't do smart things, we do convoluted things
So people already knew all of this for years, but it's news now why?
Is it to make emotional people want to get rid of the ACA?
Is it to make sure people have forgotten about all the lies from the anti-ACA crowd about everything that would happen?
If people are that upset about the ACA version of word games then they should be falling left and right on their swords labeled "death panels" and whatnot. Either you are pissed that politicians think you are stupid and feed you spoonful of lies, or this is just another partisan "something something Obama something something I don't like it something something Obama" affair.
Considering that we don't hear gak about all the lying from the other side of the spectrum I'm pretty sure I know the answer.
d-usa wrote: So people already knew all of this for years, but it's news now why?
Is it to make emotional people want to get rid of the ACA?
Is it to make sure people have forgotten about all the lies from the anti-ACA crowd about everything that would happen?
If people are that upset about the ACA version of word games then they should be falling left and right on their swords labeled "death panels" and whatnot. Either you are pissed that politicians think you are stupid and feed you spoonful of lies, or this is just another partisan "something something Obama something something I don't like it something something Obama" affair.
Considering that we don't hear gak about all the lying from the other side of the spectrum I'm pretty sure I know the answer.
It's news because the number-crunching involved in this allowed the law’s authors to write it in a way that would fool the CBO and the American people. And he was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do this.
d-usa wrote: I guess my question is answered then.
Simply stated... are you okay with the evolution and passage of the PPACA?
Considering that all the "lies" he is talking about is stuff that nobody actually lied about and that they are all things that was talked about publicly before, during, and after the passage of the ACA: yes.
I don't know what's more idiotic. The fact that he thinks people actually told the lies he is talking about, the fact that the news media is acting like these "lies" are real even though they reported on all these things back in 2009-2010 when they didn't even know that these were secrets that they shouldn't know about, or that people are actually eating this gak up.
But I guess if you want something to be true bad enough, then facts don't matter.
d-usa wrote: I guess my question is answered then.
Simply stated... are you okay with the evolution and passage of the PPACA?
Considering that all the "lies" he is talking about is stuff that nobody actually lied about and that they are all things that was talked about publicly before, during, and after the passage of the ACA: yes.
I don't know what's more idiotic. The fact that he thinks people actually told the lies he is talking about, the fact that the news media is acting like these "lies" are real even though they reported on all these things back in 2009-2010 when they didn't even know that these were secrets that they shouldn't know about, or that people are actually eating this gak up.
But I guess if you want something to be true bad enough, then facts don't matter.
Even if none of the things the Right said about it came true, the bad things that have happened(or will happen) with the ACA are more than enough to warrant its abolition. The whole thing is a piece of garbage, maybe not in the same ways people claimed, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable.
Honestly, Obama should never show his face in public again at the shame of this thing being his legacy.
nomotog wrote: I keep thinking it would have been easier to go with public health care rather then the private insurance stuff. It's just so many hoops to go through.
This is the United States. We don't do smart things, we do convoluted things
The US convolutions of healthcare have had everyone else in the civilised world facepalming for decades.
Back on topic, if it is true there was a long term cunning plan to destroy the private health insurance system in order to force a public system into the ring, I have to congratulate the Democrats on their high level of political strategy.
d-usa wrote: I guess my question is answered then.
Simply stated... are you okay with the evolution and passage of the PPACA?
Considering that all the "lies" he is talking about is stuff that nobody actually lied about and that they are all things that was talked about publicly before, during, and after the passage of the ACA: yes.
Now you're just spinning.
This can't be "voxsplained".
Those who OPPOSED the ACA publicly "before, during and after the passage" were roundly demagugue'ed. In fact, they were label'ed as racist because those who opposed the ACA didn't want that "black guy" to succeed.
I don't know what's more idiotic. The fact that he thinks people actually told the lies he is talking about, the fact that the news media is acting like these "lies" are real even though they reported on all these things back in 2009-2010 when they didn't even know that these were secrets that they shouldn't know about, or that people are actually eating this gak up.
But I guess if you want something to be true bad enough, then facts don't matter.
The difference now d-usa is that the opposition punditry, news, blog-o-sphere "before, during and after the passage" the ACA were label "the crazies".
This time? There's irrefutable hard evidence STRAIGHT from the horse's mouth (Gruber) that the ACA is a fething sham.
nomotog wrote: I keep thinking it would have been easier to go with public health care rather then the private insurance stuff. It's just so many hoops to go through.
This is the United States. We don't do smart things, we do convoluted things
The US convolutions of healthcare have had everyone else in the civilised world facepalming for decades.
Back on topic, if it is true there was a long term cunning plan to destroy the private health insurance system in order to force a public system into the ring, I have to congratulate the Democrats on their high level of political strategy.
Bran Dawri wrote: Call me crazy, but wouldn't a better question be why are medical costs rising so much faster than inflation?
They don't want to ask that question, because asking that question involves streamlining the medical industry across the nation, something some people with lots of money don't want.
Exactly. It's a magical equation where the medical service provider tries to get as much money as they can, compared to what the insurance is willing to pay. If the provider feels they got enough money from the insurance, then they usually won't charge you anymore. If they didn't get enough, that's when you suddenly see a bill for something.
In my case, a few years ago, I was in the hospital 2 nights, three days, for an appendectomy. I paid a grand total of a little less than $300. Clearly, the hospital decided they got enough from my insurance company.
As for why costs keep rising, that is partly due to the ridiculous amounts of medical fraud going on out there.
But, I have NO fething clue as to what were the cost for the services rendered at the ED. It's a shell game.
No, it is the natural consequence of privatized emergency services.
And, lets be honest, would you have refused treatment had the bill been presented up front? Would you understand the necessity of any procedure that was completed while you were insensate due to pain or sedatives, such that you could determine what was an wasn't necessary?
For five years, Republicans have been searching for the perfect messenger to speak out against Obamacare. They have finally found him. His name is Jonathan Gruber.
I mean... I want to reach into these videos and wipe that supercilious smirk off his face as he gleefully recounts how he bamboozled Americans.
But, I have NO fething clue as to what were the cost for the services rendered at the ED. It's a shell game.
No, it is the natural consequence of privatized emergency services.
And, lets be honest, would you have refused treatment had the bill been presented up front? Would you understand the necessity of any procedure that was completed while you were insensate due to pain or sedatives, such that you could determine what was an wasn't necessary?
So, extortion. Or blackmail. One of those. Question answered, gotcha!
I mean... I want to reach into these videos and wipe that supercilious smirk off his face as he gleefully recounts how he bamboozled Americans.
Eh, let's be honest, the only difference between Gruber and everyone else in D.C. is that he got caught saying that stuff on video, the rest just have the good sense to say it in private.
But, I have NO fething clue as to what were the cost for the services rendered at the ED. It's a shell game.
No, it is the natural consequence of privatized emergency services.
And, lets be honest, would you have refused treatment had the bill been presented up front? Would you understand the necessity of any procedure that was completed while you were insensate due to pain or sedatives, such that you could determine what was an wasn't necessary?
So, extortion. Or blackmail. One of those. Question answered, gotcha!
I think the reason the medical care providers don't tell you the prices upfront is because they want to see how much they can get from the insurance company. If Blue Cross will pay, say, $5000, then your bill will somehow be $5000. If Aetna will pay $4000, then the bill will be $4000. That's my opinion, anyway.
Eh, let's be honest, the only difference between Gruber and everyone else in D.C. is that he got caught saying that stuff on video, the rest just have the good sense to say it in private.
The "everyone else in D.C." notion is also part of the problem. It necessitates the differentiation between "D.C." and the rest of the country.
I think the reason the medical care providers don't tell you the prices upfront is because they want to see how much they can get from the insurance company. If Blue Cross will pay, say, $5000, then your bill will somehow be $5000. If Aetna will pay $4000, then the bill will be $4000. That's my opinion, anyway.
They don't tell you the prices upfront because they don't know them. Working on a person is not like working on a car.
One of the reasons that US healthcare is so expensive compared to everyone else's is that very detailed accounting has to be done to justify the costs to the insurance company.
I've seen ibuprofen tablets on hospital invoices go for 62$ a piece. They're what? 32 cents anywhere else? Mark ups like that are utilized in hopes some will pay the extortion. That some do and therefore cover multiple persons who didn't pay at all is indicative, to my mind, of a broken system. I'm sure insurance companies(when utilized) haggle down that price on a claim, btw, but the cost of the haggler's salary plus the likely still overcharged pill's final price are both reasons we see ever skyrocketing premiums.
As an aside, regardless of recent fallout, I think the VA healthcare system is a better running machine than the privatized hospitals I've encountered. In the '80's, I recall the VA hospitals i visited being slummy dumps, but now? They seem cutting edge(more streamlined, better technology). Bureaucracy is still a dirty word, but at times it serves a purpose.
As an aside, regardless of recent fallout, I think the VA healthcare system is a better running machine than the privatized hospitals I've encountered. In the '80's, I recall the VA hospitals i visited being slummy dumps, but now? They seem cutting edge(more streamlined, better technology). Bureaucracy is still a dirty word, but at times it serves a purpose.
I've had the privilege of working at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and Fort Belvoir Community Hospital, the latter from the ground up. Both of those facilities are far more impressive than any other hospital I've ever been in.
Look towards Scandinavia to find out how Public Healthcare can be run. Yes we have some issues. But overall it's WAAAAY cheaper than insurance. Besides I'm uninsurable with my health issues. Had I been able to get an affordable plan even that would be worse than the offer from the Public Healthcare system here.
We also have our own form of deductible. Egenandel. But we have a ceiling on that. And after that everything is covered by the government. In my cases I've had cabs to and from. Docs appointments. Tests, everything after around 400 USD is covered by egenandel.
With US pricing I'd be on the street from all the medical expenses.
Having just spent a week in the hospital I was presented with a bill for a WHOOPING 40-45 USD.
Correct me if I'm wrong here.
Wasn't the healthcare reform meant to level the playing field for who gets proper healthcare? A subtle way of getting your system more inline with your neighbours from the north?
I mean... I want to reach into these videos and wipe that supercilious smirk off his face as he gleefully recounts how he bamboozled Americans.
That's nice, but you're making yourself easier to bamboozle when you pick a side; as you clearly have.
You haven't been paying attention and been trying to fit in sideways snark doggie. (to be fair, I do it at the other thread. )
But, I've ALWAYS been consistent in my opposition. It's the Democrats (who didn't read it) and those who SUPPORTED the Democrats whom been bamboozled.n
Wasn't the healthcare reform meant to level the playing field for who gets proper healthcare? A subtle way of getting your system more inline with your neighbours from the north?
No. It's really more of the same, with crony capitalism at it's worst with some progressive spices mixed in.
It needs to be a verb now:
Gruber verb \groo-burr\
: To tell a lie deliberately with the intent of misleading.
: To misinform people based on the belief that they are too stupid to understand the wisdom of your position.
example: To conceal the truth about Obamacare it was necessary to gruber the entire nation.
noun
: A calculated mistruth intended to deceive listeners
example: The explanation given in favor of Obamacare was one huge gruber from one end to the other.
Gruberish noun \groo-burr-esh\
: Any bewildering deluge of falsehoods designed to confound an audience based on the speaker's awareness that the truth must be concealed by any means necessary.
example: A preposterous mountain of gruberish was put forth intended to hide the fact that the entire nation had been grubered about Obamacare.
You haven't been paying attention and been trying to fit in sideways snark doggie. (to be fair, I do it at the other thread. )
No, I've been paying attention. As you know it is my job to do so. I just don't see a problem with anything that Gruber said, at least beyond the political ramifications; which have been largely overstated. People that hated Obama care Gruber will still hate it, and those that didn't still won't. Double points as there's another year before the next election cycle begins.
But, I've ALWAYS been consistent in my opposition. It's the Democrats (who didn't read it) and those who SUPPORTED the Democrats whom been bamboozled.n
I never said that you were inconsistent, I said that picking a side makes you easier to bamboozle. I said this as vehement support or opposition to anything makes you a part of the choir, a group that is famously easy to preach to.
It needs to be a verb now:
Gruber verb \groo-burr\
: To tell a lie deliberately with the intent of misleading.
: To misinform people based on the belief that they are too stupid to understand the wisdom of your position.
example: To conceal the truth about Obamacare it was necessary to gruber the entire nation.
noun
: A calculated mistruth intended to deceive listeners
example: The explanation given in favor of Obamacare was one huge gruber from one end to the other.
Gruberish noun \groo-burr-esh\
: Any bewildering deluge of falsehoods designed to confound an audience based on the speaker's awareness that the truth must be concealed by any means necessary.
example: A preposterous mountain of gruberish was put forth intended to hide the fact that the entire nation had been grubered about Obamacare.
The only real definition would be "thinking you lied when you didn't."
Every "lie" he talks about is stuff that was common knowledge during the time the ACA was debates. That's what makes this while discussion just beyond stupid.
Cadillac tax that will secretly build up to a trillion dollars? That's where the projected trillion dollar deficit reduction came from that was discussed before the ACA vote.
The people are to stupid to realize that healthy people will pay for sick people? That's how insurance works and it was stated over and over again that this concept is why the individual mandate has to be a part of the ACA, because healthy people have to sign up to pay for the sick people.
All his lies never happened, and people repeating his lies as proof of anything when he basic evidence shows that none of it ever happened is just dumb. The guy is an idiot, not for revealing the lies but for thinking that the lies happened in the first place.
d-usa wrote: The guy is an idiot, not for revealing the lies but for thinking that the lies happened in the first place.
The guy is an idiot for publicly using "lie" in the way it is generally used in political consultancy.
For example I often describe my job as "I tell people how to lie to other people." This is not literally true, it is a joke. If I were being literal I would describe my job as "I develop and analyze data in order to tell people how not to present an argument to large groups of people." But the joke is easier to make, and more likely to keep people engaged if I happen to be speaking.
As an aside, regardless of recent fallout, I think the VA healthcare system is a better running machine than the privatized hospitals I've encountered. In the '80's, I recall the VA hospitals i visited being slummy dumps, but now? They seem cutting edge(more streamlined, better technology). Bureaucracy is still a dirty word, but at times it serves a purpose.
I've had the privilege of working at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and Fort Belvoir Community Hospital, the latter from the ground up. Both of those facilities are far more impressive than any other hospital I've ever been in.
I will second this. Walter Reed is an amazing hospital. Far more incredible than any other I've ever seen. That building is just... just wow. Plus you can just sit in the parking lots and watch the Blackhawks fly by
d-usa wrote: The guy is an idiot, not for revealing the lies but for thinking that the lies happened in the first place.
The guy is an idiot for publicly using "lie" in the way it is generally used in political consultancy.
For example I often describe my job as "I tell people how to lie to other people." This is not literally true, it is a joke. If I were being literal I would describe my job as "I develop and analyze data in order to tell people how not to present an argument to large groups of people." But the joke is easier to make, and more likely to keep people engaged if I happen to be speaking.
Isn't that just all part of basic marketing? I mean titles of books, news headlines, names of products, names of organizations, and well names of anything really are often chosen very deliberately most times. Any marketing campaign also chooses its words carefully, knowing certain words have meanings associated with them and some phrases are better for selling something than others. Politicians and parties do this all the time too, I mean if your local TV ads for the midterms were anything like mine they where full of this stuff as well as misleading information, half truths and in some cases flat out lies.
Ian Tuttle has a nice piece up over on the homepage about the Democrats’ many efforts to distance themselves from Jonathan “stupidity of the American voter” Gruber. He used to be known as the “architect” of Obamacare and now, according to CBS News, the Democrats are trying to “turn Gruber into a stranger.”
Not so fast.
In a 2010 piece, the Daily Kos outlined Gruber’s deep ties to the White House and to HHS, providing even links to his HHS contracts and the stated justifications for his contracts. The language from the presolicitation notice is particularly interesting (note highlighted portions):
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), intends to negotiate with Jonathan Gruber, Ph.D. on a sole sources basis for technical assistance in evaluating options for national healthcare reform. The basis for restricting competition is the authority of 41 USC 253(c)(1) 106-1(b) because there is only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy DHHS requirements.The anticipated contract period will be eight months. [Emphasis added].
And . . .
Dr. Gruber is uniquely positioned to provide the analytic work ASPE requires based on over 15 years of experience in health care and health policy. Dr. Gruber is a recognized expert in health policy in economics including being widely published in peer-reviewed academic and health policy literature on the effects of changes in health benefit designs on the cost of enrollment in health insurance. Moreover, in order to estimate the impacts, Dr. Gruber developed a proprietary statistically sophisticated micro-simulation model that has the flexibility to ascertain the distribution of changes in health care spending and public and private sector health care costs due to a large variety of changes in health insurance benefit design, public program eligibility criteria, and tax policy. This model has been used for other health reform proposal. Finally, Dr. Gruber’s ongoing work with ASPE, using these proprietary models to help inform the Office of Health Reform, strongly positions him to meet HHS’ requirements the most efficiently, which is a key requirement in order for well-developed legislative proposals to be put forth for Congressional consideration as soon as possible. [Emphasis added].
That’s not all. Daily Kos also helpfully links to fiveWhiteHouseblogposts citing Gruber. One of them, by Nancy-Ann DeParle (then assistant to the president and deputy chief of staff for policy) demonstrates how much the administration relied on his expertise in public debate. Titled, “MIT Economist Confirms Senate Health Reform Bill Reduces Costs and Improves Coverage,” it begins like this:
Jonathan Gruber, PhD, a MIT Economist who has been closely following the health insurance reform process, issued a compelling new report based on data from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. As the Politico wrote, “The report concludes that under the Senate’s health-reform bill, Americans buying individual coverage will pay less than they do for today’s typical individual market coverage, and would be protected from high out-of-pocket costs.” Here are some key points:
Gruber concludes that the Senate proposal’s health insurance exchange, choices and competition, and policies to hold insurers accountable would reduce costs. Savings for people purchasing coverage in the individual market would range from $200 to 500 for individuals and families, and would be greater if people opted for basic benefits. People with low incomes would receive premium tax credits that would reduce the price that they pay for health insurance by as much as $2,500 to $7,500 in 2009 dollars.
Let’s pause for a moment and reflect on the magnificence of these paragraphs. Not only do they demonstrate the White House’s reliance on Dr. Gruber, they also call into question who truly suffers from “stupidity,” White House policy “experts” or the American voter? Look at those projections of cost savings. Now, compare them with the reality, where Obamacare premiums are rising by an average of 7.5 percent.
And Gruber’s influence extended beyond Washington. In addition to receiving $392,000 from the federal government, Gruber was paid staggering sums of money by friendly Democrats in state government to produce “cookie cutter reports” supporting Obamacare. Here’s the Washington Times:
Minnesota, for example, used federal Obamacare grants to pay Mr. Gruber to attend one meeting, participate in a biweekly email list and print a copy of the report, all for $329,000. Wisconsin paid Mr. Gruber $400,000 for the same material, requested by the office of then-Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat. When the report was presented, Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, didn’t want Mr. Gruber at the news conference. Vermont is paying him another $400,000 . . . West Virginia, Maine, Colorado and Oregon have partaken of Mr. Gruber’s services, too, guaranteeing him a tidy sum.
It’s clear that Obamacare has been very, very good for Mr. Gruber. It’s equally clear that there’s no credible way for Democrats — state or federal — to run from him now. No one believes that he is solely responsible for Obamacare, but he was certainly instrumental — not just in its architecture but also in the critically important role of selling it to the American people. Democrats, including the White House, were proud of his involvement, eager to parade him in front of the public, and considered his involvement a “key requirement for . . . legislative proposals to be put forth for Congressional consideration.”
So, when Gruber states repeatedly that the law was deliberately opaque, that subsidies are not available through the federal exchanges, and that Obamacare’s drafters were deliberately attempting to exploit perceived voter “stupidity,” he was most definitely in a position to know. The Obama administration owns his comments. Every single one.
But here's one Democrat Senator saying, "yeah, we lied":
Here's Gruber bragging that RomneyCare was set up, with an acknowledge assistance of Ted Kennedy, to “rip off” the federal government to the tune of $400 million a year:
Grey Templar wrote: Even if none of the things the Right said about it came true, the bad things that have happened(or will happen) with the ACA are more than enough to warrant its abolition. The whole thing is a piece of garbage, maybe not in the same ways people claimed, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable.
I am going to take issue with the bolded/underlined. There are several wonderful facets of ACA that everyone seems to want to ignore.
Before I detail that, let me be clear: I am one of the people who thought ACA didn't go far enough; that we should be moving to national healthcare, or at the very least single payer. I think the current insurance system is disgusting.
That said, an example: ACA removed the "pre-existing condition" excuse for denying coverage. It was, frankly, bs. It forced people to stay in garbage situations because switching insurance and sometimes JOBS meant losing coverage of a medical condition. Have cancer and lose your job? Your chances of getting coverage for your treatment were next to none. Now? Companies can't deny payment.
As a personal anecdote, which I believe I've shared with dakka before; I started having trouble with a salivary gland. At the time I first went to the doctor, my company offered garbage insurance, but garbage was better than no insurance. In the end, I had to have surgery to get the gland removed. It was so full of stones that instead of the normal pea sized gland in your neck, mine was roughly the size of a golfball. If ACA hadn't changed the "pre-existing condition" clause, I would have had to decide between changing jobs (and thus insurance) or staying with crappy job and insurance JUST so the medical bills didn't destroy me. Let's be clear here: Even with insurance I would have had to take out a loan to pay the tens of thousands of dollars my portion would have been. (My old insurance only payed 80% of hospital costs.) Instead, I waited, got a better job and was able to get better insurance. I payed my $200 deduction for surgery costs. That was it.
Considering that the majority of people don't like ObamaCare and that the majority of people like almost everything that the ACA ctually does Gruber might be justified in his perception of the voting public.
That doesn't change the fact that he is talking out of his ass and that the news media looks pretty stupid for claiming that what he says is true even though they spend over a year covering everything they apparently didn't know about now.
And like everything else that goes wrong, and goes public, Obama is only just hearing about this. Good thing that "some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with, in terms of the voters, is no reflection on the actual process that was run.”
So, just like being able to keep your plan, Gruber never worked on Obama's staff;
The press corps is agonizing, or claims to be agonizing, over the news of Jonathan Gruber's conflict of interest: The MIT economist has been among the foremost promoters of ObamaCare—even as he had nearly $400,000 in consulting contracts with the Administration that weren't disclosed in the many stories in which he was cited as an independent authority. . .
White House budget director Peter Orszag has also relied on a letter from Mr. Gruber and other economists endorsing the Senate bill.
In a December conference call with reporters, Mr. Orszag said that "I agree with Jon Gruber that basically everything that has been put forward in health policy discussions for a decade is in this bill." He also praised "the folks who have actually done the reporting and read the bill and gone through and done the hard work to actually examine, rather than just going on buzz and sort of loose talk, but actually gone through and looked at the specific details in the bill," citing Mr. Brownstein in particular. Which is to say, the journalists who had "done the reporting" were those who agreed with the Gruber-White House spin.
Mr. Orszag never mentioned Mr. Gruber's contract. Nor did HHS disclose the contract when Mike Enzi, the ranking Republican on the Senate health committee, asked specifically for a list of all consultants as part of routine oversight in July. His request noted that "Transparency regarding these positions will help ensure that the public has confidence in the qualifications, character and abilities of individuals serving in these positions."
For those skeptical about the ability to restrain health care cost growth in heath reform, read Ron Brownstein’s latest article on how the bills now being considered in Congress would transform the health care system so that it delivers better care to more Americans at far less cost.
As readers of this blog know, I just wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post laying out the four pillars that I (and 23 leading economists from across the political spectrum) believe must be part of fiscally responsible health reform: deficit neutrality, an excise tax on high-premium health plans, an independent Medicare commission, and game-changing delivery system reforms.
Brownstein reads the bill, examines these pillars, and then calls up many of these economists to get their take on the Senate bill. MIT economist Jonathan Gruber — who calls himself "sort of a known skeptic on this stuff" — says, "Everything is in here....I can't think of anything I'd do that they are not doing in the bill." And Len Nichols of the New American Foundation told Brownstein: "The bottom line is the legislation is sending a signal that business as usual [in the medical system] is going to end."
All the elements are there for fiscally responsible health reform. For more, read the entire piece.
So, your background, please. I'm a professor of economics at MIT. I helped Gov. Romney develop the Massachusetts health care reform, or Romneycare. I then worked with the Obama administration and Congress to help develop the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.
And then Obama gets elected, and on his health advising team is a number of my friends from the Clinton administration who worked on health care reform round one. I like to think of it as sort of the preseason of what became the ultimate -- I don't want to demean the amazing amount of work that went into that, but these are veterans of those wars who were now on the Obama team saying: "Look, we have the opportunity to do what we were unable to do under Clinton and get this done. We think the Massachusetts model is the way to go. We would like you to come help the administration put the numbers together just like you did for Massachusetts."
So I went down shortly after the election. I worked with the transition team to help put the numbers together for the administration. And then, essentially, most of 2009 I was really on loan from the administration to Congress, particularly the Senate Finance Committee, to help them put the numbers together on what became the finance committee bill, which really became Obamacare. Yeah, that's what I did.
So were you ever in a room with Obama? Yes, twice.
Tell me. Take me there. So the first time was in, I don't know exactly. You know, if I knew at the time how important it would be, I would have written down the date. It is like late 2006 maybe. It was right before he announced he was running. So maybe it was earlier than that, maybe spring 2006, right before he -- when people sort of knew he was thinking about it but he hadn't announced yet. I went down, basically did a tutorial for him on what we had done in Massachusetts and how it would work and basically thinking about expanding it to the national stage.
Where were you? Where was it? This was in his Senate offices.
And what was he like then? He was very interested. It was really just an information session. He was really interested in learning. He clearly was not interested in little incremental things. He wanted to be bold. That was clear. He said, "Look, I want to do big changes." He was really interested in what we had done in Massachusetts. The evidence wasn't in yet by the time I was meeting with him, but he was interested in what we had done. ...
The next time you see him? The next time I see him is summer 2009. The big issue there is that he really wants to make sure I'm moving forward on cost control. I think that at this point he sort of knew we had a good plan on coverage, but he was worried on cost control. So we had a meeting in the Oval Office with several experts, including myself, on what can we do to get credible savings on cost control that the Congressional Budget Office would recognize and score as savings in this law.
And the staff knew so little about him that they published an article on their website
http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/Gruber_Report_4.pdf Good thing it was only a one off in 2009, and not something from this past summer with multiple references to his work.....http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/missed_opportunities_medicaid.pdf
Nope, obviously Gruber was just some advisor who never worked on Obama's staff. He was just known as the architect of the ACA because he never worked on the ACA team.
Grey Templar wrote: Even if none of the things the Right said about it came true, the bad things that have happened(or will happen) with the ACA are more than enough to warrant its abolition. The whole thing is a piece of garbage, maybe not in the same ways people claimed, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable.
I am going to take issue with the bolded/underlined. There are several wonderful facets of ACA that everyone seems to want to ignore.
Before I detail that, let me be clear: I am one of the people who thought ACA didn't go far enough; that we should be moving to national healthcare, or at the very least single payer. I think the current insurance system is disgusting.
That said, an example: ACA removed the "pre-existing condition" excuse for denying coverage. It was, frankly, bs. It forced people to stay in garbage situations because switching insurance and sometimes JOBS meant losing coverage of a medical condition. Have cancer and lose your job? Your chances of getting coverage for your treatment were next to none. Now? Companies can't deny payment.
As a personal anecdote, which I believe I've shared with dakka before; I started having trouble with a salivary gland. At the time I first went to the doctor, my company offered garbage insurance, but garbage was better than no insurance. In the end, I had to have surgery to get the gland removed. It was so full of stones that instead of the normal pea sized gland in your neck, mine was roughly the size of a golfball. If ACA hadn't changed the "pre-existing condition" clause, I would have had to decide between changing jobs (and thus insurance) or staying with crappy job and insurance JUST so the medical bills didn't destroy me. Let's be clear here: Even with insurance I would have had to take out a loan to pay the tens of thousands of dollars my portion would have been. (My old insurance only payed 80% of hospital costs.) Instead, I waited, got a better job and was able to get better insurance. I payed my $200 deduction for surgery costs. That was it.
Excrement covered in chocolate is still excrement. Doesn't matter if part of it would nice by itself, the bad parts make the good parts not good by virtue of being joined at the hip.
“You have already drawn some of the brightest minds from academia and policy circles, many of them I have stolen ideas from liberally,” Obama said. “People ranging from Robert Gordon to Austan Goolsbee; Jon Gruber; my dear friend, Jim Wallis here, who can inform what are sometimes dry policy debates with a prophetic voice.”
Meh, I don't remember everyone I met back in 2006, and I'm sure I meet far fewer people than the people in D.C. do.
Again, politicians lie. This is nothing new. They do it all the time to get what they want. And what they want is to continue to ride the political gravy train at our expense. Republican, Democrat, it makes no difference.
It just isn't some great revelation that the politicians lied/distorted/twisted/spun the facts to get what they wanted. It's what they do. Don't like the ACA? That's fine. Don't like that the politicians lied about it? That's fine, too. Just don't act surprised that they lied about ACA when politicians have already been lying about everything since before you and I were born..
I think the difference between us is that you appear to still have some faith in your chosen politicians, where I have no faith at all in any of them. If they actually manage to accomplish something that is actually good for the nation, it would be in spite of themselves.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Meh, I don't remember everyone I met back in 2006, and I'm sure I meet far fewer people than the people in D.C. do.
Again, politicians lie. This is nothing new. They do it all the time to get what they want. And what they want is to continue to ride the political gravy train at our expense. Republican, Democrat, it makes no difference.
It just isn't some great revelation that the politicians lied/distorted/twisted/spun the facts to get what they wanted. It's what they do. Don't like the ACA? That's fine. Don't like that the politicians lied about it? That's fine, too. Just don't act surprised that they lied about ACA when politicians have already been lying about everything since before you and I were born..
I think the difference between us is that you appear to still have some faith in your chosen politicians, where I have no faith at all in any of them. If they actually manage to accomplish something that is actually good for the nation, it would be in spite of themselves.
I reject this premise... HARD.
I mean, yeah in the whole scheme of things I'd be disappointed all the time.
But, this goes waaaaay beyond politicians lying in order to get re-elected.
The problem is that the political and media classes themselves never explained how Obamacare would work... they only presented Obama's predictions about how wonderful it would be. Not the details of how it would allegedly work, who would pay for it, and who would actually benefit.
And no one can say that the plan was "debated" when in fact... it was THE fething PLAN to hide the Plan from the "stupid" American voters, all along.
The entire "debate" was set up to occur over false premises. Gruber has admitted that the Administration offered not debate but calculated lies at every turn.
Grey Templar wrote: Even if none of the things the Right said about it came true, the bad things that have happened(or will happen) with the ACA are more than enough to warrant its abolition. The whole thing is a piece of garbage, maybe not in the same ways people claimed, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable.
I am going to take issue with the bolded/underlined. There are several wonderful facets of ACA that everyone seems to want to ignore.
Before I detail that, let me be clear: I am one of the people who thought ACA didn't go far enough; that we should be moving to national healthcare, or at the very least single payer. I think the current insurance system is disgusting.
That said, an example: ACA removed the "pre-existing condition" excuse for denying coverage. It was, frankly, bs. It forced people to stay in garbage situations because switching insurance and sometimes JOBS meant losing coverage of a medical condition. Have cancer and lose your job? Your chances of getting coverage for your treatment were next to none. Now? Companies can't deny payment.
As a personal anecdote, which I believe I've shared with dakka before; I started having trouble with a salivary gland. At the time I first went to the doctor, my company offered garbage insurance, but garbage was better than no insurance. In the end, I had to have surgery to get the gland removed. It was so full of stones that instead of the normal pea sized gland in your neck, mine was roughly the size of a golfball. If ACA hadn't changed the "pre-existing condition" clause, I would have had to decide between changing jobs (and thus insurance) or staying with crappy job and insurance JUST so the medical bills didn't destroy me. Let's be clear here: Even with insurance I would have had to take out a loan to pay the tens of thousands of dollars my portion would have been. (My old insurance only payed 80% of hospital costs.) Instead, I waited, got a better job and was able to get better insurance. I payed my $200 deduction for surgery costs. That was it.
Since we are using anectdotes, I could tell you about an elderly couple that lost an insurance plan they loved due to Obamacare and had to replace it with a crappy plan because it was the only thing they can now afford.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Meh, I don't remember everyone I met back in 2006, and I'm sure I meet far fewer people than the people in D.C. do.
Pretty sure that most politicians pay attention to those who are helping shape their signature legislation, especially when they keep talking about (and working with) that same person for years.
d-usa wrote: That may be the biggest load of bs you have ever posted on Dakka, and you post a lot of partisan bs.
Which part?
It's on record that Obamacare was crafted on distortions and promised based on lies.
On.
Record.
The only thing that is on record is one idiot claiming that these were secret lies. That's it.
What is also on the record are over a years worth of discussions in the senate where these "secret lies" were openly talked about.
What is also on the record are over a years worth of news coverage where these "secret lies" were openly talked about.
Hell. I'm pretty certain that we could do a search here on Dakka and find people talking about all these things that nobody apperantly knew about.
We have one guy going "hahaha the voters are stupid and we didn't tell them the truth", and if you want to hang your coat on that statement then be my guest.
We also have the actual record showing that what he is talking about is absolute bs, so anybody that hangs their coat to that bs should be called out on it.
But we know that there is no room for facts when "feth anything Obama touches" is involved, so I'm just going to ignore this thread from now on. It's already the new Benghazi, so there is no hope of any truth making a lick of difference.
Enough with the spammy posts sniping back and forth. If you dislike the topic of the thread, or responses therein, then either don't post at all or post something more than a throwaway one liner please.
Grey Templar wrote:Excrement covered in chocolate is still excrement. Doesn't matter if part of it would nice by itself, the bad parts make the good parts not good by virtue of being joined at the hip.
Absolute nonsense. Banning bullcrap practices by insurance companies is a good thing no matter what else it was attached to. There are people alive today who would not be, had they not been able to get coverage for their conditions.
Relapse wrote:Since we are using anectdotes, I could tell you about an elderly couple that lost an insurance plan they loved due to Obamacare and had to replace it with a crappy plan because it was the only thing they can now afford.
And yet I never said ACA was 100% awesome. In fact, I specifically called it out as not going far enough. It sucks that couple (and many like them) lost the coverage they had. It does. Does that make far more people with serious medical conditions being able to now get coverage they were previously denied because of existing conditions, somehow bad? My point was that ACA was not, as Grey Templar said, 100% bad. I pointed out that there were positive aspects of it. I never once said, stated or implied that there were 0 negative aspects to it; I did just the opposite.
National Review’s Jonah Goldberg went on a tear on Monday’s Special Report with Bret Baier, connecting the circles of lies by the White House and Jonathan Gruber that had impact thanks to liberal journalists. Goldberg charged that, in the lead up to the ObamaCare vote, Gruber was “being touted around through a transmission belt of liberal journalists, who all are all pretending to be objective analysts too, quoting each other, reaffirming each other, all with the help of the White House which went along with this soup to nuts – a process which this guy says was all about lies and misleading the American people.”
Goldberg on the November 17 Special Report with Bret Baier:
In a lot of ways, this spectacle represents not just everything’s that’s wrong with the Obama administration, it’s everything wrong with liberalism and a lot that’s wrong with America itself.
You’ve got this guy who is pretending to be an objective independent analyst, who’s got huge amounts of skin in the game in terms of money he can make off of consulting fees, but also of the prestige being involved and the speeches he could do which haven’t been tallied into these numbers -- anyway, it’s millions of dollars – being touted around through a transmission belt of liberal journalists, who all are all pretending to be objective analysts too, quoting each other, reaffirming each other, all with the help of the White House which went along with this soup to nuts – a process which this guy says was all about lies and misleading the American people. And then when caught about it, the same administration tries to dismiss him as if he was just some sort of random White House intruder. The whole thing stinks.
It’s not just that’s he’s getting rich, it’s the hypocrisy that every time Republicans complain about ObamaCare, they say “Oh, it’s just because those evil, profit-hungry Koch brothers are trying to get rich,” which was always a lie. It’s also that this law itself makes American life more complex and then there’s this leaching new class of people who profit from the complexity that they are imposing upon the society.
Grey Templar wrote:Excrement covered in chocolate is still excrement. Doesn't matter if part of it would nice by itself, the bad parts make the good parts not good by virtue of being joined at the hip.
Absolute nonsense. Banning bullcrap practices by insurance companies is a good thing no matter what else it was attached to. There are people alive today who would not be, had they not been able to get coverage for their conditions.
Relapse wrote:Since we are using anectdotes, I could tell you about an elderly couple that lost an insurance plan they loved due to Obamacare and had to replace it with a crappy plan because it was the only thing they can now afford.
And yet I never said ACA was 100% awesome. In fact, I specifically called it out as not going far enough. It sucks that couple (and many like them) lost the coverage they had. It does. Does that make far more people with serious medical conditions being able to now get coverage they were previously denied because of existing conditions, somehow bad? My point was that ACA was not, as Grey Templar said, 100% bad. I pointed out that there were positive aspects of it. I never once said, stated or implied that there were 0 negative aspects to it; I did just the
opposite.
According to this poll, Obamacare has hurt far more people than it helped:
Grey Templar wrote:Excrement covered in chocolate is still excrement. Doesn't matter if part of it would nice by itself, the bad parts make the good parts not good by virtue of being joined at the hip.
Absolute nonsense. Banning bullcrap practices by insurance companies is a good thing no matter what else it was attached to. There are people alive today who would not be, had they not been able to get coverage for their conditions.
Relapse wrote:Since we are using anectdotes, I could tell you about an elderly couple that lost an insurance plan they loved due to Obamacare and had to replace it with a crappy plan because it was the only thing they can now afford.
And yet I never said ACA was 100% awesome. In fact, I specifically called it out as not going far enough. It sucks that couple (and many like them) lost the coverage they had. It does. Does that make far more people with serious medical conditions being able to now get coverage they were previously denied because of existing conditions, somehow bad? My point was that ACA was not, as Grey Templar said, 100% bad. I pointed out that there were positive aspects of it. I never once said, stated or implied that there were 0 negative aspects to it; I did just the opposite.
According to this poll, Obamacare has hurt far more people than it helped:
Umm, although they do give a good idea of public opinion, I should remind you that polls are based on peoples opinions not fact. I'm not saying it's not true (I don't know either way), but only that a poll doesn't prove anything like that. Many people refuse to believe that something has helped or harmed them, purely out of political spite.
Washington (CNN) -- At a town hall meeting where he campaigned for health care legislation in 2009, President Barack Obama pledged to voters that he did not want any tax on health insurance plans he perceived as wastefully generous to ever impact average Americans. But in recent comments by one of the men who helped draft the legislation, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, that is not only precisely what will happen -- but that was the intention of the tax.
White House officials had no comment, despite repeated requests by CNN.
At issue is the tax on so-called "Cadillac plans," more expensive employer-provided health insurance plans. While employers do not currently have to pay taxes on health insurance plans they provide employees, starting in 2018, companies that provide health insurance that costs more than $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family will have to pay a 40 percent tax.
At a town hall meeting on health care on July 23, 2009 in Shaker Heights, Ohio, Obama explained that the thinking of the Cadillac tax was to target plans that spend unnecessarily and excessively, thus driving up health care costs, such as a $25,000 plan, "so one that's a lot more expensive and a lot fancier than the one that even members of Congress get."
The thinking, Obama explained, was that "maybe at that point what you should do is you should sort of cap the exclusion, the tax deduction that is available, so that we're discouraging these really fancy plans that end up driving up costs."
The President at that point hadn't yet signed off on a Cadillac tax (he would eventually) but he did make the pledge: "what I said and I've taken off the table would be the idea that you just described, which would be that you would actually provide -- you would eliminate the tax deduction that employers get for providing you with health insurance, because, frankly, a lot of employers then would stop providing health care, and we'd probably see more people lose their health insurance than currently have it. And that's not obviously our objective in reform."
That promise is completely at odds with how Gruber describes not only that provision of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, but the intention of that provision.
In one of the videos that surfaced in recent days in which the man described by the Obama campaign as having helped to write Obamacare describes the many ways voters he calls stupid were easily misled about the bill by those pushing it, Gruber says the Cadillac tax will do exactly what the president pledged it would not -- dissuade employers in general from providing insurance for its employees.
"Economists have called for 40 years to get rid of the regressive, inefficient and expensive tax subsidy provided for employer provider health insurance," Gruber said at the Pioneer Institute for public policy research in Boston in 2011. The subsidy is "terrible policy," Gruber said.
"It turns out politically it's really hard to get rid of," Gruber said.
Gruber said the only way those pushing for Obamacare could get rid of the tax subsidy for employer provider health insurance was to tax the more generous, or Cadillac, plans -- "mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people when we all know it's a tax on people who hold those insurance plans."
The second way was have the tax kick in "late, starting in 2018" and have its rate of growth tied to the consumer price index instead of to the much higher rate of medical inflation. Eventually, the 40% tax on the more expensive plans would impact every employer-provided insurance plan.
"What that means is the tax that starts out hitting only 8% of the insurance plans essentially amounts over the next 20 years essentially getting rid of the exclusion for employer sponsored plans," Gruber said. "This was the only political way we were ever going to take on one of the worst public policies in America."
By 2018, Gruber said, those who object to the tax will be obligated to figure out how to come up with the trillion dollars that repealing the tax will take from the U.S. Treasury, or risk significantly adding to the national debt.
This is obviously exactly what Obama told voters in 2009 he had "taken off the table." It is exactly a process to "eliminate the tax deduction that employers get for providing you with health insurance" that five years ago Obama noted would result in "a lot of employers then would stop providing health care, and we'd probably see more people lose their health insurance than currently have it."
Attitudes toward the Affordable Care Act remain sharply divided along party lines.
shocking
Given many red states basically frelled their constituents over by refusing to expand medicaid/medicare, you'll forgive me if the 80% of republicans saying it made things work makes me doubt the poll actually says anything useful. It also asks a question, rather than looking at facts. So it's doubly useless.
Attitudes toward the Affordable Care Act remain sharply divided along party lines.
shocking
Given many red states basically frelled their constituents over by refusing to expand medicaid/medicare, you'll forgive me if the 80% of republicans saying it made things work makes me doubt the poll actually says anything useful. It also asks a question, rather than looking at facts. So it's doubly useless.
You do know what medicaid expansion means for the states right?
In 2018, the states who expanded medicaid will have to raise taxes, since the Federal money will be ending.
THIS is why Obama had new insurance premium prices held until AFTER the election! Last year, they were posted October 1st. Here's one Obamacare story in one image:
PS: background music suxs, but pretty spot on (ie, Robert Gibbs mouthing the lie about taxing insurance companies, directly contrasted with Gruber bragging about it)
Guys, remember to at least post more than a single video/image, you should try and add to the discussion as well, rather than just dumping videos, news articles and images.
Also, Vermont and South Carolina canceled Gruber's consulting contract recently.
Of course they did. Vermont is one of the most libertarian states in the country, and South Carolina is one of the more conservative ones. Retaining Gruber is bad PR, regardless of the legitimacy of any complaint against him.
But here's one Democrat Senator saying, "yeah, we lied":
How in the world did you get "Yeah, we lied." out of that? I mean, I know you tend reach a conclusion and then try your very best build a ramshackle case in support of it, but that interpretation is still a huge stretch.
Issa wrote:
Americans were told if they liked their plans and doctors, they could keep them. They were told the individual mandate wasn’t a tax. None of these were true.
Really Darrel? You're going try and argue that a Supreme Court ruling stating that a thing is a tax renders the initial position of the Democrats a lie?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: And like everything else that goes wrong, and goes public, Obama is only just hearing about this. Good thing that "some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with, in terms of the voters, is no reflection on the actual process that was run.”
A consultant is not a member of staff. And, more importantly, it is possible for someone to disregard a given person's opinion on matter X, while agreeing with their opinion on matter Y.
"Yes I'd like to go ahead and order my Vought Corsair. Yes in Navy Blue of course."
You know, it only has a top speed of 425 mph (if you're talking the F4U-1D) in Navy Blue.... However, if you order it in Fire Engine Red, it bumps top speed to 430, and Dakka Red, the top speed is 450
"Yes I'd like to go ahead and order my Vought Corsair. Yes in Navy Blue of course."
You know, it only has a top speed of 425 mph (if you're talking the F4U-1D) in Navy Blue.... However, if you order it in Fire Engine Red, it bumps top speed to 430, and Dakka Red, the top speed is 450
I think twitter hashtags are dumb... but, this... this is funny.
“#DemocratPrivilege”
Rather than talk about the liberal bias in the media, talk about how figures enjoy “Democratic Privilege.”
What allows the chief architect of a law to go around telling people he lied to stupid americans to sell it, without being covered by ABC, NBC News or MSNBC? Democratic Privilege.
What politician, for instance, could drive his car off a bridge, leave a young woman in the car as he escapes, not lift a finger to save her, and not even call the police when he had the opportunity, and still have a political career after that? Democratic Privilege.
By comparison Mitt Romney was excoriated for leaving a dog on the roof of his car, while the same media didn’t care that Obama ate a dog. Why? Democratic Privilege.
whembly wrote: I think twitter hashtags are dumb... but, this... this is funny.
“#DemocratPrivilege”
Rather than talk about the liberal bias in the media, talk about how figures enjoy “Democratic Privilege.”
What allows the chief architect of a law to go around telling people he lied to stupid americans to sell it, without being covered by ABC, NBC News or MSNBC? Democratic Privilege.
What politician, for instance, could drive his car off a bridge, leave a young woman in the car as he escapes, not lift a finger to save her, and not even call the police when he had the opportunity, and still have a political career after that? Democratic Privilege.
By comparison Mitt Romney was excoriated for leaving a dog on the roof of his car, while the same media didn’t care that Obama ate a dog. Why? Democratic Privilege.
Ooo, I got one!
Why can both prominent Clinton's get away with lying under oath?
What allows the chief architect of a law to go around telling people he lied to stupid americans to sell it, without being covered by ABC, NBC News or MSNBC? Democratic Privilege.
I don't think anyone has claimed Gruber was the chief architect of Obaamcare.
What allows the chief architect of a law to go around telling people he lied to stupid americans to sell it, without being covered by ABC, NBC News or MSNBC? Democratic Privilege.
I don't think anyone has claimed Gruber was the chief architect of Obaamcare.
You're not going to spin this away dogma.
He was integral part of the "team" in the genesis of that plan.
He was integral part of the "team" in the genesis of that plan.
I am simply stating that I do not think anyone has claimed Gruber was the chief architect of Obamacare, at least aside from you in the post I previously quoted. This is not an attempt to spin anything away, it is an attempt to lead you back to honesty.
By the time he had this, he had already personally counseled Obama in the Oval Office and served on Obama’s presidential transition team.
He also personally counselled Mitt Romney, I'm not sure why location matters.
Also, you're basically ripping your opinion from The Daily Caller author Patrick Cowley, who can't manage to effectively support his own article (probably because he's ripping his own opinion from other people); you should stop that.
I just want my pound-o-flesh and the ACA repealed.*
*then we're on our way to the Canadian Model.
Meh... I'd rather have something closer to the German model (though my view of it may be completely wrong... so German posters could shed some light on it if need be)
Gruber comments that Obama knew that there were no cost controls via the PPACA...
Therefore, we all should conclude that Obama's promise that a family would save $2500/yr was a willful, manipulative lie.
Not a "white lie" that many would have us believe.
*shrug*
Nothing really grand shattering though... we'll have to wait until March when Gruber would likely testify in front of the Supreme Court in the Halbig case.
WASHINGTON — For years, Harvard’s experts on health economics and policy have advised presidents and Congress on how to provide health benefits to the nation at a reasonable cost. But those remedies will now be applied to the Harvard faculty, and the professors are in an uproar.
Members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the heart of the 378-year-old university, voted overwhelmingly in November to oppose changes that would require them and thousands of other Harvard employees to pay more for health care. The university says the increases are in part a result of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, which many Harvard professors championed.
Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE
Roberto Villacreses of Sunshine Life and Health Advisors with Darko Tomelic and Andrea Viteri recently at a Miami mall.Health Insurance Enrollment Strongest in Federal MarketplaceDEC. 30, 2014
Agents from Sunshine Life and Health Advisors helped customers sign up for health care in Miami this month.So Far, 6.4 Million Obtain Health Care Coverage for 2015 in Federal MarketplaceDEC. 23, 2014
Obama Administration to Investigate Insurers for Bias Against Costly ConditionsDEC. 22, 2014
The faculty vote came too late to stop the cost increases from taking effect this month, and the anger on campus remains focused on questions that are agitating many workplaces: How should the burden of health costs be shared by employers and employees? If employees have to bear more of the cost, will they skimp on medically necessary care, curtail the use of less valuable services, or both?
“Harvard is a microcosm of what’s happening in health care in the country,” said David M. Cutler, a health economist at the university who was an adviser to President Obama’s 2008 campaign. But only up to a point: Professors at Harvard have until now generally avoided the higher expenses that other employers have been passing on to employees. That makes the outrage among the faculty remarkable, Mr. Cutler said, because “Harvard was and remains a very generous employer.”
In Harvard’s health care enrollment guide for 2015, the university said it “must respond to the national trend of rising health care costs, including some driven by health care reform,” in the form of the Affordable Care Act. The guide said that Harvard faced “added costs” because of provisions in the health care law that extend coverage for children up to age 26, offer free preventive services like mammograms and colonoscopies and, starting in 2018, add a tax on high-cost insurance, known as the Cadillac tax.
Richard F. Thomas, a Harvard professor of classics and one of the world’s leading authorities on Virgil, called the changes “deplorable, deeply regressive, a sign of the corporatization of the university.”
Mary D. Lewis, a professor who specializes in the history of modern France and has led opposition to the benefit changes, said they were tantamount to a pay cut. “Moreover,” she said, “this pay cut will be timed to come at precisely the moment when you are sick, stressed or facing the challenges of being a new parent.”
The university is adopting standard features of most employer-sponsored health plans: Employees will now pay deductibles and a share of the costs, known as coinsurance, for hospitalization, surgery and certain advanced diagnostic tests. The plan has an annual deductible of $250 per individual and $750 for a family. For a doctor’s office visit, the charge is $20. For most other services, patients will pay 10 percent of the cost until they reach the out-of-pocket limit of $1,500 for an individual and $4,500 for a family.
Previously, Harvard employees paid a portion of insurance premiums and had low out-of-pocket costs when they received care.
Michael E. Chernew, a health economist and the chairman of the university benefits committee, which recommended the new approach, acknowledged that “with these changes, employees will often pay more for care at the point of service.” In part, he said, “that is intended because patient cost-sharing is proven to reduce overall spending.”
The president of Harvard, Drew Gilpin Faust, acknowledged in a letter to the faculty that the changes in health benefits — though based on recommendations from some of the university’s own health policy experts — were “causing distress” and had “generated anxiety” on campus. But she said the changes were necessary because Harvard’s health benefit costs were growing faster than operating revenues or staff salaries and were threatening the budget for other priorities like teaching, research and student aid.
In response, Harvard professors, including mathematicians and microeconomists, have dissected the university’s data and question whether its health costs have been growing as fast as the university says. Some created spreadsheets and contended that the university’s arguments about the growth of employee health costs were misleading. In recent years, national health spending has been growing at an exceptionally slow rate.
In addition, some ideas that looked good to academia in theory are now causing consternation. In 2009, while Congress was considering the health care legislation, Dr. Alan M. Garber — then a Stanford professor and now the provost of Harvard — led a group of economists who sent an open letter to Mr. Obama endorsing cost-control features of the bill. They praised the Cadillac tax as a way to rein in health costs and premiums.
Dr. Garber, a physician and health economist, has been at the center of the current Harvard debate. He approved the changes in benefits, which were recommended by a committee that included university administrators and experts on health policy.
In an interview, Dr. Garber acknowledged that Harvard employees would face greater cost-sharing, but he defended the changes. “Cost-sharing, if done appropriately, can slow the growth of health spending,” he said. “We need to be prepared for the very real possibility that health expenditure growth will take off again.”
But Jerry R. Green, a professor of economics and a former provost who has been on the Harvard faculty for more than four decades, said the new out-of-pocket costs could lead people to defer medical care or diagnostic tests, causing more serious illnesses and costly complications in the future.
“It’s equivalent to taxing the sick,” Professor Green said. “I don’t think there’s any government in the world that would tax the sick.”
Meredith B. Rosenthal, a professor of health economics and policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, said she was puzzled by the outcry. “The changes in Harvard faculty benefits are parallel to changes that all Americans are seeing,” she said. “Indeed, they have come to our front door much later than to others.”
But in her view, there are drawbacks to the Harvard plan and others like it that require consumers to pay a share of health care costs at the time of service. “Consumer cost-sharing is a blunt instrument,” Professor Rosenthal said. “It will save money, but we have strong evidence that when faced with high out-of-pocket costs, consumers make choices that do not appear to be in their best interests in terms of health.”
Harvard’s new plan is far more generous than plans sold on public insurance exchanges under the Affordable Care Act. Harvard says its plan pays 91 percent of the cost of services for the covered population, while the most popular plans on the exchanges, known as silver plans, pay 70 percent, on average, reflecting their "actuarial value.”
"None of us who protested was motivated by our own bottom line so much as by the principle,” Ms. Lewis said, expressing concern about the impact of the changes on lower-paid employees.
In many states, consumers have complained about health plans that limit their choice of doctors and hospitals. Some Harvard employees have said they will gladly accept a narrower network of health care providers if it lowers their costs. But Harvard’s ability to create such networks is complicated by the fact that some of Boston’s best-known, most expensive hospitals are affiliated with Harvard Medical School. To create a network of high-value providers, Harvard would probably need to exclude some of its own teaching hospitals, or discourage their use.
“Harvard employees want access to everything,” said Dr. Barbara J. McNeil, the head of the health care policy department at Harvard Medical School and a member of the benefits committee. “They don’t want to be restricted in what institutions they can get care from.”
Although out-of-pocket costs over all for a typical Harvard employee are to increase in 2015, administrators said premiums would decline slightly. They noted that the university, which has an endowment valued at more than $36 billion, had an unusual program to provide protection against high out-of-pocket costs for employees earning $95,000 a year or less. Still, professors said the protections did not offset the new financial burdens that would fall on junior faculty and lower-paid staff members.
“It seems that Harvard is trying to save money by shifting costs to sick people,” said Mary C. Waters, a professor of sociology. “I don’t understand why a university with Harvard’s incredible resources would do this. What is the crisis?”
whembly wrote: So you have no problem, whatsoever, that the tactic used in the creation/pass/defend this bill?
Will all the lies, misdirection and manipulation??
It seemed to me more a case of apathy than lies, misdirection and manipulation. People saying "you have to pass the bill to know what's in it". Combined with someone saying "I'm not paid to read that" iirc. To me that was the tactic to create/pass/defend the bill - relying on no-one giving a ****. The democrats had the majority - the **** was passed.
So you have no problem, whatsoever, that the tactic used in the creation/pass/defend this bill?
Will all the lies, misdirection and manipulation??
I have a problem with outright lies because I think they're sloppy, but misdirection and manipulation are just part and parcel when it comes to politics in a democracy; especially one as large as the US.
That's pretty much just standard Faculty v. Administration drama.
Though this bit...
The university is adopting standard features of most employer-sponsored health plans: Employees will now pay deductibles and a share of the costs, known as coinsurance, for hospitalization, surgery and certain advanced diagnostic tests. The plan has an annual deductible of $250 per individual and $750 for a family. For a doctor’s office visit, the charge is $20. For most other services, patients will pay 10 percent of the cost until they reach the out-of-pocket limit of $1,500 for an individual and $4,500 for a family.
...is pretty bad. Varying your deductible according to procedure is a terrible practice that has been going for a long, long time.
Well keep that "PSA" on topic and not reaching too far, or else you'll be sending this joke of a thread further off topic. Which will break my heart because I'll have to put the final bullet behind its ear.
news media needs to be on trial here.
