GruberGate

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

This really deserves its own thread... the

news media needs to be on trial here.

Obamacare architect in 6th video: 'Mislabeling' helped us get rid of tax breaks

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.

Repeal this. It is the only answer at this point.

**dogma**

So I should believe your interpretation of an article that is itself interpretative?

Are we playing telephone now?

**MrDwhitey**

The Russians did what with Obamacare?

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
So I should believe your interpretation of an article that is itself interpretative?

Are we playing telephone now?

It's an explicit plan to render Employer-based healthcare plans so unappealing, that the employers will eventually have to drop the plans.

"If you like your plan, you can keep you plan" - Obama, Liar in Chief.

**Relapse**

I love the way the Democrats are trying to distance themselves from each other with this clown as a prime example:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/14/despite-dem-claims-trash-talking-gruber-was-well-paid-adviser-for-obamacare-and/

**Ouze**

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 mean, one of the guys running as a challenger in the midterms said the number one question he heard on the campaign trail was about Ebola, FFS.

So, if the shoe fits, maybe the recommendation should be to wear it.

**whembly**

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.

Here's the vid:

First
...
Second
...
Third
...
Fourth
...
Fifth
...
Sixth
...
.
.
.
.
drip, drip, drip...

**Tannhauser42**

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.

**whembly**

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!"

And the MEDIA? crickets....

**nomotog**

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.

**LordofHats**

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

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

I am wondering now. If there ever is a controversy about the founder of Microsoft, would it be called the GatesGate?

**IronWarLeg**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I am wondering now. If there ever is a controversy about the founder of Microsoft, would it be called the GatesGate?

BillGate(s)?

**Grey Templar**

Gates^2

**d-usa**

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.

**whembly**

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.

Every step of the way... it's a fething sham.

**whitedragon**

I'm a disappoint.

Have we already forgotten about Benghazi?

Doesn't anyone think it's suspicious that the MEDIA has been all but silent about it lately?

Do we think that all this "obamacare" hullabaloo is really just to distract us from the real TRUTH behind the greatest scandal of the 21st century?

Even whembly has fallen victim it seems. Never forget Benghazi!

**whembly**

whitedragon wrote:
I'm a disappoint.

Have we already forgotten about Benghazi?

Doesn't anyone think it's suspicious that the MEDIA has been all but silent about it lately?

Do we think that all this "obamacare" hullabaloo is really just to distract us from the real TRUTH behind the greatest scandal of the 21st century?

Even whembly has fallen victim it seems. Never forget Benghazi!

Heh... nope.

The Select Committee request Leon Penetta to testify ASAP.

Just waiting patiently for that outcome...

But, the PPACA? Needs to be repealed... or, at the VERY FETHING minimum...

It should be Akinized. That is, ask every Democrat if they think they know better and if American voters are stupid.

**d-usa**

I guess my question is answered then.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
I guess my question is answered then.

Simply stated... are you okay with the evolution and passage of the PPACA?

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
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.

**Grey Templar**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
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.

**Sining**

I can't remember who said it but basically this
"If you don't read the news you're uninformed. If you read the news, you're misinformed"

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

It's an explicit plan to render Employer-based healthcare plans so unappealing, that the employers will eventually have to drop the plans.

Ok, that's the third phone.

Have you ever considered the possibility that your outrage is misplaced?

whembly wrote:

I can't think from a policy or political standpoint that *discussing* the American voting public is stupid is of any worth.

I really wish it were discussed more openly. Hell I could even riff off Jefferson or Curran if needed.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

It's an explicit plan to render Employer-based healthcare plans so unappealing, that the employers will eventually have to drop the plans.

Have you ever considered the possibility that your outrage is misplaced?

Where should it be placed Master Yoda?

whembly wrote:

I can't think from a policy or political standpoint that *discussing* the American voting public is stupid is of any worth.

I really wish it were discussed more openly. Hell I could even riff off Jefferson or Curran if needed.

Me too!

**Kilkrazy**

LordofHats wrote:
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.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
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.

Heh...

Don't worry, we'll make 'em pay for it.

**Bran Dawri**

Call me crazy, but wouldn't a better question be why are medical costs rising so much faster than inflation?

**juraigamer**

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.

**whembly**

Bran Dawri wrote:
Call me crazy, but wouldn't a better question be why are medical costs rising so much faster than inflation?

Absolutely.

One of the BIGGEST way to build up "political capital" for reform is to enforce TRANSPARENCY on all medical costs.

Right now, if I go to the ED for a Kidney Stone event (true story), I'd initially only pay for the co-pay at the time of the visit ($100).

Then, three months later, I'd get a "billing statement" saying at what percentage my insurance payed for my ED visit.

Anything left over is determine by my plan.

But, I have NO fething clue as to what were the cost for the services rendered at the ED. It's a shell game.