Obamacare Architect Jon Gruber Says DECEIVING AMERICANS Necessary to Pass Bill

[Segami]

Nothing like the American policy elite showing its true colors.

This recently-posted video (hat tip Daily Signal) shows Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber matter-of-factly stating that an honestly and simply described Obamacare would not have passed Congress. Preying on “the stupidity of the American voter” was necessary to get the bill passed. Of course, Gruber deems that to be a good thing. And similar well-intentioned policy wonks brought us bank deregulation, which ultimately produced the financial crisis, “free trade,” which is actually managed trade designed around the interests of American multinationals, and our Middle Eastern adventurism, among other things.


Gruber is yet another case study in the Upton Sinclair saying, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it.” In Gruber’s case, a “transparent” Obamacare bill would have made the enrichment of Big Pharma and the health insurers more visible. The idea of universal healthcare, which also involves the healthy paying for the sick, is popular all over the world. Most people understand that even if they are healthy now, they can in short order be among those needing big ticket health care if they have a too-close encounter with a rapidly moving vehicle. So Gruber’s excuse ins’t just patronizing, it’s dishonest.



http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/11/obamacare-architect-jon-gruber-says-deceiving-americans-necessary-pass-bill.html

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. He's also the one who said federal subsidies were deliberately left out to incentivize states

to create their own exchanges. If the USSC strikes down the federal subsidies blame this guy, not the court.

[wavesofeuphoria]

2. Same sort of crap is going on with TPP

most transparent my ass

[progressoid]

3. Yup. And it worked.

Most people still have no idea what ACA is about.

[New Deal Dave]

4. As Progressives, what are we to make of this?

What do you guys think of this admission by Gruber? Does it taint ACA or do we plow on despite this admission. I don't have to tell you, the right-wingers are all over this as "evidence" of ACA's illegitimacy.

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. England's Health Service is on the way to being privatized.

It's all part of the overall plan.

When ACA was first introduced, I was amazed that people did not see it for the gift to insurance companies that it was.
I did keep saying what we need is more affordable medical services, not more protection for the drug and insurance companies.
Obviously the ACA has some good benefits for those who cannot afford insurance coverage, but it also had loopholes big enough to drive
an elephant through.
Which is what is happening right now.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. Hear! Hear! Lower cost services, not a money whirlpool for corporations.

Lover Boy and I pay hundreds every month. He went to the doc recently and had some blood work done. The insurance company was billed over $150, they paid $20 (I'll wager 40% of that was administrative costs for bouncing it between competing a-holes).

We would have been happy to pay the $20 ourselves and saved the hundreds in monthly premiums for when we really need serious healthcare. It's asinine.

[davidpdx]

15. I am seriously worried that is going to happen here in Korea as well

They have talked about privatizing the National Health Care program and it makes me really nervous. I have chosen to live here because I'm married to a Korean, but it is comforting knowing that I have health insurance. My premium is about $110 a month for both my wife and I. I am on medication and that costs about $50 a month with my doctor's visit. Without insurance my treatment would be well over $200.

While I may be an immigrant in this country, if they try privatizing the program I'll be down in front of the Blue House (the Korean's version of the White House) threatening to tear it down.

[840high]

76. +1

[Volaris]

89. considering that what's called the ACA is, essentially the GOP answer to Single-Payer

Via the Heritage Foundation, any attack they make upon it is basically them saying
"Yeah, even WE think our ideas suck...but that goes double when we can pin that suckyness on a President who's not from our Party."

Unless the GOPs new position is that they hate this President enough to actually vote on something BETTER for the American People, I couldn't give one single, solitary FUCK what they think.

[brush]

104. Right wingers are all over this all right. Better check his bank account . . .

Last edited Sun Nov 16, 2014, 05:44 PM - Edit history (1)

for sudden infusions. He was just a mid-level functionary in the crating of this bill. Calling him the author is a huge exaggeration. We all know, or should know, that this healthcare plan was originally written by ALEC through the Heritage Foundation. You can't get anymore right wing republican than that and Romney himself deployed it originally in Mass. The wingers only want to get rid of it because Obama realized that the only way to get a plan through was to go with something that they thought of. But of course soon as he was for it, they were against it.

So let's not take the right wing bait and fall for the "Dems and Obama lied" meme that they've all of a sudden sprung on the country now that they've won the election. He made that off-hand remark about the subsidies months ago and they spring it on us now — not a coincidence at all. FOX has done 57 segments on this in 3 days. That's no accident. It's all part of their strategy to get rid of the ACA, laid months ago even before the election. This guy and this remark eresn't just discovered. They've been waiting to use this.

They're just laying the ground work so they can cut out the subsidies part of the ACA and thus gut the whole law. Why would the Supreme Court all of a sudden take the case to do just that from a lower court?

And by the way, all of the talk here even on DU and in right wing echo chambers about how evil these subsidies are and that they are a sop to insurance companies, if you have healthcare insurance on your job, YOUR INSURANCE IS SUBSIDIZED. You think that $300 family deduction or the $150 single decustion on your paycheck would cover even one day in the hospital with all the doctors, nurses, outside doctors, drugs, x-rays, etc. — not a chance. So let's get real. We all get subsidized healthcare so why shouldn't people on the ACA policies get the same?

The repugs are behind this guy's months-old remark all of a sudden being so prominent (it was a repug crafted bill let's not forget) so let's not fall for the okie doke.

[HereSince1628]

6. Unfortunately, unelected wiseguys like Gruber are the actual leaders

of the party.

It's time to repeat this again...The leaders of the party are not the politicians. The leaders of the party are, in practical fact, the unelected people who the politicians look to for advice.

The fight for the soul of the party is between those advisors and the base. The only way to get rid of those "genuses" is to make them look dumb. Which requires that client politicians who follow their advice actually lose.

The best way to do this is for the base to enthusiastically support people who meet the desires of the base and to not be enthusiastic about those who do not.

One would think that current level of pre-primary support of Warren and Sanders is a move in that direction.

[Luminous Animal]

13. The leaders of the party are, in practical fact, the unelected people who the politicians look to

for money.

[HereSince1628]

17. Well, yes, but shaping campaigns to appeal to specific donor classes

is largely done by the advisers and consultants who all seem to eye the same piles of cash and consequently move both major parties toward the same quid pro quo to get access to it.

Serving the oligarchs compromises the ability to serve voters on the left. The growing conflict inside the party and the loss of voter interest is suggestive that the limit is being reached.

[fadedrose]

73. Good examples of "Elected" politician bad stuff

(1) NAFTA - A Republican thought-up agreement signed by Clinton.

(2 Did Bill Clinton Repeal the Glass-Steagall Act?

A: No, but he signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, )drawn up by 3 Repbublican which repealed some of the provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Read all about it, very interesting.

http://www.davemanuel.com/fact-check-did-bill-clinton-repeal-the-glass-steagall-act-120/

[nationalize the fed]

7. k/r when some of us tried to point out that this was a big french kiss to insurance companies

we were called "racists".

Even Obama didn't like Obamacare when he was campaigning against Hillary- he brought up the mandates all the time. But if we all of a sudden didn't like being mandated to purchase corporate insurance from leeches we were "haters".

Surely this gruber punk can be tried for fraud. At least in the US that once existed before it became ok to tell lies to congress.

[New Deal Dave]

11. Crying racist is an effective weapon

"We were called 'racists.'"

Well, that seems to be an effective weapon.

[Guaguacoa]

90. Using racism in this way works on some white people (which I'm not)

and when used by white people most of the time is used as a weapon and not properly. I think it's injustice to the people that actually experience racism.

[TorchTheWitch]

12. Amen

The only reason that DU was applauding this piece of crap is because "Obama". Had a Repub tried to introduce the same exact law DU would have been vilifying it all over the place. When we pointed out that it was RomneyCare suddenly everyone here thought it was still the bees knees and that magically Romney must have stumbled on something marvelous by accident.

It is NOT affordable by any stretch of the imagination for the 75% or more of us living from paycheck to paycheck. The deductibles are so extraordinary that best case it's only catastrophic coverage.

Forcing people to purchase for-profit health insurance is an abomination. In order to improve our nations health system the for-profit insurance companies need to go not be given the extraordinary gift of every citizen having to buy it from them whatever bells and whistles are attached to it.

In order for their to be a mandate for everyone to have health coverage it has to be a national program paid for through progressive taxation - NOT insurance.

[dixiegrrrrl]

16. EXACTLY what I have been saying

but was drowned out by the chorus of ACA supporters.

Forcing people to pay for insurance does nothing to address the problem of over priced medicine in this country.
It actually makes it worse.

My doc's clinic doubled the cost of visits after the bill was passed.
I asked why.
They said they had been told they could charge that much according to the new fee schedules
and that they had to buy into a computer system provider because of the mandated digital record system.

sure enough, Medicare is paying the increased office visit charges.
Which means that the 20% co-pay has doubled.

[840high]

77. Yep.

[BKLawyer]

8. It gets worse ...

If you watch the complete video ... roughly halfway through ... Gruber goes on to explain how there is a worse problem coming based on the way subsidies are calculated. Because a person's part of the contribution is calculated based on the difference between GDP growth and the growth of health care costs, that as time goes on people at the lower end of income scale will start paying a growing part of their income towards the personal contribution to costs - going from 8 per cent of income UP TO 17%. He didn't really elaborate other than to point out that this problem would begin affecting people years hence.

How many people were told THAT!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. "...this problem would begin affecting people years hence."

Just in time for 2016 and 2020, I'm sure.

[MADem]

26. You do realize you're carrying Heritage Foundation water? nt

[sabrina 1]

14. THIS is the problem, this idiot. He underestimates the people, particularly Liberals who saw what

they were doing and said so, over and over again. Of course they had their emissaries out trashing anyone who dared to object to what they were doing.

The Left, those they define as 'left', are their biggest threat. You have to be blind not to see the growing attempts even on 'left' political forums, to try to marginalize the Left.

SOME may have been fooled by them, but many of us were not.

I despise people like this, but they are running our party. Now, how do we get rid of them?

Next up is the Free Trade Agreement, the Chained CPI, For the Corporations, By the Corporations.

Private Health Ins. Corps were failing, they had to do something to save them. They outsourced jobs, putting many people out of work. THAT caused a decline in their profits.

Most of us who opposed this bill still oppose it. But they won and now we have to try to stop them from fast tracking more of their damaging legislation. Will Dems stop them, I wouldn't bet on it.

[6000eliot]

18. Smells like right-wing hooey.

[MADem]

20. It is right wing hooey.This is The Daily Signal, wingnut video outlet of the Heritage Foundation.

Consider the source. ALWAYS, consider the source.

Amazing how many people will slurp up wingnut crap and call it ice cream.

[B2G]

22. Some of us are perfectly capabable of listen to the man's words

and knowing exactly what they mean, regardless of the linked source.

[MADem]

29. Yeah--I'd say welcome to DU but it appears you've been around for a bit.

Which suggests to me that you should have some awareness of the culture.

We do consider the source around here. Rightwing sources, such as the rightwingnutty HERITAGE FOUNDATION, to include their rightwingnutty video arm, are usually looked at with a jaundiced eye.

If you are so capable of listening to the man's words, listen to what he says on Farrow's program. Or don't, if you don't want the full picture when it comes to his comments.

[B2G]

33. Would you like about 500 alternate sources?

Because they're out there.

Of course he's trying to spin his own words now. He got caught.

[MADem]

38. No, I think I'll need 535. You know, all the Congresspersons who voted for and against the ACA.

You're seriously trying to put this "Ewwwww, they pulled the wool over our eyes" load of Heritage horseshit on this MIT guy, when those people who voted for and against the ACA knew EXACTLY what they were voting for, and what the funding stream was.

You're playing a Heritage Foundation game, here, and I simply cannot understand why. Why in the world would you do that?

We all call Congress a bunch of stupid morons, but they are NOT THAT STUPID. They weren't "spun" and they were the ones who made the decision to PASS ACA--it wasn't on any "ballot" for "The American People" to vote on. Our representatives in Congress read the bill, understood the funding, and voted on it.

But hey, keep carting that Heritage water! Unless you seriously thought a unicorn that farted gold coins was going to pay for all that health care, or something...?

[B2G]

40. If you type Heritage Foundation one more time, you win a pony.

[MADem]

42. Heritage Foundation.

Where's my pony?

Again--you are blaming an architect instead of the group of 535 who APPROVED THE FRIGGING PLANS.

You're doing exactly what "The Heritage Foundation" (bonus iteration) wants you to do.
No one voting on the ACA was "deceived." They had every opportunity to raise objections to the way the ACA was funded--and some did.

Why are you pretending that the representatives who voted on this were deceived, why are you championing this agenda laden load of pony shit?

It's a valid question. Either you don't understand how Congress works, or you have a specific and completely er...opaque... reason to blame one guy at MIT for the vote of the House and Senate on the ACA.

[B2G]

46. Did he or did he not call the American people stupid?

If you noticed, he also clearly stated that states without exchanges could not grant subsidies.

How is that little nugget going to play out next year?

Yet you rabidly defend this asshole. Later, there's no reasoning with you on this.

[MADem]

48. So what? The American people ARE stupid. He's RIGHT.

They don't give a shit about bills before they become law, otherwise they would have understood what he meant; they stay home from the polls in droves, when they do exercise their franchise, they vote on stupid shit like what church a candidate goes to, or who they sleep with, or how they feel about what an individual does with their own body--shit that just does not matter. STUPID shit, in fact.

Further, they have horrible taste in television (Duck Dynasty? Really? Smart people don't watch that dreck), and a whole bunch of them believe that dinosaurs sat around waiting for Jesus and his crew to finish up the loaves and fishes so they could snack on the leftovers after the picnic moved off.

So...yes--American people ARE stupid, lots of 'em. He didn't say anything that a smart American doesn't already know. But OOOOOOOH, let's get "mad" at him for daring to suggest that Americans do not pay attention to the political process (and then they wonder why Congress gets away with so much).

[B2G]

50. And this is why we lose. nt

[MADem]

52. No--why we lose is because some Democrats want to deny health care to Americans who aren't rich,

who don't have a job with health care, and who have pre-existing conditions. They are cheap, and they don't want to put their money where their mouths are.

THAT's why we lose.

EVERYONE who is a "smart American"--to include Bernie Sanders--understands that the ACA is a way station on the way to single payer. That's the GOAL. And guess how that's funded? Not from golden unicorn poops, either.

Anyone who doesn't think health care should be a "right" doesn't belong in the Democratic Party. They'd be much more comfortable with the "I got mine, screw you" crowd over on the right.

[CANDO]

58. I believe single payer should now be...

Our #1 issue for regaining Congressional control and keeping the WH. In the meantime, the ACA is a fucking joke, right alongside any other insurance with high deductibles. High deductible insurance is a fraudulent scheme. You end up paying and paying and paying while they pay very little. The sooner we kick the ACA to the curb, the better.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

59. We can't afford single payer

because we pay for the world's military!

That shit has to stop. Until we fix the military problem, everything else will have to get put on hold, imo.

[MADem]

68. Even Bernie Sanders doesn't call the ACA a "fucking joke." It's a damn WAY STATION.

We're Americans.

We do things INCREMENTALLY.

We will get to single payer, and we'll do it in our own time.

Getting pissed at people for taking baby steps--which are preferable to NO STEPS AT ALL-- is pointless. It also doesn't win converts.

[CANDO]

69. FYI.....If I want to call it whatever....

I will damn well do so with or without your permission. I work for a Fortune 50 corporation. I have a healthcare package that I pay thousands $$$ up front for, only to keep paying and paying and paying because they don't cover squat shit. I am solidly in the mid 70's in annual income + my wife makes another 20k. We struggle with medical bills because our insurance fucking sucks. And then I look at the folks who are far worse off financially than we are who now must buy shitty(and very similar to mine) insurance through the ACA and just am in awe at how the hell they are doing it. Surely when they do actually need coverage, they will raise holy hell because they will have medical bills coming out their ears because their wonderful insurance didn't insure anything. Incremental my ass. Every MF'ing Democratic pol who sat in congress or in the WH KNEW that the people who voted them in were intending them to pass a national health care plan similar to what the rest of the modern world has. Instead, we got profiteering big insurance installed as a parasite directly attached to our wallets. So in summation....Insurance that doesn't insure is a fucking joke.

[MADem]

71. Fine--because I'm not in the habit of giving "permission" to strangers who do not share my values

on the frigging internet.

Health care should be a right.

We aren't to the point where everyone agrees with this concept (and plainly--by your comments--you aren't there). Thus, we need to proceed, in measured fashion, to convince those who don't see the benefit.


You can pay your whining thousands and thousands now, or you can pay them later. Or elsewhere. But you WILL pay them. With--or WITHOUT--the ACA.

You obviously don't "get" that when you refuse health care to those who need it, you pay for it in taxes, you pay for it in higher premiums, and while you are doing that, you line the pockets of the CEOs. When those "uninsured, unwashed, unwanted" go to the emergency room, instead of the urgent care center, or the community health clinic, or their local doctor, YOU pay. And you pay more than you would pay if they had some kind of insurance.

ACA limits how much those CEO bastards can steal. Like it or not, that is an IMPORTANT first step.

The next step is to remove them from the equation, but that is going to take time. It's a weaning process.

You either get it, or you don't. I don't think, based on your remarks, that you get it. One day, you might. I won't hold my breath, but I will hope that one day you see that others have it way the heck worse than you do.

[CANDO]

72. Whatever....yada yada word salad...

You are pretending to think for me. When I pay for insurance, it should then pay my medical claims. That is what insurance is, right? When it doesn't pay my claims and then I have to continue to pay for my medical services anyway, regardless of said insurance premiums already having been paid by me, I call that a fucking joke. Because it sure as hell isn't insurance, whether through an ACA exchange or otherwise. I don't mind paying for things if I get something for my expenditure. I realize a national plan would have to be paid for. I don't mind that at all. The key is getting the money skimming middleman(insurance companies) out of the way. They serve no purpose beyond creating risk pools as a way to return profits to their stockholders. In that process, we lose very much needed health care dollars to money grubbing vultures. The answer is to make everyone covered under Medicare. Paid for with the same revenue streams currently going to health care. We would immediately see savings or added health care dollars actually going to health care rather than into investor's pockets.

[MADem]

75. Think for you? I don't care what you think. I don't "think" much of your attitude towards the

poor and needy.

Your attitudes are not very progressive. They're incompatible with the Democratic Party platform.

That's not an opinion, either--your comments reveal your agenda.

You're being fucked by your employer and their shitty choice of an insurance provider, and you're blaming the Democratic Party for that. So yeah, yada yada yada word salad, "Elaine of Seinfeld fame," because you're buying what your boss is shoving at you and blaming the wrong damn people for your 90K a year "misery."

You need to get your priorities in order. A rising tide lifts all boats. Funny how you don't have a bad word to say about your "boss" who provides you this Fer-Shit "insurance plan." So whassup with that? Hmmm? Afraid to beard the REAL lion in his den?

Yeah, whatever.

[Egnever]

81. The low post count backup is cute.

If there was any doubt this BS is being pushed here by the right that should lay waste to it.

[CANDO]

97. Thats some strong shit you're smokin

Funny you care enough about me to keep talking shit. Putting words in my mouth. I don't have a bad thing to say about the poor and needy, and yet you try and say I do. I'm for single payer and yet I'm incompatible with the Democratic Party. Say hello to ignore.

[MADem]

98. You have fun here, now, you bully talking Internet Tough Guy, you!

I think a lot of people will be ignoring you if you keep talking like that.

[AnalystInParadise]

102. The harder you hit them

the louder they whine......this line of attack must be dangerous.

Frankly, I hope the American people freak out, NO ONE is entitled to lie to the public or call them stupid and expect no retribution.

[Darb]

57. Did you bother to listen to the entire presentation?

If you had you would not be so inconsolable.

[AnalystInParadise]

101. Times a million

The message seems to be "let's lie to the public because they are a bunch of dumb morons that don't know what is best for them"...........Yeah that's a winning message. We are going to get screwed in 2016 if we don't purge liars like this out of the party. Voters have a way of making politicians pay if they are lied to or deceived badly enough.

[handmade34]

105. hmmm

Republicans keep doing it and doing it and somehow the voters see their way to voting them into office... it's not the lying... it's how it's done


think Frank Luntz

[AnalystInParadise]

106. The Republicans seem to be better at covering their tracks

or obfuscating.........This guy said the same shit 4 or 5 times. Hard to convince anyone he meant something besides what he said. The first video had me yawning, the second a little less, by the fourth video I couldn't believe it.....

[TshaiRedhair]

70. Are you stupid sir?

[AnalystInParadise]

100. Yeah......

Who you gonna believe? MADem or your own lying ears............... Unreal, trying to convince us we didn't hear what we heard. Spinning so fast you are generating your own gravity field.

[MADem]

109. Sorry--no sale. You're a bit late to the party, too. nt

[Egnever]

80. Of course it is.

Sadly many here are just waiting to lap it up. This place gets dumber and dumber every day.

I must be getting old Because I am starting to fear for our country because of the ease stupidity like this is pushed.

Clearly the republicans are going to try to undo Obamacare the second they take their seats. They are laying the groundwork right here on DU with crap like this. Two months from now there will have been so much BS like this posted there will be many gullible Dems cheering them on.

Screw the millions who now have insurance and screw the millions who no longer have to worry about pre-existing conditions.

Have we banished critical thinking from this country completely?

Thanks for continuing to try to educate MA

[MADem]

82. +1,000 !!!!

I sometimes feel like I'm shoveling sand against the tide. I can't believe how many people either don't want to get it, don't want to make the connection, are greedy, willfully obtuse, or trolling.

It does make me less and less inclined to visit here after all these years--it's sad. This place used to be a community of "like minded" people. Now it's infested with trolls, and it's getting tiresome and not fun anymore. It's not a place where Democrats can gather in solidarity--it's just a load of shitflinging and Obama bashing and Hillary hating. I'm not digging it; it's not like the old days. Way too many people who just glory in defeat.

[JRLeft]

27. This is corporatism at its finest.

[Seeking Serenity]

19. I'm absolutely disgusted by this. Makes me want to just give up completely.

We're SUPPOSED to be the good guys. Lies, deceit, distrust of the American people is supposed to be the purview of the other side. Now it appears that our "natural betters" have no less contempt for me and you and every other non-elite than the Republicans.

This is a huge, possible game changer for me. If we can't propose and sell good progressive legislation on its merits without succumbing to deception and contempt of the people, then I just don't know what. I am as dispirited now than I can remember ever being, more so than in 2000, 2004 or 2010. I am NOT, decidedly NOT, have NEVER been a subscriber to the philosophy that "the ends justify the means." I hate them all, because it's clear that they hate me and people like me.

Face it, we're not citizens anymore, we're subjects.

Screw it. Just screw it all.

[MADem]

43. What are you griping about?

That guy was a policy wonk who worked for ROMNEY on the MA Commonwealth Care before he worked the details of the ACA. He had no "power." He was a wrench bender, nothing more.

Congress knew what they were voting on. They weren't "deceived." Neither were YOU. All you had to do is read the damn bill.

[RBInMaine]

51. Please, go take an upper. My goodness. This is a statement taken out of context and you're having a

cow over it. Chillax will you.

[MADem]

21. I think everyone needs to read this shit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-12/mit-professor-actually-voters-arent-stupid

MIT Professor: Actually, Voters Aren't Stupid

The scholar who said the passage of Obamacare relied on the "stupidity of the American voter" has gone back on his original statement.

Appearing Tuesday on MSNBC's "Ronan Farrow Daily," Jonathan Gruber, an MIT professor that has been described as the "architect" of the Affordable Care Act, said his comments were poorly worded. "I was speaking off the cuff and I basically spoke inappropriately, and I regret having made those comments," Gruber said.

He clarified the statement, saying that it would have made more sense to finance the Affordable Care Act through spending, but that it would have never passed that way. "Public policy that involves spending is typically less politically palatable than policy that involves doing things through the tax code," he said.

Can't believe how many people are so eager to jump on the Heritage Foundation bandwagon.

[B2G]

23. Weasel words after THREE videos surface

depicting exactly what he thinks.

Can't believe how eager you are to excuse his blatant bullshit.

[MADem]

25. Can't believe how eager YOU ARE (so long as we're playing that game, sport) to tout the Heritage

Foundation's agenda. Jumping out of your skin to so do! I'll take the account of Mediaite and Ronan Farrow before I snuggle up to HERITAGE's agenda--but thanks SO MUCH for your "concern," there!

Sometimes, people are just self-aggrandizing assholes and shoot off their mouths.

It's a cautionary tale, n'est pas?

Jonathan Gruber to MSNBC: My ‘Stupidity of the American Voter’ Remark was Inappropriate

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jonathan-gruber-to-msnbc-my-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-remark-was-inappropriate/

....“The comments in the video were made at an academic conference,” Gruber said. “I was speaking off the cuff and I basically spoke inappropriately and I regret having made those comments.”

Farrow suggested to Gruber that the underlying point of his remarks was actually “nuanced” and was intended to illustrate that in order to effectively pass Obamacare into law, the process needed to be “opaque.”


Gruber replied that he was trying to convey that laws that center on federal spending aren’t popular.....

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jonathan-gruber-to-msnbc-my-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-remark-was-inappropriate/#ooid=k3cmducTpc-E5vJAHY97tZOZTuRENYuu

[B2G]

28. Ronan is so 'helpful'

"Farrow suggested to Gruber that the underlying point of his remarks was actually “nuanced” and was intended to illustrate that in order to effectively pass Obamacare into law, the process needed to be “opaque.”

LMAO.

[MADem]

31. What's so funny to cause you to "LMAO?" That people who didn't have health care have it now?

Anyone who thought this could be done in any way OTHER than through the tax code is smoking strong hashish.

Everyone is so "into" the whole Single Payer argument--how in hell is that accomplished in the Utopia that everyone points to, the UK? The taxes there are USURIOUS and include a VAT that makes everything--from pizza to refrigerators--cost DOUBLE what you'd pay in USA. Those taxes are what funds the NHS. You don't do it--here, or there--or anywhere--except through the nations' tax codes. That's not rocket science, and anyone who thinks it is doesn't understand basics.

No matter where you're at.

Not sure why you, or Heritage, are calling this an "Ah ha" moment. The fact that you're so ready to throw health care for tens of millions of uninsured people "under the bus" is what I find most interesting about you, frankly. Not in an especially good way, either.

[B2G]

35. I'm throwing health care under the bus?

Uh, no. I'm throwing Gruber under the bus.

And frankly, I couldn't care less what you find 'interesting' about me.

[MADem]

36. No you aren't. The Heritage Foundation's GOAL--which you are eagerly championing--is to GET RID

of the ACA.

And replace it with a hearty FUCK YOU, POOR PEOPLE!

But you already know that.

[AnalystInParadise]

103. So a guy we cited

says several times that lies were told because the public was stupid. And you blame those knuckle draggers at Heritage.......that's called redirection and I applaud you for trying to deflect, but too many people on this site are getting their eyes opened about how our own people lied to us.

[MADem]

107. You seriously think the GOP didn't have this shit in their back pocket all along?

The only thing that's "news" here is the willingness of some to gobble up a load of ancient bullshit coated with a new sauce. They were holding this against the day they got back the majority.

I mean, come on--you're an "analyst"--be you in paradise or not--analyze THIS: Cui bono?

Certainly not the future of the ACA if people buy the horseshit they're shoveling.

An MIT program architect and health care "analyst" is not "one of OUR people." He's a hired gun. A contractor with a very specified skillset, not a loyal foot soldier.

He worked for Romney first, but hey, don't let that reality cloud your POV.

Finally, he didn't vote on the matter, he didn't debate it, he didn't pass it.

But never mind that detail either.

You're plainly invested in carrying some very fetid water. Why, I've no idea.

[AnalystInParadise]

111. I don't care what the MF Republicans did or did not have

This was lying to the public to get something passed. The public might not have supported this had they known truth, but that doesn't matter to some people drunk on their own power. You don't care when the voters are lied to, you must not care about Iraq at all.....or is that lie wrong because our side didn't do it.

Respond if you want, I am done with you and warped sense of morality and responsibility to not tell the truth to the voters.

[MADem]

112. No. It was not.

Anyone with reading skills -- and that includes the US Congress (and the REPUBLICANS contained therein) -- could read the bill and figure out where the money was coming from. Where's you high dudgeon about THEM? Why didn't they prosecute this bold (cough-bullshit-cough) POV in the court of public opinion when the bill was on the block? Why try to blame a minor functionary without any power for a lousy opinion years later? Talk about a major FAIL. But we (those of us with a big picture/long view of this issue, anyway) know what this is really about.

Anyone who believes that the GOP isn't "rolling this out" after sitting on it awaiting their victory is delusional. They haven't been sitting on their asses stewing--they've been doing OPPO research and there's probably plenty more of these bullshit faux surprises in their toolbag.

Last time I checked, Romneycare's MIT expert wasn't voting on any legislation. Why? Because he's NOT a member of Congress. No one elected him to do diddly. He's got a lousy opinion, like everyone else does--and so what? If you're "surprised" at where the money is coming from, that's on YOU. You can either participate in this democracy and acquaint yourself with the legislation you supposedly care so much about by reading it, or not. But don't be surprised about where funding comes from. It's not brought by the stork, you know. Not for this bill, or for ANY bill.

Of course you're "done with" me--there's no real argument with which to respond. It's all a matter of reading, and comprehending what one has read. Any thing else, why, it's fake poutrage (waaah--warped sense of MORALITY! Please! Mr. MIT is now the "nation's arbiter of morality?" Really? That's your argument?) that signifies nothing--save the GOP are pissed, and will for the next two years REMAIN pissed, about that damn Black man in the White House.

You know, the fellow with the VETO pen.

Too bad for them. And anyone else who doesn't like it.

[gmb92]

61. I don't excuse his words

But why do you feel his words correctly reflect the views of the thousands of people who worked on the legislation? Gruber was one from the Romney side of the aisle (worked on RomneyCare). Gruber's claims are bogus. I don't think there's anything deceiving about group insurance or financing through taxes on the very wealthy vs spending cuts.

[Segami]

30. Sure. This MIT Professor..

is now claiming that he "was speaking off the cuff and basically spoke inappropriately"......

Why didn't he correct himself immediately after he made the initial comments understanding that maybe he misspoke?

Nobody tortured or altered his words on that video in any way to promote some falsehood. They were his words and his alone. He's a smart man and like many before him who have misspoken realizing they poorly worded a statement, most have interjected and clarified or corrected their statement for the record. At about 35 sec. into the video, he gives a slight pause after blurting the "stupidity of the American voter" statement. He knew those were a poor choice of words. Why didn't he correct himself for the record (having realized his misstatement) before continuing his comments?

[MADem]

32. Perhaps because NOBODY ASKED....? Ya think?

You do realize this guy worked for Romney first....?

Anyone who understood Romneycare understood the ACA.

[Segami]

34. He's a smart MIT Professor and now he needs to be prompted

when he misspeaks?

[MADem]

37. Why are you carrying Heritage water?

Do you really want to shitcan the ACA? You want tens of millions, some with their pre-existing conditions, to be told to Fuck Off and Die?

Because that's the goal of the Heritage Foundation, and that's why they are trying so hard to make something of this video.

Look--let's be blunt here. This guy--who worked for ROMNEY first, crafting Commonwealth Care in MA-- didn't "pass" the ACA. Fucking CONGRESS did. This whole "OOOOOOOH, this guy from MIT put something OVER on us!!!!!!" bullshit is just that. Congress knew what they were voting on. No one was "duped." This is a canard and you're buying it. Buying it from the HERITAGE FOUNDATION, too, who don't want you or anyone else to have affordable health care. In fact, if you have a pre-existing condition and can't pay for it, they want you to die--because they've got their hooks in the funeral industry, too.

If they have their way, the ACA goes under the bus, and those insurance companies are not constrained in their profit percentages, they can go back to "Half for the medical industry, half for the insurance CEOs" and charge you out the wazoo.

[Segami]

45. If the ACA goes under the bus...

it will be by its own merits and NOT for anything posted here! You decided to introduce this 'carrying Heritage water' horseshit into this discussion. Who cares about if this guy worked for Romney crafting the Commonwealth care in Ma.......What the hell does that have to do with his statements? And please stop lecturing me about the value of The Affordable Healthcare and all the dire consequences,....it has nothing to do with the video posted or the professor walking back his misstatement AFTER his comments went viral. He owns these comments and should have corrected himself when he realized he misspoke. And please, stop mudding the waters with your Heritage water nonsense.

[MADem]

47. Excuse me--you could have read the bill and determined where the funding streams originated.

In fact, some of the cheapass Republicans who fought it griped about it for that very reason.

This guy had no POWER over the Congress. He participated in the crafting of a bill, and 535 people voted on it. His opinions on the thing are just that. He doesn't "own" any responsibility or authority beyond that. Seriously, that's like saying the worker you hired to tar your driveway owns a chunk of your house, or something.

Why you are acting like this guy has to answer for his opinions, sloppy or not, is what is beyond me. And the Heritage Foundation is counting on misplaced poutrage, and they're getting it, judging by some of the responses on this thread.

Look, if you don't like the ACA, you need to talk to Congress--not some clown at MIT. If you do like it, you need to tell Congress, not some clown at MIT. This guy HAS "owned" his comments--he has said, in essence, that he shot his mouth off intemperately. But the bottom line is this--he had ZERO responsibility (because his ideas could have been rejected by those 'deciders' in Congress) and he had ZERO authority (because he did not sign the bill into law).

But boy, oh, boy, those Drudge/Heritage/Usual Suspects are doing a great job getting the dudgeoneers in an uproar--and that was their goal.

[Darb]

64. Nailed it MADem.

Right on the money.

[Ykcutnek]

24. I have good insurance because of it. Don't really care how it passed. nt

[Old Nick]

39. Poor Megyn Kelly: This has hit her ESPECIALLY hard

[Boom Sound 416]

41. Well, we had to pass it

To know what was in it.

[Azathoth]

44. Gruber is a hubristic asshole, but the author of the article is completely out to lunch

The idea of universal healthcare, which also involves the healthy paying for the sick, is popular all over the world. Most people understand that even if they are healthy now, they can in short order be among those needing big ticket health care if they have a too-close encounter with a rapidly moving vehicle.

Nice to see the left-wing's version of the "un-skewed polls" alternate fact ecosystem is functioning at full capacity. News flash: universal healthcare via the healthy paying for the sick IS NOT POPULAR here in the US. Men paying for women's ob/gyn services isn't popular either. This is an "I got mine, fuck you" country. People will say they want everyone to have healthcare, but they damned sure don't want to pay for it, especially with wingnuts screaming at them about "socialized medicine" and "tax hikes."

[MADem]

49. It's straight out of a right wing think tank, that's why! nt

[Darb]

53. That's ridiculous.

The American people didn't vote on the ACA and were never to be given the chance to vote on it. The people that were elected to represent them wrote the law. There were three committees from the House and three committees from the Senate working on the bill. Hundreds of others had input into the bill. It was voted on and became law. There is no one architect.

And further, if you think public opinion, which is basically what he was talking about, was on the side of passing this law during the whole writing of it, I encourage you to wander back and check out the Tea Party asshats at townhall meetings, and then check the archives of this site for the reaction here. Very few were in favor of this law as it was being formulated. Plus the whole thing is damn complicated and it had to be, no other way to get more people covered and not tear down our entire health care structure in the process.

And even further, I am not sure that what is being interpreted from what he is saying is as cut and dried as you think it is. It would be very revealing to hear more than just the 53 seconds that Fox News wants you to hear. How about posting the whole conversation.

[Segami]

54. Sure.

[Darb]

55. Listening now, first thing I noticed was the introduction of John Gruber,

"One of the architects of the Massachusetts reforms which was instrumental in the ACA design". So basically inside of 2 fucking minutes, the entire premise of the OP was destroyed. He is not "THE architect" of Obamacare. He is "ONE of the architects of the Massachusetts reform".

It's hysterical, right-wing bullshit from the get go.

[gmb92]

62. Little of the media is mentioning that he was most closely tied to RomneyCare

and one of many consultants on (more loosely tied to) ObamaCare.

[Number23]

65. You just won the thread, Darb.

EXCELLENT points in your post.

[MADem]

67. Indeed--boom goes the dynamite! nt

[Chathamization]

94. Not only that, but his technical consulting work wasn’t particularly obvious. In fact, Gruber was

earlier criticized for not disclosing the fact that he was a technical consultant on the ACA. Now people are saying that he’s the architect of the ACA (eh, the hidden architect of the ACA?).

[Darb]

56. Incredibly informative, and done by incredibly smart people

talking about how the law was created and passed. It confirms my premise that the law had many, many people involved in its creation.

Anyone who wants to learn something about the ACA should listen to the whole thing.

His comments on transparency are exactly 1.7219 percent of the presentation. His point, by my interpretation, was that if people perceive that it is a tax increase, they go no further and say "no". If they (the american voter) interpret the law as taking from the healthy to give to the sick, then they say "no". That is the political reality and that is why they wrote it the way they did. He did not write it. He complains more than once about Senate staffers. Politics played a roll in how the law was written, fucking duh.

One of the best parts of the presentation was without doubt the decrease in depression that was found in the Oregon study. 30% drop in depression because "uninsured people lead terribly stressful lives".

Overall, a great presentation and everyone should listen. Very enlightening. The only reason that the law cannot be improved upon is the same reason nothing can get done. The Republicans do NOT want the black man to have ANY successes, much less one of this magnitude. It is kill it or fuck it, but never tweak it.

[Chathamization]

93. I don’t want to listen to the whole thing, I want to listen to the 30 seconds that make him sound

bad when taken out of context. Then I’m going to go get outraged about Shirley Sherrod and ACORN.

Liberals really shouldn’t be lapping up right-wing propaganda.

[Darb]

63. Great discussion. Too Bad Fux Snooze and others are running with that partial,

misinterpreted quote.

Why are you running with it? So hard? It seemed to me to have little or nothing to do with the discussion except for why and how politics played a role in its construction.

Did you listen to the whole thing?

[MADem]

66. Plus a million. Exactly. Amazing how many people are willing to swallow this wingnut swill.

It's almost troubling.


Our crew is smarter than this, we really shouldn't have anyone so readily eager to buy off on these wingnut slants....I really am surprised that anyone would buy this bullshit in the Age of Google. I mean, really--if it smells funny, hit the damn search engine before posting outrage--isn't that the smart move?


It's all HERITAGE (I win a pony for saying that, apparently) bullshit.

[gmb92]

60. Gruber was first a Romney adviser and RomneyCare architect

He was one of many who consulted on ObamaCare. The fact that the first part (Romney association) is being ignored and his role overstated shows the bias of mainstream media.

His assessment that the average voter doesn't understand group insurance plans (the sick get more out of it relative to the poor...no kidding) is wrong, and a stupid statement to make.

[fadedrose]

74. Doesn't SCOTUS have the last word on this

I know they've got some stuff they have to rule on, not sure of what part of the bill..

[cheapdate]

79. On what basis is Gruber properly described as an "Obamacare Architect"?

My understanding of the senate bill (the "Baucus Bill&quot that won out to become the Affordable Care Act, is that the Senate Finance Committee began holding hearings on an early version of the bill in early 2007. The bill was essentially in it's final form when the 111th Congress commenced in 2009. The head start was one of the reasons it was successful in beating out other bills, such as the house bill.

In 2009 there were as many as five different bills under consideration, two in the house and three in the senate. The White House kept largely out of the process. In the end, the Baucus bill won.

What did Gruber do to deserve to be called an "Obamacare architect"? Was he one of the "gang of six"? Did he advise the Senate Finance Committee?

[B2G]

86. On this one

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/how-the-white-house-used_b_421549.html

[Psephos]

87. good posts in this thread

thank you

The irony of soi-disant progressives biting into you because you value integrity above political expedience is not lost on all of here, only some.

[B2G]

88. Most actually

I posted this in a separate thread and didn't receive a single response. Color me shocked.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/how-the-white-house-used_b_421549.html

[Guaguacoa]

92. I think many of today's liberals are only

liberal when it suits them.

[Guaguacoa]

91. I don't get it.

Liberals used to be about integrity. Now it's about what letter (D or R) appears after the name. I can remember when being anti war, etc. was about being actually anti war. Now it's about what letter is after the name doing it.

I'm not saying drop democrats, I'm only saying support democrats that are really democrats. Supporting democrats that are really republicans is selling out.

WTF do I know, I'm old school liberal and we had integrity.

[cheapdate]

96. Thanks for that.

So Gruber provided advise and review of the House and Senate bills at the behest of the White House Office of Health Reform.

It's a complicated bill that preserves the fractured landscape of the U.S. health care system and preserves the system of private insurance almost entirely. It expands the public health care system. It ends some of the worst practices of health insurance companies and it minimizes discriminatory pricing by requiring community-based pricing.

The exchanges have significantly increased competition in my state. At present, I have the same BCBS plan that I've had for fifteen years. It's grandfathered and BCBS is still supporting it. But plans that are as good or better are available on the exchanges and I'll probably make a switch soon.

[MADem]

108. Do you know how much Jane Hamsher has Obama Derangement Syndrome?

Years ago, she called anyone who supported him "the dumbest motherfuckers in the world." And you're using her as an authoritative source?

You really need to do more background. You acquit yourself poorly in argument.


Here, proof:




Why don't you just say that Mitch McConnell hates Obama, too? It would be just as surprising.

[woo me with science]

83. kick

[NM_Birder]

84. The Affordable Care Act was NEVER about health care,

It was ALWAYS about insurance, and not everybody who is enrolled in the ACA is able to afford the deductibles.

Nobody is remembering how many people LOST their existing coverage due to not being compliant with ACA regulations, now they have low monthly payments sure, with 5-9 grand out of pocket deductibles.

Having insurance, but not using it because of high deductibles,................. that is a truth out there.

The company I work for in non-compliant, we have until next November to become compliant, or have penalties per employee that will certainly roll us over into the red in blink of an eye. Only options, drop out of Presbyterian HC that we've all had and been satisfied with for 17 years and join the ACA. Which will cost each of us thousands of dollars each, or because we have less than 35 full time employees drop HC all together and let all our employees fend for themselves in the ACA. Some of these people are a few thousand dollars a year away from collapse as it is. Nobody, not even entry level laborers make less than $17 an hour here, we mainly contact with KAFB and CAFB.

The way the ACA is structured, Single no kid insured, and families with kids all have to have the identical level of coverage. The choices become 1) over spend on some to keep others insured -or- 2) constrict coverage on some to keep insurance on others, or 3) kill the employment benefit of health care and let everyone fend for themselves with the ACA deductible wheel of Russian roulette.

Keep the door

[dawg]

85. Which is the bigger shame?

The fact that this guy thinks the public would have overwhelmingly opposed a program if they realized that it took from the healthy and rich in order to comfort the sick and the poor?

Or the fact that he's probably right; cheap selfish, bastards that we are?

Cain asked the Lord, "Am I my brother's keeper?". Republicans answer, "Hell to the no!!"

[woo me with science]

95. kick

[red dog 1]

99. K&R...Thanks for posting, Segami

From ThinkProgress.org
November 13, 2014

"Jonathan Gruber's Comments About Obamacare Are Offensive, But They Also Are Untrue"


From the Think Progress article:

"Gruber served as a technical consultant of sorts to the law's framers, producing cost estimates of various provisions and providing technical advice garnered from his economic training and expertise in overseeing Massachusetts' fairly similar reforms.
But that's where Gruber's knowledge of reform ends.
His comments don't actually reveal a conspiracy to hide the truth from the American people because that truth has been out "
http://www.thinkprogress.org/health/2014/11/13/3591850/jonathan-gruber-lying-obamacare/

[kelliekat44]

110. How much will this influence the SCOTUS' next decision on the ACA? He is trying to hurt ACA

with this timing.

[markpkessinger]

113. What are you talking about "his timing?"

The original video was from October of 2013.