Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on November 10, 2014, 12:24:59 PM
-
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/09/obamacare-architect-lack-of-transparency-was-key-because-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-would-have-killed-obamacare
Obama needs to be tried for treason and sent BACK to Africa where he came from and belongs and will fit in better.
-
Wow.
Doesn't surprise me.
-
I don't know how many times I've used the word "outrageous" when talking about this administration (probably a lot), but this is outrageous. >:(
Obamacare Architect: Lack of Transparency Was Key Because ‘Stupidity Of The American Voter’ Would Have Killed Obamacare
11/09/2014
Patrick Howley is an investigative reporter for The Daily Caller.
Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said that lack of transparency was a major part of getting Obamacare passed because “the stupidity of the American voter” would have killed the law if more people knew what was in it.
Gruber, the MIT professor who served as a technical consultant to the Obama administration during Obamacare’s design, also made clear during a panel quietly captured on video that the individual mandate, which was only upheld by the Supreme Court because it was a tax, was not actually a tax.
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass… Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”
-
I watched the video this morning. Extremely insulting to the American people.
-
Am I the only one thinking that this gentleman is quite correct? And the same goes for all nations and the majority of their citizens. 90% of people are completely uninformed with very limited critical thinking or ability to change their views. They listen to hype and sensation with no regards to facts. Maybe Obamacare IS a dog that needs shooting, but his line of comments are quite correct.
TLDR,
people are fucking stupid
-
Am I the only one thinking that this gentleman is quite correct? And the same goes for all nations and the majority of their citizens. 90% of people are completely uninformed with very limited critical thinking or ability to change their views. They listen to hype and sensation with no regards to facts. Maybe Obamacare IS a dog that needs shooting, but his line of comments are quite correct.
TLDR,
people are fucking stupid
There is some sad truths to what he said.
-
There is some sad truths to what he said.
Of course there is.
But it also doesn't mean they should be allowed to get away with their bullshit.
I do silently wonder if the ACA law will be repealed when the Repubs ever get into power again.
My bet is, No.
-
Am I the only one thinking that this gentleman is quite correct? And the same goes for all nations and the majority of their citizens. 90% of people are completely uninformed with very limited critical thinking or ability to change their views. They listen to hype and sensation with no regards to facts. Maybe Obamacare IS a dog that needs shooting, but his line of comments are quite correct.
TLDR,
people are fucking stupid
hes absolutely correct, its pathetic, and its exactly why were hopeless.
They know the public is stupid and uninformed, anf theyll continue to use it to control the masses and pass whatever the fuck they want.
I thought the samr thing; this guy is right, absolutelu right, and thats whats so fucking infuriating.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/09/obamacare-architect-lack-of-transparency-was-key-because-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-would-have-killed-obamacare
Obama needs to be tried for treason and sent BACK to Africa where he came from and belongs and will fit in better.
Stupidity of the American People is the reason why our current healthcare system sucks. Obamacare made slight improvements, but you can't polish a turd. The problem is that Republicans want to make the system worse and Democrats want to make little improvements to a horrible system. Its a system that needs to be entirely scrapped, but the people are still too stupid to realize this.
-
This is the mindset of the Democrat party...you're too fucking stupid to have a say in your life so STFU and let us set the rules for you. They're worse than the Taliban....
-
This is the mindset of the Democrat party...you're too fucking stupid to have a say in your life so STFU and let us set the rules for you. They're worse than the Taliban....
Republicans do this too with all kinds of issues. Abortion, taxes at the state level, insurance nonsense and on and on.
-
Like communists the obama admn
-
I can name a few Senators who lost their jobs last week for cosigning onto this "ObamaCare" nonsense.
-
I can name a few Senators who lost their jobs last week for cosigning onto this "ObamaCare" nonsense.
This was the Republicans original plan though. Plus they want to undo what has been done which would make it more expensive for people than it already is. They have no plans to scrap the entire Middleman Insurance based system. I don`t see how this will be a good thing at all.
The entire system needs to be done away with.
-
The greatest argument against democracy is a conversation with your average voter.
-
Republicans do this too with all kinds of issues. Abortion, taxes at the state level, insurance nonsense and on and on.
Repubs don't tell people how to live.
-
Republicans do this too with all kinds of issues. Abortion, taxes at the state level, insurance nonsense and on and on.
Nonsense...pure bullshit
-
Nonsense...pure bullshit
???
-
Funny how the cult of Obama defends this lies and deceit yet if it were W or Palin or anyone else they would be screaming day and night.
-
Funny how the cult of Obama defends this lies and deceit yet if it were W or Palin or anyone else they would be screaming day and night.
We're upset because people we dislike aren't as verbally upset as we'd like, regarding some other person we dislike?
I agree with the original point of the thread - but I never understood "how come the left/right isn't screaming louder about XYZ..." ?
I mean, it's like us getting all outraged because TBS is playing too many Law & Order repeats and not nearly enough AirWolf repeats. We're upset that tv stations aren't saying what we want them to say? ??? "Why isn't FOX making fun of Palin's loopy grammar" and "Why won't MSNBC scream as loud as we are about something an MIT professor said?"
It's tv, folks. It's entertainment. FOX can talk about whatever they want, and if MSNBC fans need a tissue because FOX isn't covering the stories they want, or complaining as loudly as they'd like, it's simple - they can change the channel, and/or STFU.
-
We're upset because people we dislike aren't as verbally upset as we'd like, regarding some other person we dislike?
I agree with the original point of the thread - but I never understood "how come the left/right isn't screaming louder about XYZ..." ?
I mean, it's like us getting all outraged because TBS is playing too many Law & Order repeats and not nearly enough AirWolf repeats. We're upset that tv stations aren't saying what we want them to say? ??? "Why isn't FOX making fun of Palin's loopy grammar" and "Why won't MSNBC scream as loud as we are about something an MIT professor said?"
It's tv, folks. It's entertainment. FOX can talk about whatever they want, and if MSNBC fans need a tissue because FOX isn't covering the stories they want, or complaining as loudly as they'd like, it's simple - they can change the channel, and/or STFU.
Lies like this ARE NEVER OK when it comes to screwing over 300 million people
-
Lies like this ARE NEVER OK when it comes to screwing over 300 million people
Agreed. But you're upset because a private company isn't using its airtime to talk about the things you want them to talk about. I mean, I don't like half the crap on direcTv, but sheeit, it's america baby, we sure don't want to dictate what they can or cant talk about.
Also, all networks tell lies. Turns out, there really aren't walkers eating people and whatnot - but AMC continues this lie every week :( Once you realize and accept the cables news networks are just entertainment channels, it all makes sense.
-
Agreed. But you're upset because a private company isn't using its airtime to talk about the things you want them to talk about. I mean, I don't like half the crap on direcTv, but sheeit, it's america baby, we sure don't want to dictate what they can or cant talk about.
Also, all networks tell lies. Turns out, there really aren't walkers eating people and whatnot - but AMC continues this lie every week :( Once you realize and accept the cables news networks are just entertainment channels, it all makes sense.
No - im talking about Obama voters on this site who kneepadded him all the way and voted for him twice while trashing the GOP, Palin, etc. ;)
-
Am I the only one thinking that this gentleman is quite correct? And the same goes for all nations and the majority of their citizens. 90% of people are completely uninformed with very limited critical thinking or ability to change their views. They listen to hype and sensation with no regards to facts. Maybe Obamacare IS a dog that needs shooting, but his line of comments are quite correct.
TLDR,
people are fucking stupid
This is the mindset of the Democrat party...you're too fucking stupid to have a say in your life so STFU and let us set the rules for you. They're worse than the Taliban....
Yup, this is dictator mentality. "The country is too stupid to make the right decision, so I'll make the right decision for them."
-
So it's ok to lie to the American people because to libtards the ends ALWAYS justify the means.
This is how libtards have stuck Americans with crappy social programs that eat away at the nation's resources and eventually will bankrupt the nation. Just look at Detroit and California.
-
So it's ok to lie to the American people because to libtards the ends ALWAYS justify the means.
This is how libtards have stuck Americans with crappy social programs that eat away at the nation's resources and eventually will bankrupt the nation. Just look at Detroit and California.
99% of liberals are communists at heart. That's why. This is why these fuck sticks need to go to NK and FNG leave the rest of us alone.
-
Obamacare architect blasted for ‘deliberate deception’
Boston Herald ^ | 11/11/2014 | Richard Weir
Posted on 11/11/2014 2:49:29 PM by jonatron
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO (Congressional Budget Office) did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. … So it’s written to do that,” Gruber said, suggesting “it would not have passed” if the law “made it explicit” that healthy people would “pay in” and the sick would get money.
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber continued. “Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass. I wish ... we could make it all transparent. But I’d rather have this law than not.”
Gruber, when reached by phone yesterday, said repeatedly, “I have no comment.”
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
-
Liberals Try to Cover Up for Obamacare Architect
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | November 11, 2014 | Rush Limbaugh
Posted on 11/11/2014 3:23:55 PM by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: This is incredible. The liberals at the University of Pennsylvania tried to take down the video of Jonathan Gruber saying they had to dumb down the presentation of Obamacare because of the stupidity of the American voter. They thought they could take the video down and make the issue go away.
You remember Jonathan Gruber. By the way, he's the architect of Obamacare, and I should say that he's one of the primary architects of Romneycare as well. It was in October of last year at the University of Pennsylvania's 24th Annual Health Economics Conference, and he said that it was crucial that the American people never realize what was really in Obamacare because the stupidity of the American voter would have otherwise killed the law.
GRUBER: "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage."
In other words, he admitted -- and he got applause, he was talking to fellow economists -- he admitted they had to lie. They had to mask and cover the transparency. They had to lie about what was in it, such as you get to keep your doctor, you get to keep your plan, your premium will come down $2,500. There are no tax increases. It's not gonna cost any more than the Iraq war. Every lie they told was purposeful because they thought the American public was so stupid they wouldn't understand the nuance and the liberal definition of need for this law, and that if they had been honest about it, people would never have supported it.
That covers pretty much everything in their agenda, by the way. If they're ever honest about their real agenda, they'd never get elected to anything outside of New York, San Francisco and Hollywood. And they wouldn't, folks. And maybe Chicago. They would not. It's not just Obamacare they lie about. It's not just Obamacare they think you are too stupid to understand.
So, anyway, the University of Pennsylvania, after the uproar of this getting out, tried to pull it down. They pulled the video of the event which took place in October of 2013. And for a time yesterday, if you went to the website at the University of Pennsylvania trying to see the video, you got a message that said: "This video has been removed by the user. Sorry about that." And so that begot a Twitter and Facebook storm.
"Why would Penn pull down a public video that has political implications?" Was one of the questions. Because they're a bunch of liberals is why, and because their truth was exposed. It was major. They tried to pull it down.
Anyway, they ended up having to put it back up because they began to look like fools, thinking that they could put back in the bottle the genie that had already been released. You can't do that. So they put it back up. But it was funny to watch 'em scramble around, folks, like turning on the lights and a bunch of rats in the barn going nuts at being exposed and discovered. They tried to turn the lights back off and it didn't work.
Speaking of Obamacare, the Washington Post is, on its best day, hapless. The Washington Post is an absolute sorry excuse for what it used to be. But even with that, they continue to set new standards for incompetence and bias and just being plain wrong. There's a story by Jose DelReal: "Obamacare Consultant Under Fire for 'Stupidity of the American Voter' Comment." Now, this reporter is obviously just a Democrat with a press pass, which is what most of them at the New York Times and the Washington Post are. They're Democrats disguised as journalists. Give them a little press pass, let 'em go there, pretend to be reporters and so forth.
He sells whatever is left of his journalistic soul in this piece. Let me give you just one pull quote from it, as they're still trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Now, remember, this is for their liberal readers, Washington Post, liberal reader base, New York Times, same thing. They're trying to calm their reader base. This is not a big deal, don't worry. Gruber didn't screw it up for everybody. It's okay, it's okay, trying to calm everybody down.
Listen to this quote from the story: "Gruber's remarks have been greeted by the law's critics as an admission of intentionally deceiving the American public about the law in 2010. But given the context of the remarks, Gruber seems to be speaking specifically about how and why the law's funding mechanisms were framed when the law was being written."
This guy thinks he's helping Gruber by saying that, and he is hammering another nail in the coffin. Jose, that is exactly the point! People were deceived about the funding mechanism. That was the key, key, key to getting it passed. How the thing was gonna be paid for was the key to it getting passed. Oh, and the lie to Bart Stupak about it not funding abortions.
But the way this thing was being funded, the way it was gonna be paid for, the way it wasn't gonna cost anybody anything, the way it was gonna allow people to keep their doctors and keep their plans and lower their premiums and their deductibles? That was key to this thing getting passed, and he writes (summarized), "Well, if you read the context, if you're given the context of Professor Gruber's remarks...
"He seems to be speaking specifically about how and why the law's funding mechanisms were framed," lied about. This guy's trying to get this guy out of a jam, and he digs a deeper hole! But remember, he's dealing with his own liberal-Democrat reader base, and they are looking for holes to be dragged out of. So they'll take anything that they can get. "Economist Jonathan Gruber, one of the Regime's consultants on the..."
He was not a consultant. He was the architect, Jose. He "is under attack from conservatives for comments he made last year in which he seemingly said," and then he quotes (laughing), "the stupidity of the American voter." Seemingly? Seemingly said? He didn't "seemingly" say it. He stated unambiguously that they had to lie about this thing because of "the stupidity of the American people."
Actually if you examine that, I think really what he means is, "We had to lie because of the intelligence of the American people. We had to lie to them, otherwise they would have seen what we intended to do." That means they're pretty smart, when you get right down to it, and that's what bothers them. Now, that's not to say that Gruber and his ilk on the left and in the Democrat Party do not consider you and American voters to be a bunch of stiffs and stupid.
It doesn't mean they don't still hold you in contempt.
But what he's really saying is, "We had to lie. We had to lie, because they're too stupid... No, they're too smart, actually. They would see what really is intended here unless we lie." So you relied on what you thought was their stupid gullibility to believe your lie, is what you were relying on. And it's 2010, so there's still some residual messianic attitudes about Obama in 2010. So that's what they were relying on.
Anyway, it's CYA time at the Washington Post. But it's not over for the bad news about Obamacare. From the Washington Times: "Obamacare May Not Have Enough Enrollees to Stay Solvent -- Fewer than 10 million projected; 13 million needed to stay solvent. The [Regime] on Monday said fewer than 10 million Americans will enroll in Obamacare's health exchanges this go-around, well short of the 13 million target congressional scorekeepers deemed critical to its economics..."
Meaning: They've gotta have 13 million people paying premiums through the nose in order to fund this thing. It suggests "another rocky rollout in the law's second year of full operation," and it's next week (chuckling) when the mandate hits. It's next week when the next wave of unforeseen expenses hit everybody.
"Policy advisers at the Health & Human Services Department estimated that 9 million to 9.9 million people would enroll through the exchanges -- or only a slight increase over the 8 million that the [Regime] says were active at the end of the first enrollment period this April. The Congressional Budget Office, which is the government's official scorekeeper, had predicted the law would need 13 million customers on the exchanges. ...
"'Under the president's health care law, Americans have experienced broken exchanges, canceled coverage, higher premiums and unaffordable deductibles,' said Rep. Darrell E. Issa, California Republican and chairman of the House oversight committee... 'Despite the administration’s habit of moving the goal posts, the fact is Obamacare is simply not delivering the results Americans were originally promised by the president.'"
Neither is anything else, and this the American people know, which explains the election results this past Tuesday. "The number of enrollees is key, because if too few take part in the exchanges, the pool of customers is too small, and it could skew the economics of Obamacare, forcing insurers to raise premiums and pushing even more people to forgo coverage, choosing to pay the tax penalty instead," the FINE.
Stop and think of something here. We have Obamacare. It was gonna save the day. It was gonna insure all the uninsured. It was gonna make sure that the previous existing condition people were covered. It was gonna be magic, right? Now, what are we talking about here? They're hoping to get 13 million people?
How many people are in this country, 250 million adults, 220? What is it? I don't care, 10 million, 13 million. It's chump change. It's nothing. They got 8.8 million the first go round? We're nowhere near mass adoption of this. You know, there's a new group of people elected in the House of Representatives that just been handed another golden opportunity here.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's the truth of the matter, folks. If the American people were stupid, the Democrats would still run the Senate and maybe even the House of Representatives. If the American people were stupid. This, by the way, really grates on the Democrats, believe me, 'cause if the American people were stupid -- meaning falling for all the lies -- the Republicans wouldn't have been elected.
It is elitism that is ignorant because it's arrogant and conceited, and Jonathan Gruber is an elitist and therefore has no idea what life is really like for all the people he's out there writing legislation for. All he knows is that they're stupid, and they can't deal with the truth. They don't know what's best for 'em. So in order to give them what's best for them (Obamacare), we have to lie to them.
The American people are just a bunch of idiots.
So lies got Barack Obama elected, twice. Corrupt politics got Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote. But this brilliant economist, Jonathan Gruber, wasn't smart enough to make Obamacare popular. Imagine that! If the American people were so stupid, they could have been talked into how wonderfully great this legislation is and they'd been out there signing up.
They'd be going nuts, throwing parties, talking about how they've all got free health care, but the American people are not that stupid and didn't fall for this. Obamacare has never enjoyed majority public support. You really can't outsmart free markets for very long. Reality eventually sets in and the lies end up uncovered. Markets work. Be they intellectual markets or economic markets, they work.
But you know what's really tied up in all this? The people of this country trusted Barack Obama, and in 2010 they still did. They thought they had created a moment in world history: Electing the first African-American president in a country that had featured slavery in its distant past. They trusted Obama. He was gonna fix everything. He was a new kind of man, a new kind of politician.
But not to me.
Folks, what's happened here is exactly why we have to go after the credibility these Democrats -- this includes Hillary -- before they are elected and it demonstrates itself.
We have to go after their credibility.
We have to just because we know we're right!
We can't afford to elect 'em anymore.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: So here comes Dana Milbank at the fledgling Washington Post, same thing's happening to them: "Why Obamacare Risks Falling into a 'Death Spiral' -- So it turns out there is an Obamacare death panel after all." See, there is. There are death panels, but this guy continues to deny the truth. You're not smart enough to deal with the reality of what a death panel really is. Sarah Palin came along and blew the whole thing by correctly naming the advisory board that determines who gets treatment and who doesn't. That's a death panel. That was one of those truths that the Obamacare architects could not allow out there. So they had to attack her, destroy her, again, and anybody else that picked up the mantra.
So on the left they continue living in their fantasy world, that Obamacare is not what it is. And what they don't understand is the whole country is away ahead of 'em. This stupid bunch of Americans are way ahead of the Drive-By Media, which is caught twisting and turning in the past trying to save an already ruined presidency. Well, ruined in the popular way presidencies are judged, presidential approval, blah, blah, blah. In terms of actual accomplishments that are attached to Obama's real goal, it's a very successful administration, transforming the country. But I don't want to get too intricate for this purpose here.
Dana Milbank is worried about the Supreme Court. That's the death panel for Obamacare. Oh, yeah. "It has nine members and it operates out of a marble building directly across the street from the Capitol. When the Supreme Court on Friday announced that it would take up another challenge to the Affordable Care Act in March, it delivered the threat of two mortal blows to the signature achievement of the Obama presidency. First, it raised the possibility that the justices, who narrowly spared the law in 2012, will in June come out with a new ruling that would dismantle the law on different grounds."
You know what a real threat or fear that the left has about this? They know that Obamacare is unconstitutional. They've known it since it was written. Gruber lets the cat out of the bag by saying we had to lie and we had to cover the transparency because of the stupidity of the American people. In other words, we had to lie in order to get this thing passed, because if people knew what it really was, it wouldn't stand the light of day, it wouldn't stand a chance.
The unconstitutionality is the Commerce Clause and the fact that the federal government can't force to you buy anything. They can't force you to buy anything. So that begot the argument, is it a mandate, is it a tax? The federal government can tax. But, no, it's not a tax. It's a fine. If you don't buy insurance, we're gonna fine you. They can't! The Fourth Amendment. They can't. However -- and this is the fear the left has -- they know that the Supreme Court just didn't want to go there. I mean, it was the first black president. It was a major signature legislation and it was for health care for the poor, and, okay, we'll look the other way.
So John Roberts did some finagling and found a way to make this thing sound constitutional. But the left knows that a whole bunch of chicanery took place. They know they're hanging by a thread. They know they're on thin ice here, and they know that a lot of justices -- well, they don't know, but I suspect they fear a lot of justices have been chomping at the bit for a second go round at this thing, 'cause it isn't constitutional, folks. If we were in a totally objective, nonpartisan, sane world, this law would have been struck down inside of three hours of it arriving at the Supreme Court.
The federal government simply cannot demand that we buy things. It's right there in the Commerce Clause in the Fourth Amendment. They cannot do it. Ways were achieved to mask what is really happening by calling these things fines if you don't buy it, blah, blah. So they know they're hanging by a thread, and they know they may be even on borrowed time. And now the court, the Supreme Court, decided to hear the case again, this time over subsidies. This is an area that in an objective, black and white, sane world, the Regime doesn't have a prayer.
The point of this is real simple. The only subsidies for Obamacare are available at state exchanges. Well, as you recall, most states did not set one up, and therefore the people in those states, according to the law, had no way of getting subsidized Obamacare. And, believe me, subsidized is the only way the vast majority of Americans can afford it, because it's so damned expensive. Subsidies meaning taxpayers pay a greater portion of your policy than you do. So when this eventuated, when the states, Republican governors in these states refused to set up exchanges, that left a whole lot of people out of the subsidies, and that just wasn't -- oh, we can't allow that politically. I mean, that would be political disaster for Obama.
He's out there promising everything's gonna get cheaper. He's promising the uninsured are gonna get insured. He's promising don't worry about what it costs, gonna be subsidized, except most people don't live in a state with an exchange. Oh, no. So the federal government violated its own law and set up its own exchanges, which, whoever wrote this law, Gruber, stupidly left in that the federal government could not set up its own exchanges. They had to be set up in the states.
By the way, there was a purpose for that.
That was to shift as much of the cost off to the states as they could to keep the overall final number under that precious $3 trillion figure. So Obamacare was written in a way to dump as much cost off to the states as possible, and that's when the governors said, "Unh-uh! We're not just gonna sit here and accept these new costs. We can't print money like you can."
So they didn't set up the exchanges.
It's the unintended consequences. The liberals think the people are just a bunch of sheep and whatever legislation comes down they're gonna abide by it and not find ways around it. Well, when they figured out that a whole bunch of people were not gonna be qualified for subsidies, the federal government violated Obamacare and created their own exchanges...
That's what the Supreme Court's gonna hear. The Supreme Court's essentially gonna hear: Are those subsidies that are being provided by the federal government constitutional? Are they part of the law, or has this whole thing been turned upside down? As Milbank writes about it, "But even if the justices make no such ruling," meaning, striking it down, "the very act of taking up the challenge to the law will itself undermine the law."
So Milbank is in fatalistic, defeatist mode because all the court had to do was take the case and that undermines it. If they'd have just flat-out rejected it, fine and dandy. But the Supreme Court has taken the case. They're gonna hear it; they're gonna have an opinion. It doesn't matter what the opinion is. The very fact they're taking the case undermines it. Why? Because Milbank and these people know that this thing is a crock.
Gruber and everybody lied about it. They created a bunch of falsehoods in it. It's unsupportable economically. The American people don't want it! But that doesn't matter to them. They want it. They want you subjected to it, subordinated to it -- and the very idea that the court's gonna look at it again is just gonna create (in the minds of all these stupid Americans) the idea that something's wrong with the law, and we can't have that.
"We've gotta get people finally accepting this and ignoring this and moving on to other things! The more attention on Obamacare, the greater the opportunity everybody's gonna find out the fraud that is in it." That's why they're quaking today. Just the fact that the case is being accepted, taken up by the court, has got them scared to death. And it has them scared because they know what a house of cards this thing is, folks.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Peter in Reno, Nevada, heading back to the phones. Great to have you, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hey, Rush. How are you? First-time caller.
RUSH: Great to have you here, sir. Thank you.
CALLER: Great. Regarding the professor's comments, Gruber, the only people that had to be fooled were every Democrat in the House and every Democrat in the Senate. Every Republican voted against it. The only ones apparently dumb enough to fall for it was every single Democrat.
RUSH: Well, I..
CALLER: And Biden.
RUSH: I know the point that you're trying to make, that the Democrats in Congress are idiots, too, but I don't ascribe Gruber's comments to them. They are part of the group participating in the fraud, sir. The Democrats in the House and the Democrats in the Senate who voted for this thing, they're not victims of the administration lying to them. They knew exactly what this was! They were coconspirators in this.
They knew exactly what was on tap here. They were just as eager for this thing to pass as Obama and Gruber and Ezekiel Emanuel and anybody else involved in this at the top tiers. They were not victims. They were not stupid. They knew exactly what they were voting for. They knew exactly what they were voting on. They knew exactly how to tell the lies. They knew exactly what to lie about. They were in on it. What the election proves is they didn't get away with it.
The American people are much smarter than the Democrats give them credit for.
END TRANSCRIPT
-
"Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."
Barack Obama, January 2009.
See him say it for yourself.
This is HUGE. It proves that Obamacare is premised on lies. And it proves more than that.
Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber:
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass… Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”
Here' that video again:
So how does it feel, Obama voters? How does it feel knowing that Obama counted on you being stupid and that you came through?
Over at The Hill Elise Viebeck characterizes it this way:
"The clip is generating significant attention in conservative media."
No shit. The question is, why isn't all of the media interested in this?
Answer? Because they are stupid. They are useful idiots.
Candy Crowley? VERY useful idiot:
Romney: Yeah, I -- I certainly do. I certainly do. I -- I think it's interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.
Obama: Please proceed.
Romney: Is that what you're saying?
Obama: Please proceed, Governor.
Romney: I -- I -- I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
Obama: Get the transcript.
Crowley: It -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me call it an act of terrorism -- (inaudible)
Obama: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)
Crowley: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.
Jeff Dunetz notes:
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
TOPICS: Government; Politics; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: gruber; obama; obamacare; Click to Add Keyword
Click The Pic To Donate
Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/12/another-video-of-obamacare-architect-jonathan-gruber-calling-american-voters-stupid-surfaces
And another one emerges
-
Liberals Try to Cover Up for Obamacare Architect
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | November 11, 2014 | Rush Limbaugh
Rush is right. Libs are carrying the water for Obamacare here.
-
Rush is right. Libs are carrying the water for Obamacare here.
Libfags carry water for every Obama disgrace
-
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/12/another-video-of-obamacare-architect-jonathan-gruber-calling-american-voters-stupid-surfaces
And another one emerges
(http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1443/7805/original.jpg?w=600&h)
-
LOL @ congress not even TRYING to impeach a dictator.
They woudl have probably been soft on similar dictators like Stalin or Mussolini.
-
LOL @ congress not even TRYING to impeach a dictator.
They woudl have probably been soft on similar dictators like Stalin or Mussolini.
Somehow I think you are going to be hammering away on this subject all the way until the day before he leaves office. :D
-
Obama is a historical disgrace and embarrassment. He should and would be jailed if it were any other time but the pussy GOP and feckless communist demos afraid to lose the 95er vote wont do it
-
In Third Video, Obamacare Architect Talks About ‘Basic Exploitation’ Of American Voters [VIDEO]
Daily Caller ^ | November 12, 2014 | Chuck Ross
Posted on 11/12/2014 10:48:09 AM by C19fan
A third video has surfaced of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber bragging about pulling the wool over the eyes of the American public in order to help implement Obamacare.
“It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter,” Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said during a speech at the University of Rhode Island in November 2012.
He was discussing what is known as the Cadillac tax and how it came into being.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
-
BAUCUS: CBO Claims of Lower Premiums Came from Gruber [2009 FLASHBACK]
C-SPAN ^ | December 9, 2009 | Sen. Max Baucus
Posted on 11/12/2014 6:54:09 AM by Oldeconomybuyer
In addition to CBO, MIT's Jon Gruber has also done a study on premiums. And what does he conclude? He concludes, using Congressional Budget Office data, the Senate bill could mean people purchasing individual insurance would save every year $200 for single coverage and $500 for family coverage in 2009 dollars. Most people think he is one of the best outside experts. He has big computer models. He takes the CBO data and, in some respects, he has helped CBO by giving some information to CBO that it otherwise does not have.
Mr. Gruber also points out that people with low incomes would receive premium tax credits that will reduce the price they pay for health insurance by as much as $2,500 to $7,500.
The Congressional Budget Office and Professor Gruber are both credible and unbiased sources that are not bought and sold by the insurance industry. The Congressional Budget Office and MIT's Gruber have confirmed what many of us have known: that the bill before us will lower premiums and provide a great many options for more comprehensive coverage.
(Excerpt) Read more at c-span.org ...
-
Skip to comments.
Progressives Had To Lie To Pass Obamacare
http://leomcneil.net/2014/11/12/progressives-had-to-lie-to-pass-obamacare/ ^ | November 12, 2014 | Leo McNeil
Posted on 11/12/2014 7:50:02 AM by LeoMcNeil
MIT economist Johnathan Gruber is the architect of both Romneycare and Obamacare. Speaking to a group of like minded progressives last year Gruber declared that “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.” He went on to declare “and basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.” He’s referencing, in part, the Obamacare tax. The administration and the Democrats had to hide from the American people to true cost of Obamacare. If voters knew the cost they wouldn’t support Obamacare. Thus it had to be hidden from the public and the Democrats could hide the truth because the public is to stupid to figure it out.
Gruber has since apologized for calling voters stupid. Such an apology is hollow and meaningless. By not calling the individual mandate a tax, the Democrats saved themselves from a massive CBO score on tax costs. Had the CBO scored Obamacare with the individual mandate tax, the Democrats wouldn’t have been able to push through the law. Gruber admits that the country was lied to and he admits that progressive Democrats believe we were to stupid to figure it all out. Interestingly the public has never supported Obamacare and never believed all of the pie in the sky figures about it. The Democrats lost two midterm elections, in part because of Obamacare. In the very least flipping 64 House seats in 2010 is sufficient evidence that the public isn’t quite as stupid as the progressives believe we are.
Gruber acknowledges what we’ve always known about progressives. The ends justify the means. For people like Gruber and Obama, it’s okay to lie to the public if it’s for the right cause. In the case of Obamacare, they apparently believe this was a right enough cause to lie to the public about. Of course the individual mandate tax isn’t the only thing they lied about, they’ve also lied about how many people would actually sign up for Obamacare. For the CBO they estimated 13 million would sign up in the second year. Earlier this week they predicted 9-10 million. With fewer actually enrolled, it’s unlikely Obamacare will come anywhere near breaking even. Had the CBO scored Obamacare with fewer predicted enrollees, the cost would have been to great for the Democrats to push it through Congress. Of course who could forget Obama’s absurd claims that Obamacare would reduce premiums by $2,500 or that we would be able to keep our doctor. Like the Obamacare tax, the progressives knew all along these claims weren’t true but they claimed them anyway because the ends justify the means.
The nice thing about Obamacare is that it has exposed the progressives for the lying manipulators they are. For all the excitement around hope and change in 2008, the public has soured on big government progressiveness. Obamacare alone has given us the individual mandate tax that we were lied to about. The government couldn’t get a website up and running last year in time for their open enrollment period. It took them months to fix the problem despite having three years to build the website and despite months of claiming everything was fine. This year they’re trying to come up with contingency plans because they’re still not confident the website will be able to handle all of their anticipated traffic. Between all of the lying and incompetence, Obamacare remains as unpopular today as it was when it was passed.
No doubt the progressives will tell us everything is working out great with Obamacare. There’s no reason to trust these people, they’re admitted liars. The Obamacare house of cards is going to topple one way or another. Either the Supreme Court will rule that subsidies aren’t available to people buying on the Federal exchange (the law specifically limits subsidies to purchasers on state exchanges only) which will topple the whole law or it will collapse because insurance companies start losing massive amounts of money due to the fact that people aren’t buying policies. More specifically the right people aren’t buying policies, those being the young and healthy. Had the progressives told us the truth about Obamacare, the bill never would have passed. For them the ends justify the means but you have to wonder if the entire law collapses whether that end will be worth the means. Single payer is highly unlikely at this point and the credibility of big government progressives has been shot. In the end, will it have been worth it?
-
Why is the Strawman silent on this one? I guess he can't cherry pick the argument and display his house of cards as he would like.
-
Has the MSM jumped all over this story yet?
-
Has the MSM jumped all over this story yet?
Mika this morning was sort of shell shocked about it having to admit how bad we have been lied to.
-
Mika this morning was sort of shell shocked about it having to admit how bad we have been lied to.
Well that's a start.
-
Krauthammer: Obamacare Deception "Exactly What Conservatives Have Been Saying For Years," "True Voice Of Liberal Arrogance"
Please upgrade your browser to view HTML 5 content
Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer ripped Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber and other supporters of healthcare reform for their "liberal arrogance" and "deception" when it came to passing the legislation on Tuesday's broadcast of FOX News' O'Reilly Factor. Krauthammer said supporters believed Americans are stupid and deception was the only way to "lead the masses to the promised land."
"This is exactly what conservatives have been saying for four years, what we're hearing now is the true voice of liberal arrogance," Krauthammer said. "They believe this. They believe that the voters are stupid, as he said. And they believe that they know the right way, they have to lead the masses to the promised land and they can only do it by deception."
Krauthammer also said this is a "scandal of the media" for not exposing what the bill really was, a massive transfer of wealth.
"They lied about every aspect of this," Krauthammer said. "That is what has been charged all along and it is a scandal of the media that this has to be discovered in the sixth year of the presidency rather than talked about at the time when it was obvious they were lying about all this. The idea of it being a transfer of wealth was known from the beginning, but they got away with it."
BILL O'REILLY: Obamacare. Now you heard the MIT guy [Jonathan] Gruber saying, you know what? We conned everybody. They weren't paying attention. They don't really care. And it's not what it was sold as. And you say?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: This is exactly what conservatives have been saying for four years, what we're hearing now is the true voice of liberal arrogance. They believe this. They believe that the voters are stupid, as he said. And they believe that they know the right way, they have to lead the masses to the promised land and they can only do it by deception. And that's what he said openly. We wanted to get the bill. We didn't care about how we did it so we lied about everything. We lied about if you can keep the plan knowing that you can't keep your plan. We lied about the fact that this would be a transfer of wealth, a massive transfer of wealth because, as Gruber said, had they known that, it would never have passed. They lied about every aspect of this. And I think that is what has been charged all along and it is a scandal of the media that this has to be discovered in the sixth year of the presidency rather than talked about at the time when it was obvious they were lying about all this. The idea of it being a transfer of wealth was known from the beginning, but they got away with it.
O'REILLY: But really they didn't get away with it because the new Congress is going to gut the bill, and if there's a new president who is a Republican -- and I even think if Hillary Clinton is elected president, they'll have to redo Obamacare because they're going to tie it around her neck, particularly in a debate situation, around Mrs. Clinton's neck. Are you supporting this? Would you change it? Tell us how. So I don't thing Obamacare is going to last a long time in this country, Charles.
KRAUTHAMMER: Well, I don't either. I do think probably the fatal blow will come from the Supreme Court. That's the key thing. In June we will get a ruling on whether the government is allowed to offer subsidies from the federal Obamacare exchange. Without that, it collapses.
-
99% of liberals are communists at heart. That's why. This is why these fuck sticks need to go to NK and FNG leave the rest of us alone.
source?
-
source?
Really? That's your question in this thread? Not outrage over the fact the president's people (and likely the president himself) think you are stupid? That they admitted lying to you to get the bill passed?
-
Somehow I think you are going to be hammering away on this subject all the way until the day before he leaves office. :D
I think impeachment must be OFF THE TABLE for EVERY PRESIDENT, EVER!
Because obama committed his crimes in 2009. And for almost 5 years, repubs have bitching but done nothing about it. He's not even HALFWAY thru his second term, but no, it's too late now? Imagine if, ONE YEAR into her eight-year presidency, Hilary ships a million guns to Ukraine or Syria or maybe some rebel group in USA bent on killing americans... are yall gonna keep on saying "but no, we cant, but no, we cant..."
At some point, a crime is a crime and you prosecute, even if you may not win. Shit, I cannot believe enforcement of the fucking LAW is so low on republicans to-do list. Yes, we need fifty bills on this morality wedge issue or that, KNOWING we aren't going to win any of them, but noooooo can't do that with impeachement.
-
I have never hesitated to say that most people are morons and that they are stupid in America. I wish more people would say it. They used to in the past.
http://www.greatbooks.org/index.php?id=301
The Natural Aristocracy by Thomas Jefferson
To John Adams
Monticello, October 28, 1813
I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly, bodily powers gave place among the aristoi [aristocrats]. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness, and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground for distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy, founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed, it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say, that that form of government is the best, which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendency.…I think the best remedy is exactly that provided by all our constitutions, to leave to the citizens the free election and separation of the aristoi from the pseudo-aristoi [pseudoaristocrats], of the wheat from the chaff. In general they will elect the really good and wise. In some instances, wealth may corrupt, and birth blind them, but not in sufficient degree to endanger the society.
…At the first session of our legislature after the Declaration of Independence, we passed a law abolishing entails [limitations on the inheritance of property to a specified succession of heirs]. And this was followed by one abolishing the privilege of primogeniture [the eldest child’s exclusive right of inheritance], and dividing the lands of intestates equally among all their children, or other representatives. These laws, drawn by myself, laid the ax to the foot of pseudoaristocracy. And had another which I prepared been adopted by the legislature, our work would have been complete. It was a bill for the more general diffusion of learning. This proposed to divide every county into wards of five or six miles square, like your townships; to establish in each ward a free school for reading, writing, and common arithmetic; to provide for the annual selection of the best subjects from these schools, who might receive, at the public expense, a higher degree of education at a district school; and from these district schools to select a certain number of the most promising subjects, to be completed at a university, where all the useful sciences should be taught. Worth and genius would thus have been sought out from every condition of life, and completely prepared by education for defeating the competition of wealth and birth for public trusts….
With respect to aristocracy, we should further consider, that before the establishment of the American States, nothing was known to history but the man of the old world, crowded within limits either small or overcharged, and steeped in the vices which that situation generates. A government adapted to such men would be one thing, but a very different one, that for the man of these States. Here every one may have land to labor for himself, if he chooses; or, preferring the exercise of any other industry, may exact for it such compensation as not only to afford a comfortable subsistence, but wherewith to provide for a cessation from labor in old age. Every one, by his property, or by his satisfactory situation, is interested in the support of law and order. And such men may safely and advantageously reserve to themselves a wholesome control over their public affairs, and a degree of freedom, which, in the hands of the canaille [the masses] of the cities of Europe, would be instantly perverted to the demolition and destruction of everything public and private. The history of the last twenty-five years of France, and of the last forty years in America, nay of its last two hundred years, proves the truth of both parts of this observation.
But even in Europe a change has sensibly taken place in the mind of man. Science had liberated the ideas of those who read and reflect, and the American example had kindled feelings of right in the people. An insurrection has consequently begun, of science, talents, and courage, against rank and birth, which have fallen into contempt. It has failed in its first effort, because the mobs of the cities, the instrument used for its accomplishment, debased by ignorance, poverty, and vice, could not be restrained to rational action. But the world will recover from the panic of this first catastrophe. Science is progressive, and talents and enterprise on the alert. Resort may be had to the people of the country, a more governable power from their principles and subordination; and rank, and birth, and tinsel-aristocracy will finally shrink into insignificance, even there. This, however, we have no right to meddle with. It suffices for us, if the moral and physical condition of our own citizens qualifies them to select the able and good for the direction of their government, with a recurrence of elections at such short periods as will enable them to displace an unfaithful servant, before the mischief he meditates may be irremediable.
…A constitution has been acquired, which, though neither of us thinks perfect, yet both consider as competent to render our fellow citizens the happiest and the securest on whom the sun has ever shone. If we do not think exactly alike as to its imperfections, it matters little to our country, which, after devoting to it long lives of disinterested labor, we have delivered over to our successors in life, who will be able to take care of it and of themselves.
-
Really? That's your question in this thread? Not outrage over the fact the president's people (and likely the president himself) think you are stupid? That they admitted lying to you to get the bill passed?
me commenting on this would mean i would have to comment everytime politics bait and switch. I was silent on the WMD bait and switch that affected millions of Americans for the most part as i remain silent on this horseshit. Ive always said...on this board.. that obamacare sucks and it should have been a shit or get off the pot thing. Universal healthcare for all has always been my stance as i hate to see other Americans suffer for profit. Its sickening.
What looks like push back from me is when we have some members of this board omitting facts to preach a political ideal. That totally sucks
-
me commenting on this would mean i would have to comment everytime politics bait and switch. I was silent on the WMD bait and switch that affected millions of Americans for the most part as i remain silent on this horseshit. Ive always said...on this board.. that obamacare sucks and it should have been a shit or get off the pot thing. Universal healthcare for all has always been my stance as i hate to see other Americans suffer for profit. Its sickening.
What looks like push back from me is when we have some members of this board omitting facts to preach a political ideal. That totally sucks
If that's the case then why did you ask Soul Crusher for proof of his claim that 99 percent of liberals are communists at heart? Why do you care about that source and not the fact your government thinks you are stupid and admitted lying to you?
-
If that's the case then why did you ask Soul Crusher for proof of his claim that 99 percent of liberals are communists at heart? Why do you care about that source and not the fact your government thinks you are stupid and admitted lying to you?
Now this is you attempting to prioritize for me? I would like him to back up his claim as it involves numbers and has to be based on Something.
I dont care about the Govt lying because thats what goverment does...it lies.. This isnt the first lie of the government that affected millions, its just the one you give a shit about as it supports your "obama and dems suck mantra". Inconsistancy at its best to be honest. As the WMDs (or lack there of) didnt make a blip on your radar as it forces you to call repubs and Bush a liar and blah blah....
Not speaking of you per se, but to those that actually subscribe to the "us vs them" politics of the day, that in the history of America, has gotten nothing done but comfort those poor souls that lack self confidence as well as self actualization and need to "belong" to something that gives them a clear directive and set of thoughts and ideals behind.
-
Now this is you attempting to prioritize for me? I would like him to back up his claim as it involves numbers and has to be based on Something.
I dont care about the Govt lying because thats what goverment does...it lies.. This isnt the first lie of the government that affected millions, its just the one you give a shit about as it supports your "obama and dems suck mantra". Inconsistancy at its best to be honest. As the WMDs (or lack there of) didnt make a blip on your radar as it forces you to call repubs and Bush a liar and blah blah....
Not speaking of you per se, but to those that actually subscribe to the "us vs them" politics of the day, that in the history of America, has gotten nothing done but comfort those poor souls that lack self confidence as well as self actualization and need to "belong" to something that gives them a clear directive and set of thoughts and ideals behind.
Yet you still support Obama - you = FAIL FAIl FAIL
Shame on you
-
Yet you still support Obama - you = FAIL FAIl FAIL
Shame on you
says who?
-
Now this is you attempting to prioritize for me? I would like him to back up his claim as it involves numbers and has to be based on Something.
I dont care about the Govt lying because thats what goverment does...it lies.. This isnt the first lie of the government that affected millions, its just the one you give a shit about as it supports your "obama and dems suck mantra". Inconsistancy at its best to be honest. As the WMDs (or lack there of) didnt make a blip on your radar as it forces you to call repubs and Bush a liar and blah blah....
Not speaking of you per se, but to those that actually subscribe to the "us vs them" politics of the day, that in the history of America, has gotten nothing done but comfort those poor souls that lack self confidence as well as self actualization and need to "belong" to something that gives them a clear directive and set of thoughts and ideals behind.
Not at all. Just asking a question because you contradicted yourself.
I don't have an "Obama and dems suck mantra." I mean they do suck, but I just call things as I see them. I don't need to call anyone out on WMDs, because Republicans and Democrats, from Clinton through Bush, all believed and sold the same thing. We have beaten that to death here. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the lies told to pass Obamacare.
The fact people ignore this and repeatedly take it up the tailpipe is precisely why things like this keep happening.
-
Not at all. Just asking a question because you contradicted yourself.
I don't have an "Obama and dems suck mantra." I mean they do suck, but I just call things as I see them. I don't need to call anyone out on WMDs, because Republicans and Democrats, from Clinton through Bush, all believed and sold the same thing. We have beaten that to death here. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the lies told to pass Obamacare.
The fact people ignore this and repeatedly take it up the tailpipe is precisely why things like this keep happening.
1. I didnt contradict myself, you made a leap and a false equivalent to me understanding the well known fact that the govt lies and asking 333 for proof of a statement.
2. WMDs and Obamacare are both examples of lies from the government. Not the first or the last
-
1. I didnt contradict myself, you made a leap and a false equivalent to me understanding the well known fact that the govt lies and asking 333 for proof of a statement.
2. WMDs and Obamacare are both examples of lies from the government. Not the first or the last
Actually, they did find WMD, but kept it quiet.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq
Do Reports of WMD Found in Iraq Vindicate George W. Bush?
WMD were found in Iraq but does it matter?
-
Actually, they did find WMD, but kept it quiet.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq
Do Reports of WMD Found in Iraq Vindicate George W. Bush?
WMD were found in Iraq but does it matter?
Didnt check these links but im sure theyre valid if your posting them. With the information known at the time, There were no WMDs found which is why the objective of the invasion was altered from WMDs to Iraqi freedom.
-
1. I didnt contradict myself, you made a leap and a false equivalent to me understanding the well known fact that the govt lies and asking 333 for proof of a statement.
2. WMDs and Obamacare are both examples of lies from the government. Not the first or the last
1. You said "me commenting on this would mean i would have to comment every time politics bait and switch." That was right after you asked SC for proof that 99 percent of liberals are communists at heart. So maybe I stand corrected: you don't want to comment when your government lies to you, but when you think an internet stranger lies about something, you're all over it. Perhaps that isn't inconsistent (I think it is), but it is sort of twisted.
2. WMDs are not an example of lies from the government. The way Obamacare was sold absolutely is. But even if we assume both were lies, one doesn't justify the other. Neither moral equivalency (which is what you are doing) nor ignoring them (which is what you are also doing by your own admission) helps. I'm not saying you are personally responsible for the government lying about Obamacare, but this plugging of the ears by people when it happens, repeatedly, gives those folks license to keep doing it. There really is no accountability. Unless a conservative tells a lie or makes a mistake, then the MSM is all over it.
-
1. You said "me commenting on this would mean i would have to comment every time politics bait and switch." That was right after you asked SC for proof that 99 percent of liberals are communists at heart. So maybe I stand corrected: you don't want to comment when your government lies to you, but when you think an internet stranger lies about something, you're all over it. Perhaps that isn't inconsistent (I think it is), but it is sort of twisted.
2. WMDs are not an example of lies from the government. The Obamacare was sold absolutely is. But even if we assume both were lies, one doesn't justify the other. Neither moral equivalency (which is what you are doing) nor ignoring them (which is what you are also doing by your own admission) helps. I'm not saying you are personally responsible for the government lying about Obamacare, but this plugging of the ears by people when it happens, repeatedly, gives those folks license to keep doing it. There really is no accountability. Unless a conservative tells a lie or makes a mistake, then the MSM is all over it.
Again.. i assume the government lies...a lot... which is why commenting on it is a waste of keystrokes. The govt lied to write soooooooo many lies its not funny. From slavery, to prohibition to drugs. Govt lies, laws are passed, and people are affected.
So its neither here nor there for me. I would be here all day listing shit the govt did.
Now me asking 333 for proof of the 99% is just wanting proof
the lies of the government follows this pattern,
Govt makes Claim as reason for a law-evidence supporting claim is presented- new evidence refuting claim is presented-exposing old evidence as a lie or doctored-Lie confirmed.
So what more is there to say if you already understand the government lies.
ok heres a comment "aww bro thats fucked up..the government lied....like they always do, like i expected"
Me asking 3333 for proof is only in the "evidence supporting claim" stage
-
Again.. i assume the government lies...a lot... which is why commenting on it is a waste of keystrokes. The govt lied to write soooooooo many lies its not funny. From slavery, to prohibition to drugs. Govt lies, laws are passed, and people are affected.
So its neither here nor there for me. I would be here all day listing shit the govt did.
Now me asking 333 for proof of the 99% is just wanting proof
the lies of the government follows this pattern,
Govt makes Claim as reason for a law-evidence supporting claim is presented- new evidence refuting claim is presented-exposing old evidence as a lie or doctored-Lie confirmed.
So what more is there to say if you already understand the government lies.
ok heres a comment "aww bro thats fucked up..the government lied....like they always do, like i expected"
Me asking 3333 for proof is only in the "evidence supporting claim" stage
Don't you think the public and the media enable government to keep lying when we don't hold them accountable?
-
Hey fool - you voted for o-Kenya 2x over - Good job idiot. The pos you defended lied to you many times and you still worship him - great job moron. Serious - takes a special type of stupid to be like you.
Again.. i assume the government lies...a lot... which is why commenting on it is a waste of keystrokes. The govt lied to write soooooooo many lies its not funny. From slavery, to prohibition to drugs. Govt lies, laws are passed, and people are affected.
So its neither here nor there for me. I would be here all day listing shit the govt did.
Now me asking 333 for proof of the 99% is just wanting proof
the lies of the government follows this pattern,
Govt makes Claim as reason for a law-evidence supporting claim is presented- new evidence refuting claim is presented-exposing old evidence as a lie or doctored-Lie confirmed.
So what more is there to say if you already understand the government lies.
ok heres a comment "aww bro thats fucked up..the government lied....like they always do, like i expected"
Me asking 3333 for proof is only in the "evidence supporting claim" stage
-
Don't you think the public and the media enable government to keep lying when we don't hold them accountable?
Ah haaaa now were moving on... very good...
Holding the government accountable when the lies on one side are high lighted and on the other side silenced....and vice versa, depending on which party youre affiliated.
-
Ah haaaa now were moving on... very good...
Holding the government accountable when the lies on one side are high lighted and on the other side silenced....and vice versa, depending on which party youre affiliated.
Except that doesn't happen, unless you're talking about how misconduct by liberals is often buried, while every mistake, dumb comment, typo, etc. by a conservative is above the fold news?
-
Except that doesn't happen, unless you're talking about how misconduct by liberals is often buried, while every mistake, dumb comment, typo, etc. by a conservative is above the fold news?
lol...so youre saying conservatives are the truthful ones and the lies are only on the liberal side?
-
lol...so youre saying conservatives are the truthful ones and the lies are only on the liberal side?
No. I'm saying dishonesty by liberals is buried and dishonesty AND trivial matters are put on blast when a conservative is involved.
-
lol...so youre saying conservatives are the truthful ones and the lies are only on the liberal side?
STFU - the ACA is now proven to be based on lies by the assholes YOU VOTED FOR and yet - you still defend it - typical left wing nonsense
-
No. I'm saying dishonesty by liberals is buried and dishonesty AND trivial matters are put on blast when a conservative is involved.
and im saying its not..
one side blasts the other side when its dishonest..
There is no disputing that.
-
and im saying its not..
one side blasts the other side when its dishonest..
There is no disputing that.
The facts don't agree with you. You know that the MSM puts conservatives on blast over everything, from big mistakes to stupid stuff. By and large, that doesn't happen with liberals.
This particular subject is a prime example. I just posted a story where a liberal acknowledges the fact it is not getting coverage, but would be plastered all over the place if a conservative was involved.
Mika Admits: If Gruber Were Republican, MSM 'Would Be Exploding'
By Mark Finkelstein | November 12, 2014
Kudos to Mika Brzezinski for admitting the truth: if Jonathan Gruber were a Republican, the MSM "would be exploding." Instead, noted Mika on today's Morning Joe, the MSM has been silent on the Gruber story, with only conservative sites [ed.: notably including Newsbusters] covering it.
Mika contrasted the current quietness on the MSM-Gruber front with the media "firestorm" that erupted when David Stockman made his infamous allegations about Reagonomics.
Howard Dean claimed the story "isn't a big deal," sniffing off Gruber as a mere "consultant." Jon Meacham airily asserted that "you could spend a whole academic career studying why certain moments go viral." But then he gave away the game, admitting that the Stockman story fit "what the left-of-center press wanted to believe." Precisely. And since the MSM ardently doesn't want to believe the Gruber story, or let the American people learn, about it, they've done their best to bury the story.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: This Obamacare story, which I saw yesterday and I'm surprised it didn't emerge . . . It's an interesting dynamic. This broke yesterday [ed. NewsBusters was reporting it four days ago], we kind of, were trying to get to it. Nobody covered it except for some right-wing outlets. Had this been a Republican, what do you think would have happened?
MIKE BARNICLE: Well, he is, this century's version of David Stockman, who was Ronald Reagan's original budget director. In 1981, in an extensive magazine piece in the old Atlantic magazine by Bill Greider, former Washington Post editor, David Stockman sat down with him. He was Reagan's budget director, sat down with Bill Greider for many, many times, to explain the budget. And he said, basically, none of us really understands what any of these numbers are all about, the federal budget.
BRZEZINSKI: [facetiously] So let me guess, nobody dealt with it, right?
BARNICLE: President Reagan had no idea what those numbers were all about.
BRZEZINSKI: Just a few left-wing bloggers brought it up, right? It wasn't covered? I think there was a huge firestorm, I believe.
HOWARD DEAN: There was.
BRZEZINSKI: Exactly, that's my point!
HOWARD DEAN: David Stockman was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. This guy is a consultant. So it's a slightly different --
BRZEZINSKI: Well, he's one of the architects, is he not?
DEAN: Ehhh, it's not entirely clear.
BRZEZINSKI: You can't define him as an architect of Obamacare?
DEAN: He likes to think he was one of the architects. He did play a significant role as a consultant. But he's a consultant, not the architect.
. . .
BRZEZINSKI: First of all, I was wondering why nobody jumped all over this, although we did at MSNBC--Ronan interviewed him. Meacham, is it fair to make a parallel to the huge firestorm after Stockman--we talked about this first hour--David Stockman, during the Reagan era, undermining Reagan's policies, and that we're just sort of not, except here, I don't know, I don't see it in the papers.
JON MEACHAM: You can spend a whole academic career studying why certain moments, we would now say went viral, and some don't. What often happens, I think the conventional explanation is, if something affirms a prevailing narrative, it tends to stick. So Stockman back in '81, '82 was saying the emperor has no clothes in terms of Reaganomics. That was what the left-of-center press wanted to believe. And so I think it probably made more of a difference.
. . .
BRZEZINSKI: That was a huge gaffe, right? We can all agree on that. I do think had it been a Republican, the media would be exploding.
DEAN: I think there's a big stature gaffe between the office, the Director of the OMB and a consultant for the -- that's why it's not a big deal.
BRZEZINSKI: Okay, that's fair.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2014/11/12/mika-admits-if-gruber-were-republican-msm-would-be-exploding#sthash.swLAfPc6.dpuf
-
The facts don't agree with you. You know that the MSM puts conservatives on blast over everything, from big mistakes to stupid stuff. By and large, that doesn't happen with liberals.
This particular subject is a prime example. I just posted a story where a liberal acknowledges the fact it is not getting coverage, but would be plastered all over the place if a conservative was involved.
so...An opinion by A guy = facts...
like i said... liberal fuck ups are covered by conservative outlets
conservative fucks are covered by liberal outlets.
Please dont tell me youre disputing that?
-
so...An opinion by A guy = facts...
like i said... liberal fuck ups are covered by conservative outlets
conservative fucks are covered by liberal outlets.
Please dont tell me youre disputing that?
A left wing loser lies = you still defend it
-
so...An opinion by A guy = facts...
like i said... liberal fuck ups are covered by conservative outlets
conservative fucks are covered by liberal outlets.
Please dont tell me youre disputing that?
It's actually a she, who happens to be a liberal. And It's not an opinion. It's a fact. There are a plethora of examples in this thread: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=401076.0
Yes, conservative sites highlight mistakes by liberals, but I'm talking about the MSM: CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, almost every major newspaper, and their websites. They bury mistakes by liberals and highlight mistakes, however small, by conservatives. This subject is an example, and I gave you proof of that fact. You can read about numerous other instances in the thread I linked.
-
A left wing loser lies = you still defend it
DAMN BRO!!!
thats awesome tell me more
-
DAMN BRO!!!
thats awesome tell me more
Here you ho libfag - eat it
Congrats on voting for and supporting this Kenyan pos fool
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamacare-2015-higher-costs-higher-penalties/
-
It's actually a she, who happens to be a liberal. And It's not an opinion. It's a fact. There are a plethora of examples in this thread: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=401076.0
Yes, conservative sites highlight mistakes by liberals, but I'm talking about the MSM: CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, almost every major newspaper, and their websites. They bury mistakes by liberals and highlight mistakes, however small, by conservatives. This subject is an example, and I gave you proof of that fact. You can read about numerous other instances in the thread I linked.
Whats the number 1 cable news network Fox right.
If there was a political category to place them in (as you did msnbc etc), Conservative or liberal, or fair and balanced?
-
Here you ho libfag - eat it
Congrats on voting for and supporting this Kenyan pos fool
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamacare-2015-higher-costs-higher-penalties/
awesome my man.. im totally gonna take a look at this...
-
awesome my man.. im totally gonna take a look at this...
do so moron - remember - you kneepadded it solely because the Kenyan opiece of shit was 1/2 black - nothing else. FNG tool
-
Whats the number 1 cable news network Fox right.
If there was a political category to place them in (as you did msnbc etc), Conservative or liberal, or fair and balanced?
Fox News (the hard news) is "fair and balanced." Fox News opinion shows are obviously conservative, but even those guys have liberals on their shows all the time.
-
do so moron - remember - you kneepadded it solely because the Kenyan opiece of shit was 1/2 black - nothing else. FNG tool
oh ok cool
-
Fox News (the hard news) is "fair and balanced." Fox News opinion shows are obviously conservative, but even those guys have liberals on their shows all the time.
well if you think that Fox news is fundamentally fair and balanced, our conversation isnt on the same playing field...
-
well if you think that Fox news is fundamentally fair and balanced, our conversation isnt on the same playing field...
Probably not, because I doubt you have an informed opinion based on actually watching Fox News, or make a distinction between hard news and opinion shows.
But lots of people fail to understand (sometimes willingly) that opinion shows are not the "news." Even the president and his people do so, although they do it intentionally IMO.
-
Probably not, because I doubt you have an informed opinion based on actually watching Fox News, or make a distinction between hard news and opinion shows.
But lots of people fail to understand (sometimes willingly) that opinion shows are not the "news." Even the president and his people do so, although they do it intentionally IMO.
lots of assumptions here brother.
I have watched fox news, many times, so your assumption that i lack an informed opinion is off base my man. And I understand the difference between hard news and opinion based shows (that pander to a political party)
-
lots of assumptions here brother.
I have watched fox news, many times, so your assumption that i lack an informed opinion is off base my man. And I understand the difference between hard news and opinion based shows (that pander to a political party)
Yes, I am making an assumption, and if you have watched a lot of hard news on Fox then I apologize and stand corrected.
-
Obama and the author of it lied and are on record admitting as such. Case FNG closed.
Only a brain dead 95er who supports Obama based on factors not connected to his performance still support this nonsense
-
White House: Gruber's Comments About O-Care Are 'Simply Not True'
Talking Points Memo ^ | November 12, 2014 | Dylan Scott
Posted on November 12, 2014 9:42:27 PM EST by 2ndDivisionVet
The White House is publicly distancing itself from MIT professor Jonathan Gruber's comments on the legislative process behind Obamacare and its "lack of transparency," which have been seized on by conservatives this week, saying that they are "simply not true."
Gruber also invoked "the stupidity of the American voter" in 2013 comments unearthed last week about the Affordable Care Act. He has since said that he regretted the comments and spoke "inappropriately."
“Transparency is a key goal of the ACA: consumers now have more access to information about their health insurance than ever before," White House spokesperson Jessica Santillo said in a statement to TPM. "The Affordable Care Act was publicly debated over the course of 14 months, with dozens of Congressional hearings, and countless town halls, speeches, and debates.
"The tax credits in the law that help millions of middle class Americans afford coverage were no secret, and in fact were central to the legislation," she continued. "Not only do we disagree with those comments, they're simply not true.”
An administration official also noted to TPM that -- while Gruber is often described as an "architect" of Obamacare because he was a key consultant to the administration and was heavily involved in developing the Massachusetts health reform law that served as a starting point for the ACA -- "he did not work in the White House or play the same role in developing the Affordable Care Act."
-
Obamacare's Foundation of Lies
There is only one kind of lie, it's apolitical, and it cripples the best of intentions.
By Ron Fournier
Follow on Twitter
November 12, 2014 A lie is apolitical, or at least it should be. If there is one thing that unites clear-headed Americans, it's a belief that our leaders must be transparent and honest.
And yet, there seem to be two types of lies in our political discourse: Those that hurt "my party" and "my policies"; and those that don't. We condemn the former and forgive the latter—cheapening the bond of trust that enables a society to progress.
This truism came to mind when I read a Washington Post story headlined, "Who Is Jonathon Gruber?" It was an important and workmanlike report on the Obamacare adviser who bragged about the political advantages of deceiving voters, whom Gruber called stupid.
"Those comments have struck a nerve on the right," wrote Jose A. DelReal (emphasis added), "with some of the law's critics pointing to Gruber's comments as evidence that the administration intentionally deceived the American public on the costs of the programs."
My first reaction was, "No! No! Not just on the right!" I strongly support bipartisan efforts to expand the availability of health coverage to the working poor, and bending the cost curve that threatens federal budgets for years to come. While I think President Obama and congressional Democrats helped contribute to the 2009 standoff over what became the Affordable Care Act, I've openly rooted for Obamacare's success. I've denounced the knee-jerk opposition from the GOP, a party that once embraced key elements of Obamacare. My ideology is amorphous; I am not "on the right."
Back to The Post's story: Gruber's remarks are evidence that the administration intentionally deceived the American public on the costs of the programs. The author attributed that fact to "some of the law's critics." Not necessary; Gruber's remarks may not be dispositive, but they certainly are evidence.
Last year, The Post helped document how Obama and his advisers knowingly misled the public during his 2012 reelection campaign by repeatedly saying that, under Obamacare, people could keep their doctors and keep their health plans. To knowingly mislead is to lie.
"It's hard to know what might have happened if the truth had won the day," writes Post columnist Kathleen Parker. "But we do know that truth squandered is trust lost."
And so even I have to admit, as a supporter, that Obamacare was built and sold on a foundation of lies. No way around it, unless you're willing to accept a political system that colors its lies—the reds, the whites, and the blues.
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/11/11/krauthammer_on_obamacare_deception_exactly_what_conservatives_have_been_saying_for_years_true_voice_of_liberal_arrogance.html
-
You wonder why the PEA brain would go around saying how he thought the voters were stupid and not think it would come out. Goes to show you can have a whole lot of letters after your name and be as dumb as a post.
-
You wonder why the PEA brain would go around saying how he thought the voters were stupid and not think it would come out. Goes to show you can have a whole lot of letters after your name and be as dumb as a post.
They don't care! This is how all left wing communists and liberals think - they are smarter - they know how to run your life - they know whats best for you - etc.
F them - especially those like on this board who argued with us all along about obamacare and now look like utter dog shit
-
The Republican Party’s ardent campaign against President Obama’s health-care law gained new momentum Wednesday as lawmakers reacted angrily to assertions by an architect of the policy that it was crafted in a deliberately deceptive way in order to pass Congress.
On both sides of the Capitol, leading conservatives said they may call economist Jonathan Gruber to testify about his remarks, which were made last year and surfaced this week in a video on social media. In the video, Gruber suggests that the administration’s signature health-care legislation passed in part because of the “stupidity of the American voter” and a “lack of transparency” over its funding mechanisms.
“The strategy was to hide the truth from the American people,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who is slated to chair the Senate Budget Committee next year. “That is a threat to the American republic.”
Gruber has been a complicated figure in the history of the health-care law. He helped the Obama administration craft the measure and has been a leading advocate of it, but he has also made sporadic comments sparking political brush fires that have been problematic for the law’s supporters.
The White House sought Wednesday to distance itself from Gruber and his comments.
-
You wonder why the PEA brain would go around saying how he thought the voters were stupid and not think it would come out. Goes to show you can have a whole lot of letters after your name and be as dumb as a post.
Tell me about it. Did you hear his apology? He said it was an off the cuff remark (which is false because he said it three times on camera). He also said he has to remember everything is being recorded. In other words, if you're going to call the American people stupid and admit the administration lied to get the bill passed, it's best to do so in private.
This administration is corrupt.
-
Tell me about it. Did you hear his apology? He said it was an off the cuff remark (which is false because he said it three times on camera). He also said he has to remember everything is being recorded. In other words, if you're going to call the American people stupid and admit the administration lied to get the bill passed, it's best to do so in private.
This administration is corrupt.
Leftists are perfectly fine w corruption if they believe their radical commie agenda is advancing.
-
Leftists are perfectly fine w corruption if they believe their radical commie agenda is advancing.
i think peopel in both parties feel that way.
Would YOU really care if Hilary loses to Cruz in 2016 because Cruz cheated his ass off in a crucial swing state?
-
No 4!
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/224072-gruber-in-fourth-video-says-public-doesnt-actually-care-about-uninsured
-
The arrogant remarks of Obamacare architect and MIT professor Jonathan Gruber should come as no surprise. He called the American people “stupid” and said that passage of the law relied on its “lack of transparency,” which enabled it to slide through Congress and onto the public’s lap. Arrogance and condescension have too often characterized the attitudes of the current administration and their proponents. But the fact is, the American public is not stupid when it comes to Obamacare, and they are not deceived. Understanding this clunker and not liking it is precisely why this law has never been popular.
A health-care tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation for this July showed that more than 50 percent of Americans viewed the Affordable Care Act unfavorably, the fifth time since the bill’s passage that more than half of Americans polled by Kaiser were found to be against the health-care law.
Advertisement
Americans know that having health insurance doesn’t automatically mean access to care. Trust me, patients were wary of the state exchanges long before they began to flounder and seize. The days of my patients proudly showing their shiny new insurance cards and demanding instant service are long gone. There isn’t a patient out in my waiting room these days who isn’t familiar with the red tape of denied tests, unobtainable referrals, narrow doctor networks. The problem preexisted Obamacare, but the Affordable Care Act made it worse, as most Americans knew it would.
Gruber bragged that the Cadillac tax that was levied on the top employer insurance policies (instead of repealing the tax advantage) led to higher premiums, as if the public wasn’t aware that the insurance companies would immediately transfer these costs to consumers. Employers and employees everywhere are miserable under the chafing impact of Obamacare, but employers anticipated this, and it is one of the reasons that there is a rise in part-time workers who don’t qualify for these policies.
What American didn’t always think of the individual mandate as a tax, given that it appears on his yearly tax form and the IRS is responsible for collecting it? We already feel overtaxed, which is one reason that Obamacare never had the slightest chance of bipartisan support.
Probably if you polled Americans from early childhood on you would discover that the only thing we trust less than a government proclamation is an insurance-company promise. Obamacare, which wraps both together in one neat package, is a perfect storm.
You don’t need a government-hired navigator to tell you that the real path to increased care is to be found in new doctors, nurses, hospitals, and clinics, not in new insurance.
My patient with a thyroid problem couldn’t afford the necessary ultrasound and antibody tests to better understand her condition before Obamacare, and she can’t afford them now, either, because of her large deductible. This gap between coverage and actual care is not a surprise to people who have struggled with the limitations of insurance of all kinds their entire lives. Most Americans do not believe in a free lunch these days – and certainly not when the government is pitching it.
Americans have always understood the Obamacare gap between insurance and actual care. What has sharpened our focus is time, not an injection of knowledge or supposed transparency from on high.
— Marc Siegel, M.D., is a professor of medicine and medical director of Doctor Radio at NYU Langone Medical Center. He is a Fox News medical correspondent.
-
Pelosi Claims Jonathan Gruber, Architect of Obamacare, Didn't Help Write Obamacare
12:24 PM, Nov 13, 2014 • By JOHN MCCORMACK
Share on email
7
Send to Kindle
Single Page
Print
Larger Text
Smaller Text
Alerts
reCAPTCHA challenge image Get a new challengeGet an audio challengeGet a visual challengeHelp
At a press conference today, Nancy Pelosi denied that she even knows Jonathan Gruber, the M.I.T. professor often known as the "architect" or "author" of Obamacare whose comments about the law have created a lot of controversy this week.
"I don't know who is. He didn't help write our bill," Pelosi said. But according to the New York Times, Gruber helped "draft the specifics of the legislation":
After Mr. Gruber helped the administration put together the basic principles of the proposal, the White House lent him to Capitol Hill to help Congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation."
While Congress was debating the bill in 2009, Pelosi's website cited Gruber. (Update: Pelosi also cited Gruber by name during a 2009 press conference.)
Gruber has created controversy by contradicting key claims made by Democrats about the law he helped write.
"If you’re a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits," Gruber said during a 2012 speech. The Obama administration chose to give tax credits to residents of states that didn't set up their own exchanges, and a lawsuit now threatens to reverse that action and derail the law. Gruber now denies that he meant what he said in 2012.
<SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N3016.centro.net/B8313777.112473862;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;click=http://t.brand-server.com/click/43zFkC43.Vpoib7.--xJDK4U6dOgUhR6btikdrBWpQAMSvvXZxn.ZwvesrBJEV97j-J0V6hEDSnpAfEzlQaRCI7wDGOF3pzoEOFFex48iDqky4HedX64a24NlfTFusyim5A3X4dgSrnpZOwgV2JI9AaLKI9TMdeUYf8gi4bnA-1iPwoa6.qPCVetn74lX58kCQsVqxZfXXjbUo-nRBSdz--5kQxvrqVQISLl1UzOKEGtaxQkPuARte8jsTbk.dACk2xG-7zd7FJa4V-QHks2mPJp0mYIxCcstQ==//;ord=d93f1828-5006-4189-8a8a-c100a2311c91?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://t.brand-server.com/click/43zFkC43.Vpoib7.--xJDK4U6dOgUhR6btikdrBWpQAMSvvXZxn.ZwvesrBJEV97j-J0V6hEDSnpAfEzlQaRCI7wDGOF3pzoEOFFex48iDqky4HedX64a24NlfTFusyim5A3X4dgSrnpZOwgV2JI9AaLKI9TMdeUYf8gi4bnA-1iPwoa6.qPCVetn74lX58kCQsVqxZfXXjbUo-nRBSdz--5kQxvrqVQISLl1UzOKEGtaxQkPuARte8jsTbk.dACk2xG-7zd7FJa4V-QHks2mPJp0mYIxCcstQ==//http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N3016.centro.net/B8313777.112473862;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;ord=d93f1828-5006-4189-8a8a-c100a2311c91?"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N3016.centro.net/B8313777.112473862;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;ord=d93f1828-5006-4189-8a8a-c100a2311c91?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT>
More by John McCormack
Walker Wins Again
Elise Stefanik, Lee Zeldin, and John Katko Take Over ...
Scott Walker Wins Again
The Final Polls
Joni Ernst Opens Up 7-Point Lead in Iowa Senate Race
When a study came out showing that Obamacare increased Emergency Room visits, contrary to claims of the law's supporters, Gruber said the claim that it would lower costs was "misleading."
"The law isn't designed to save money. It's designed to improve health, and that's going to cost money," Gruber said.
This week, a video emerged in which Gruber said the law was written in a "tortured way" to mislead the American people.
"This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the [individual] mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies,” Gruber said. “In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are gonna pay in — you’ve made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Okay? Just like the...people — transparent — lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever."
-
Obamacare architect discussed misleading public in 4th newly uncovered video
CNN ^ | Jake Tapper
Posted on 11/13/2014 3:04:07 PM by Cincinatus' Wife
Washington(CNN)--As Congress voted on the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, in 2010, one of the bill's architects, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, told a college audience that those pushing the legislation pitched it as a bill that would control spiraling health care costs even though most of the bill was focused on something else and there was no guarantee the bill would actually bend the cost curve.
In recent days, the past comments of Gruber--who in this 2010 speech notes 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 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.
In this fourth video, Gruber's language is not as stark as in three previous instances,but his suggestion that Obamacare proponents engaged in less-than-honest salesmanship remains.
"Barack Obama's not a stupid man, okay?" Gruber said in his remarks at the College of the Holy Cross on March 11, 2010. "He knew when he was running for president that quite frankly the American public doesn't actually care that much about the uninsured....What the American public cares about is costs. And that's why even though the bill that they made is 90% health insurance coverage and 10% about cost control, all you ever hear people talk about is cost control. How it's going to lower the cost of health care, that's all they talk about. Why? Because that's what people want to hear about because a majority of American care about health care costs."
You can watch the speech on the C-SPAN website here.....
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/smoking-gun-video-jonathan-gruber-admitted-obama-was-in-the-room-when-cadillac-tax-lie-was-created
Holy shit. Wow.
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/smoking-gun-video-jonathan-gruber-admitted-obama-was-in-the-room-when-cadillac-tax-lie-was-created
Holy shit. Wow.
>:(
-
>:(
Integrity bro.
-
Integrity bro.
33/Soul Crusher...
How do you think RINOs that are against impeachment can be convinced that the damage Obama can do in the next 728 days might be TERRIBLE? Is there any way to get them on board?
They believe obama is a fcking incompetent criminal. They think he's destroyed the Constitution and committed serious crimes with benghazi breach (letting it happen) and F&F (illegal arms dealings)> They think he belongs in prison.
BUT because of their political reasons - They are unwilling to kick a man out of office who has only served 46% of his term. Obama isn't even HALFWAY done with this term - and they're already saying it's too late to impeach.
I dunno, here's a hypothetical - if there's a sniper on the tower like there was in texas decades back, taking out people, you don't jsut say "Hey, he's 46% done with his ammo, no sense in going to all the trouble to climb up there - let's just allow him to finish shooting all his bullets, THEN we will let him gracefully surrender". NO! You don't do that.
Imagine that kind of madness - and some could argue that obama will do MORE damage, since he's able to open borders, start wars, etc.
Anyway 33, do you think there's any chance to get the RINOs to support impeachment?
-
F obama
33/Soul Crusher...
How do you think RINOs that are against impeachment can be convinced that the damage Obama can do in the next 728 days might be TERRIBLE? Is there any way to get them on board?
They believe obama is a fcking incompetent criminal. They think he's destroyed the Constitution and committed serious crimes with benghazi breach (letting it happen) and F&F (illegal arms dealings)> They think he belongs in prison.
BUT because of their political reasons - They are unwilling to kick a man out of office who has only served 46% of his term. Obama isn't even HALFWAY done with this term - and they're already saying it's too late to impeach.
I dunno, here's a hypothetical - if there's a sniper on the tower like there was in texas decades back, taking out people, you don't jsut say "Hey, he's 46% done with his ammo, no sense in going to all the trouble to climb up there - let's just allow him to finish shooting all his bullets, THEN we will let him gracefully surrender". NO! You don't do that.
Imagine that kind of madness - and some could argue that obama will do MORE damage, since he's able to open borders, start wars, etc.
Anyway 33, do you think there's any chance to get the RINOs to support impeachment?
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/13/editorial-jonathan-grubers-payday
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-gruber-confession/2014/11/13/474595bc-6b6b-11e4-9fb4-a622dae742a2_story.html
It’s not exactly the Ems Dispatch (the diplomatic cable Bismarck doctored to provoke the 1870 Franco-Prussian War). But what the just-resurfaced Gruber Confession lacks in world-historical consequence, it makes up for in world-class cynicism. This October 2013 video shows MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber, a principal architect of Obamacare, admitting that, in order to get it passed, the law was made deliberately obscure and deceptive. It constitutes the ultimate vindication of the charge that Obamacare was sold on a pack of lies.
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/smoking-gun-video-jonathan-gruber-admitted-obama-was-in-the-room-when-cadillac-tax-lie-was-created
Holy shit. Wow.
jesus fucking christ.
Employer subsizided healthcare causes oeople to OVERBUY coverage and is therefore inefficient and should be curbed? Wtf? So now they are entitled to tell us how much coverage we can have?
The fucking nerve of these people.... cadillac tax, which will skyrocket my insirance by 300% by 2020, is because they want companies and people who have better insurqnce to pay MORE into the pot because their company offers them good insurance?
What in the holy fuck is wrong with these people? How the fuck can they justofy tripling people premiuns just because their companies offer better insurance than Obamacare, even though they nay not actually make any more money than someone else who has obamacarw?
Oh, let me guess, because then theyre getting more coverage for less money than people who forced into obamacare and thats just not fair.
Fuck i hate these people.
-
Even worse than that - people w these plans exchanges salary and $ for the plans so the person now who is going to lose his plan and get taxed or fined - does not have the $ that they forewent all those years.
jesus fucking christ.
Employer subsizided healthcare causes oeople to OVERBUY coverage and is therefore inefficient and should be curbed? Wtf? So now they are entitled to tell us how much coverage we can have?
The fucking nerve of these people.... cadillac tax, which will skyrocket my insirance by 300% by 2020, is because they want companies and people who have better insurqnce to pay MORE into the pot because their company offers them good insurance?
What in the holy fuck is wrong with these people? How the fuck can they justofy tripling people premiuns just because their companies offer better insurance than Obamacare, even though they nay not actually make any more money than someone else who has obamacarw?
Oh, let me guess, because then theyre getting more coverage for less money than people who forced into obamacare and thats just not fair.
Fuck i hate these people.
-
ObamaCare architect and MIT professor Jonathan Gruber’s remarks about the "stupidity" of the American voter and the passage of ObamaCare is bad enough. What is even more disturbing are his comments about the bill’s deliberate lack of transparency. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest’s denials Thursday were also absurd.
The arrogance and condescension that has too often characterized the Obama administration’s policies have put the American public in the unfortunate position of having to learn about the health care changes the hard way, on their own.
Here are three crucial changes that the president clearly didn’t want you to know about:
1. HUGE DEFICITS AND NEW TAXES. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the latest projections for the net cost of ObamaCare over the next ten years are just over $1.4 trillion. Whereas President Obama promised in 2009 that it would cost less than $1 trillion over ten years. In order to partially pay for this, ObamaCare has added more than 20 new taxes totaling over $500 billion.
2. BUREAUCRACY. Speaking of Orwellian politics, ObamaCare includes 159 new boards and agencies to restrict and govern your health care choices.
3. STILL MORE BUREAUCRACY. Dysfunctional state exchanges with high deductible policies, narrow doctor networks, including federally-run exchanges in 36 states which may not be allowable under the law (SCOTUS currently considering this case).
Here are three new things coming up in 2015 that you aren’t going to like:
1. PENALTIES WILL RISE – INDIVIDUAL MANDATE. In 2014, people are facing a penalty of $95 per person or 1% of income.
In 2015, the penalty will more than triple to $325 per person or 2% of income, whichever is higher.
If an American failed to get coverage this year, the penalty will be taken out of their tax refund in early 2015.
2. SERIOUS RATE HIKES FOR CHEAPER OBAMACARE PLANS. According to Investor’s Business Daily, the lowest cost bronze plan will increase an average of 7 % in many cases, the lowest cost silver plan by 9%, and the lowest priced catastrophic policy will climb 18 percent on average. Double digit rate hikes are anticipated in several southern and Midwestern states including Kansas, Iowa, Louisiana, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Iowa, and Virginia.
Subsidies will continue to be a huge part of the program. In 2014, subsidies provided ¾ of the premiums for the federally-run exchanges.
3. EMPLOYER MANDATE WILL TAKE EFFECT. After being delayed for a year, large businesses (100 or more employees in 2015, 50 or more in 2016) will be required to offer affordable (and subsidized) health plans to at least 70 percent of their full time employees or face a $2,000-$3,000 penalty per employee.
This mandate will lead to fewer full time employees being hired.
The latest Kaiser Family Foundation poll in July revealed that 53 percent of those surveyed had an unfavorable view of ObamaCare.
I expect this number to rise as more of ObamaCare’s “bells and whistles” are rolled out. Americans are experiencing ObamaCare as a cancer of the health care system. -- The more it grows, the more it infiltrates and destroys healthy tissue.
Dr. Marc Siegel, a practicing internist, joined FOX News Channel (FNC) as a contributor in 2008.
-
FLASHBACK: MIT analysis backs Obama (Gruber provided new ammunition Senate Dems)
POLITICO ^ | 11/28/09 | Mike Allen
Posted on 11/14/2014 8:20:55 AM by maggief
A new analysis by a leading MIT economist provides new ammunition for Democrats as the Senate begins formally debating the historic health-reform bill being pushed by President Barack Obama.
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.
So Democrats will argue that under the Senate bill, Americans would pay less for more.
The new document arms Democrats with a response to the contention of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that the bill would mean “higher premiums, higher taxes, and massive cuts to Medicare.”
The “microsimulation” analysis is by Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Treasury Department official under President Bill Clinton. Gruber used data from the Congressional Budget Office.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
-
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE www.nationalreview.com PRINT
November 14, 2014 4:00 AM
Gruber Who?
Democrats do their best to erase their many links to Obamacare’s “Mr. Mandate.”
By Ian Tuttle
Jonathan Gruber? “I don’t know who he is,” Nancy Pelosi told reporters on Thursday.
To jog the former speaker’s memory: Jonathan Gruber is, of course, the MIT economist widely hailed for his work as the “architect” of Obamacare. His sudden demotion comes after video surfaced over the weekend of a 2013 interview with Gruber at the University of Pennsylvania, where he told listeners that a “lack of transparency” was crucial to passing Obamacare through Congress in 2010, given the “stupidity of the American voter.” Three more videos have followed, all showing Gruber making substantially similar remarks.
Nancy Pelosi’s ignorance of Gruber is odd for two reasons. First, she was speaker of the House at the time that the Affordable Care Act was passed. Second, she cited Gruber — by name — at a press conference in 2009: “I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis. . . . ” Around the same time, his work was quoted and linked on her website.
In Pelosi’s defense, she may only have been following the lead of Maine senator Angus King, who told the hosts of Fox & Friends earlier this week, “I don’t know who this guy is.”
But it is difficult to imagine that either of these illustrious personages were unfamiliar with Gruber, particularly given that “the White House lent [Gruber] to Capitol Hill to help Congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation,” as John McCormack wrote in the New York Times in 2012, in an article in which he called Gruber “Mr. Mandate.” “Congressional staff members from both parties trusted him because he was seen as an econometric wonk, not a political agent.”
But “he didn’t help write our bill,” Pelosi declared Thursday. “So let’s put him aside.”
Ms. Pelosi and Mr. King are both getting up there in years, so perhaps we ought to be forgiving. Vox’s Sarah Kliff has no such excuse. “Jon Gruber, the health economist who pretty much wrote Obamacare, owns 8 parrots,” she tweeted in March 2012. Yet in a Gruber-related Q&A with herself at Vox on Thursday, Kliff asked: “What role did he play in developing the Affordable Care Act?” Her answer: “Mostly number-crunching.”
Of course.
Gruber’s comments have been much-remarked-upon, particularly on the right, not only for confirming what Obamacare critics have said for five years but also for capturing at least in part the ethos of modern progressive liberalism: smarter-than-thou zealotry masquerading as for-the-greater-good pragmatism. (That he did it at sound-bite length is simply an added perk.) But for a movement that touts its stratospheric intelligence, the response to Gruber’s comments from his longtime supporters, both on Capitol Hill and in the media, reminds observers of something else: that liberalism tends to handle its PR nightmares with an iron first.
Consider what is happening to Jonathan Gruber: In frantic damage control, many liberals have reflexively indulged their despotic inclinations and try to “disappear” him. The University of Pennsylvania pulled the original video of Gruber’s remarks from its website. No doubt if it were possible, Democratic staffers, Politburo-style, would be scrubbing him from photographs.
They can’t, of course. Within hours of Nancy Pelosi’s purported memory lapse, bloggers had unearthed her previous comments. Similarly with Kliff. An actual “memory hole” is notoriously difficult to come by.
But it is astonishing — is it not? — that the impulse of Pelosi and Kliff and others has been to suppose that they can comment on the matter as if it were tabula rasa, as if no one had heard of Jonathan Gruber, or that, if they had, they would allow Democrats’ pronouncements to pass unchallenged. How to account for that degree of arrogance? And if it is not arrogance, if they actually believe what they are saying and writing — how much more troubling.
Political actors are constantly at war over the past, because they know that it defines the present. Pelosi and her ilk, though, are not interested in discovering the past, but in controlling it — and in having the leisure to reshape it whenever convenient.
Who? Said what? Well, that was a long time ago, and, besides, it never happened anyway.
— Ian Tuttle is a William F. Buckley Jr. Fellow at the National Review Institute
-
Only libtard program to cover this was MorningJoe yesterday morning. CBS, ABC and NBC haven't done any extensive coverage on this story.
Yeah, but we are to believe that most media outlets don't have a liberal bias.
-
Only libtard program to cover this was MorningJoe yesterday morning. CBS, ABC and NBC haven't done any extensive coverage on this story.
Yeah, but we are to believe that most media outlets don't have a liberal bias.
Obama, Gruber, Pelosi, Reid, Baucus, et al need to be sued for RICO or conspiracy to defraud
-
-
Skip to comments.
Obamacare Architect Exposes Progressive Totalitarianism
FrontPage Magazine ^ | November 13, 2014 | Bruce Thornton
Posted on 11/14/2014 10:14:01 AM by SJackson
Professor Jonathan Gruber of MIT, who designed the Affordable Care Act, used to be the symbol of the Democrats’ technocratic bona fides, and an example of how big government with its “scientific” experts can solve social and economic problems from health care to a warming planet. Yet a recently publicized video of remarks he made at a panel in 2013, along with 2 other videos in the same vein, has now made him the poster child of the elitist progressives’ contempt for the American people, and their sacrifice of prudence and reason to raw political power.
In the video Gruber explains the spin and lies the Dems used to give cover to their Congressmen so they could vote for Obamacare. Especially important was avoiding the “t-word.” So, Gruber crows on the video, “This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies.” He also explained how the bills’ writers covered up the obvious redistributionist core of the legislation, which to work has to take money from the healthy young to pay for health care for the sick and old. “If you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.”
Then this handsomely paid consultant to the “most transparent administration in history” revealed the foundational contempt progressives have for the “people” whose champions they claim to be: “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.” As David Horowitz tweeted, “Progressive totalitarianism: We know what’s good for you and will lie, cheat and then compel you to agree with us.”
This modern version of the Platonic “guardians,” who possess superior knowledge but who must camouflage their tyrannical rule with lies, is now over 100 years old, and has become deeply embedded in our politics. It was the fundamental assumption of American Progressivism, which argued that modern technology and social change had rendered the old constitutional order a dangerous relic. The native common sense and wisdom of ordinary people to know their own interests and pursue them primarily at the local and state levels were now replaced by the allegedly scientific knowledge of “experts,” who alone could solve the problems created by the modern world. As Progressive Theodore Roosevelt said in 1901, the “very serious social problems” confronting the nation could no longer be solved by “the old laws, and the old customs,” especially the power given to state governments and laws, which “are no longer sufficient.” Woodrow Wilson agreed, complaining in 1913 that “the laws of this country have not kept up with the change” of economic and political circumstances. To achieve “social justice” and eliminate income inequality, the “laws,” particularly the Constitution, had to change.
But to effect such change, the old order of conflicting and balancing “passions and interests,” as James Madison described the political order, had to be transformed in order to create a more collectivist people united in their “collective purpose” to achieve a “vigorous social program,” particularly the redistribution of property. As Progressive Frank Johnson Goodnow wrote ominously in 1916, “Changed conditions . . . must bring in their train different conceptions of private rights if society is to be advantageously carried on.” Individual rights, especially property rights, “may become a menace when social rather than individual efficiency is the necessary prerequisite of progress. For social efficiency probably owes more to the common realization of social duties than to the general insistence on privileges based on individual private rights.”
In practical terms, these goals of “social efficiency” and “social duties” required more power centralized in the federal government and executive at the expense of the states and the people. The most important Progressive theorist, Herbert Croly, wrote in 1909, “Under existing conditions and simply as a matter of expediency, the national advance of the American democracy does demand an increasing amount of centralized action and responsibility.” Woodrow Wilson agreed, and envisioned a cadre of elites to address the national “cares and responsibilities which will require not a little wisdom, knowledge, and experience,” as he wrote in his 1887 essay “The Study of Administration.” As such, administrative power lies beyond politics, and should be insulated from the machinery of participatory government. And much like today’s progressives, Wilson’s ideas were based on contempt for the people who lack this specialized knowledge and so cannot be trusted with the power to run their own lives. Thus Wilson envisioned federal administrative bureaucracies “of skilled, economical administration” comprising the “hundred who are wise” empowered to guide the thousands who are “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, or foolish.”
Sound familiar? From these early Progressive theorists to MIT Professor Gruber and the Democrats the line is direct, based on the same flawed and illiberal assumptions. The masses cannot be allowed, as envisioned by the Constitution, the autonomy to pursue their interests through local and state governments closest to them, their conflicts regulated by the balance of power, mixed government, and federalism, which prevent any one faction from amassing enough power to tyrannize the rest. Rather, administrative elites must be empowered to override those many interests in order to “solve problems” and achieve “social justice.” This in turn means growing the size and scope of the federal government into the bloated Leviathan it is today.
But as Wilson complained, “The bulk of mankind is rigidly unphilosophical, and nowadays the bulk of mankind votes.” Since the citizens still have the vote and can exercise it every 2 years, they must be tricked into doing the “right thing,” as defined by the technocratic elite. One of the most chilling statements by an American president was made by Woodrow Wilson in his essay on administration: “Whoever would effect a change in modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow-citizens to want some change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then see to it that it listen to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion in its way.” What else has “income inequality,” “war on women,” “you didn’t build that,” and all the other slogans of this administration been other than the attempt to get the voters to “listen to the right things” and form a “right opinion”? Listen again to Wilson, from his essay “Leaders of Men”: “Only a very gross substance of concrete conception can make any impression on the minds of the masses; they must get their ideas very absolutely put, and are much readier to receive a half-truth which they can promptly understand than a whole truth which has too many sides to be seen all at once.” Is this not the spirit of Professor Gruber’s remarks on his “very clever basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter” in designing the Obamacare legislation?
The politics of today’s progressives all have their roots in the old Progressive assumptions––that enlightened elites know better than the people what is good for them, and that the people, being such unenlightened clods, need to be manipulated and lied to for their own good. Most important, the freedom and autonomy of the people must be limited by intrusive federal agencies and regulations in order for these utopian goals to be achieved.
Or to put it in other terms, this set of progressive beliefs––which we have seen acted on for the last six years by the president and practically every government agency––is totalitarian at its core. Not the brutal despotism of Italian fascism or Soviet communism or German Nazism, but Tocqueville’s “soft despotism,” the kinder, gentler Leviathan which undermines self-reliance and self-government by taking responsibility for the people’s comfort and happiness, and financing its largess by the redistribution of property. But no matter how comfortable in the short-term, such a condition is nothing other than servitude. And as Tocqueville warns, “No one will ever believe that a liberal, wise, and energetic government can spring from the suffrages of a subservient people.”
-
Jonathan Gruber’s payday: Taxpayers paid millions for the deceptions of the Obamacare architect
The Washington Times ^ | November 13, 2014 | The Washington Times
Posted on 11/14/2014 12:09:43 PM by Sons of Union Vets
The MIT economist who is the brains behind Obamacare has made quite a stir with his admission that President Obama’s health care takeover was built on lies. Mr. Gruber says he was willing to say and do whatever it took to advance the scheme, and now it’s clear why. Obamacare made Mr. Gruber a multimillionaire, and at the expense of the taxpayers.
Video of Mr. Gruber’s remarks, delivered at a University of Pennsylvania health care conference last year, has surfaced in which he explained how the details of Obamacare were kept under wraps until the measure was rammed through the Democratic Congress with no opportunity for anyone to read the legislation.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/13/editorial-jonathan-grubers-payday/#ixzz3J40wbRsZ Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
-
ObamaCare architect mouths off again, as videos cause problems for Dems
Published November 14, 2014
FoxNews.com
The mouth that won't stop giving -- and that has Democrats and the Obama administration cringing -- has been caught shooting off yet again on video, this time bragging how the Massachusetts health care system he helped design worked by ripping off millions of dollars from the federal government.
On top of that, another video has surfaced from Vermont showing him mocking a critic of single-payer health care, comparing him to an "adolescent" child.
The latest videos of Jonathan Gruber come after House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi claimed Thursday she didn't know who he is. Though Pelosi actually cited Gruber's analysis -- repeatedly -- several years ago to boost the passage of ObamaCare, her office continued to insist he played no real role in the crafting of their bill.
Yet video after video has emerged of Gruber boasting about the behind-the-scenes crafting of the Affordable Care Act, and how law-writers supposedly took advantage of the "stupidity" of the American voter.
The latest videos pertain to state health overhauls, in Massachusetts and Vermont.
One video, from a January 2012 forum, shows Gruber discussing the Massachusetts overhaul under then-Gov. Mitt Romney. He explained how the state was able to bilk the feds over hundreds of millions of Medicaid dollars.
"The dirty secret in Massachusetts is the feds paid for our bill, okay?" he said. "In Massachusetts we had a very powerful senator you may know named Ted Kennedy. ... Ted Kennedy and smart people in Massachusetts had basically figured out a way to sort of rip off the feds for about 400 million dollars a year."
He explained how when ObamaCare was written, they had to take a different approach because they had to raise money elsewhere. (As he explained in other recently uncovered videos, part of this involved taxing insurance companies for high-end health plans.)
In yet another video, reported by Watchdog.org and shot by TrueNorthReports.com, Gruber in 2011 mocked a critic during a Vermont House committee hearing examining a publicly financed health program. At the hearing, a lawmaker read aloud one comment that warned of "ballooning costs" and "bureaucratic outrages."
As the hearing participants began to laugh, Gruber said: "Was this written by my adolescent children by any chance?"
According to Watchdog.org, Gruber is currently being paid to advise the state of Vermont on a new health care plan. Watchdog.org also spoke with the man who wrote the comment that drew Gruber's snarky rebuke, former state senator and Reagan adviser John McClaughry.
"No one should trust this man," McClaughry told Watchdog.org. "Based on the rest of the stuff that's come out on the videos, nobody can trust this guy."
Even though Pelosi claimed she wasn't familiar with Gruber, other Democrats have made clear they know him -- and are not happy with him.
On CNN, former White House press secretary Jay Carney said of the tapes, "It's not good" and acknowledged he helped write ObamaCare and the Massachusetts law.
Carney said Gruber "speaks from the ivory tower with remarkable hubris about the American voter and by extension the American Congress."
He added: "To speak that way [is] very harmful politically to the president."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/14/obamacare-architect-mouths-off-again-as-videos-cause-problems-for-dems/
-
One video, from a January 2012 forum, shows Gruber discussing the Massachusetts overhaul under then-Gov. Mitt Romney. He explained how the state was able to bilk the feds over hundreds of millions of Medicaid dollars.
"The dirty secret in Massachusetts is the feds paid for our bill, okay?" he said. "In Massachusetts we had a very powerful senator you may know named Ted Kennedy. ... Ted Kennedy and smart people in Massachusetts had basically figured out a way to sort of rip off the feds for about 400 million dollars a year."
-
Lol @ this guy mocking someone with a legit concern about ballooning costs.
Classic misdirection and patronization.
This guy is a complete scumbag... he never even talks about why he wanted it to pass so much, never mentions any sort of idealism or motives, just lies to get his ideas through.
-
Lol @ this guy mocking someone with a legit concern about ballooning costs.
Classic misdirection and patronization.
This guy is a complete scumbag... he never even talks about why he wanted it to pass so much, never mentions any sort of idealism or motives, just lies to get his ideas through.
remember the libcommie mantra W lied people died etc? Where is anything even close to that compared to how blatant this is? And now libfags are silent right?
-
Obamacare architect in 6th video: 'Mislabeling' helped us get rid of tax breaks
By Jake Tapper, CNN
updated 3:07 PM EST, Fri November 14, 2014
Jonathan Gruber
Jonathan Gruber
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
MIT economist Jonathan Gruber is considered the architect of Obamacare
Videos where Gruber insults voters and explains the law have recently emerged
Opponents of Obamacare see this as evidence of the law's ill will
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.
Watch this video
Jay Carney: Gruber harmful to Obama
Watch this video
Shocking remarks by Obamacare consultant
Watch this video
Democrats denounce Obamacare architect
Watch this video
Obamacare adviser reacts to enrollment
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.
My God - WTF!!!!!
-
Some say it's people who don't want romney to run, putting this out there.
it would have done way more damage to obama BEFORE the elections.
But with the new talk from romney about possibly running, this talk (and FR has a great piece on how this ties intimately to romney) seems pretty convenient. Yes, you can hurt obama anytime - but does this prevent rinomney from getting into the race? He went awfully SOFT on obama regarding obamacare, remember?
-
How are Gruber and O-Fagget not guilty of Fraud and Conspiracy here by knowingly coming up w a lie to send to the CBO to put out phoney bs for the Democrats and sheeple to vote on?
-
"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."
-
Obama? Gruber? fuck them...they lied..it's what politicians and economists do. The real villains here are the lapdogs in the American media who didn't question ANY of the lies these charlatans were pushing. If we had a press that did it's job, they wouldn't have been able to even bring this POS to a vote.
-
Obama? Gruber? fuck them...they lied..it's what politicians and economists do. The real villains here are the lapdogs in the American media who didn't question ANY of the lies these charlatans were pushing. If we had a press that did it's job, they wouldn't have been able to even bring this POS to a vote.
They are all villains. All complicit.
-
I told all you guys so from day fucking 1
-
Gruber’s name is all over the official record.
http://www.finance.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=dc892979-001b-7677-e099-84105e0c92c9
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/fullcomm/107cong/2-13-02/records/gruber.htm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/11/24/An-Insightful-Article-on-Health-Care-Costs/
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg75442/html/CHRG-111shrg75442.htm
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112srpt11/html/CRPT-112srpt11.htm
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg50479/html/CHRG-111hhrg50479.htm
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg50510/html/CHRG-111shrg50510.htm
on and on and on....
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Obamacare guru shocks again with abortion boast
World Net Daily ^ | November 14, 2014 | Jerome R. Corsi
Posted on November 15, 2014 7:25:42 AM EST by Cincinatus' Wife
NEW YORK – The Obamacare architect at the center of controversy for his frank admissions that passing the president’s signature legislation required lying to the American people published a paper during the Clinton administration observing that legalizing abortion saved the government $14 billion in assistance to economically disadvantaged mothers, including African Americans, and lowered crime.
MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber argued in his paper that without the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, “marginal children” would have been born to many poor mothers. He said statistics show these children would have been 70 percent more likely to live in a single-parent family, 40 percent more likely to live in poverty, 50 percent more likely to receive welfare and 35 percent more likely to die as an infant.
Economist Steven D. Levitt and journalist Stephen J. Dubner in their bestselling 2005 book, “Freakonomics,” relied on Gruber’s work to argue that legalizing abortion was responsible for an approximately 50 percent reduction of crime in major urban centers in the early 1990s.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
-
Who Lied? Jonathan Gruber Linked to Getting Obamacare to Illegal Aliens
By Jeffrey Lord | November 14, 2014 | 8:18 PM EST
Share it Tweet it
More Sharing Services
1625
shares
Jonathan Gruber, Sylvia Burwell and Joe Wilson. Added to the mix of the two biggest issues of the day - ObamaCare and an expected Obama executive order granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, this is a potent cocktail of political explosives.
Let’s start in September, 2009.
As President Obama addresses a Joint Session of Congress on his health care proposals - the proposals that would eventually become The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) -- aka ObamaCare -- South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson abruptly and famously shouted “You lie!”
While Wilson was chastised for his decided breach of congressional decorum, in fact what he was literally yelling about were these words from President Obama: “There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too is false. The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”
Now?
Controversial MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, n the headlines for repeated videotaped admissions of lying to the “stupid” American people in writing the ACA law, has been tied to the hotly controversial issue of amnesty for illegal immigrants. An amnesty that would get around the prohibitions of the ACA that deny Obamacare to illegal immigrants by simply and directly removing the status of “undocumented” from “undocumented immigrants” - thereby making them eligible for Obamacare.
Now, Fox News co-host Greg Gutfeld has dug up this recent clip of HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell calling for “extending Obamacare benefits to DREAM-eligible illegal immigrants” and adding that “DREAMers are not able to be covered in the marketplace. And this is an issue that I think is more than a health care issue — it is an immigration issue…And I think everyone probably knows that this administration feels incredibly strongly about the fact that we need to fix that. We need to reform the system and make the changes that we need that will lead to benefits in everything from health care to economics to so many things — a very important step that we need to take as a nation.”
And who just happens to be well out there providing the data on illegal immigrants and Obamacare? If you guessed MIT’s Jonathan Gruber, you would be right.
In other words? President Obama is getting around his promise to Congress that September of 2009 that “the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally” by simply bestowing amnesty on “those who are here illegally.” Once legal, they will be qualified for Obamacare.
And Jonathan Gruber, who confesses that the Obama administration deliberately sold its program by lying about it, has now been tied to supplying data on health care for those illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants who would instantly become beneficiaries of the very same ACA once granted amnesty -- exactly as Obama HHS Secretary Burwell said was the goal.
In a “Final Report to the Commonwealth Fund” titled “ Undocumented Immigrants and Health Care Reform”, published by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research on August 31, 2012 (hat tip to NB's P.J. Gladnick), the report acknowledges only two sources at the very beginning of the report. The two sentence “Acknowledgments” reads in its entirety as follows: “Funding for this report was provided by a grant from The Commonwealth Fund. Special data runs were provided by Jonathan Gruber at MIT.”
The Commonwealth Fund describes itself on its website this way:
“The Commonwealth Fund is a private foundation that aims to promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults.”
The report makes clear in its Executive Summary that because of a specific prohibition in the ACA, illegal immigrants are prohibited from receiving ObamaCare. The Executive Summary says;
“Despite the far-reaching expansion of health care coverage for the large number of uninsured individuals in the US, the ACA explicitly excludes undocumented immigrants from purchasing health insurance coverage through the health exchanges. In addition, undocumented immigrants continue to be ineligible for most public forms of health insurance coverage and would not benefit from any Medicaid expansions carried out by the states.”
This ban on ObamaCare for “undocumented immigrants” as well as their ineligibility for “most public forms of health insurance coverage” would end if President Obama grants them amnesty. Which is exactly what Secretary Burwell was demanding just this past week.
The UCLA summary goes on to say: “In addition, we present estimates of uninsurance rates for the undocumented population before and after full implantation of ACA based on the Gruber MicroSimulation Model (GMSIM). “
Among the “Key findings” based on Jonathan Gruber’s data in this report are these:
* “….factors such as limited access to quality health care, low income and occupational status, and legal status may erode the health advantage of the undocumented at a faster pace than their documented counterparts.”
Access to Health Care
* Health insurance coverage is lower for undocumented immigrants than US-born citizens and other US immigrant groups.
* Significant barriers to health care face undocumented immigrants, including low socio- economic status, difficulty negotiating time off of work, lack of transportation and language barriers.
* Fewer health services are used by undocumented immigrants than US-born citizens or other immigrant groups. After adjusting for age and gender differences between groups, we estimate that undocumented immigrants in California were significantly less likely to have any doctor visits in the past year compared to naturalized and US-born citizens.
* Emergency department (ED) services; despite the popular conception that undocumented immigrants use more ED care, we estimate that undocumented immigrants are significantly less likely than naturalized citizens and U.S.-born citizens to visit the emergency department....
Impact on access of the exclusion of undocumented immigrants from the ACA
* Uninsurance rates based on the Gruber MicroSimulation Model (GMSIM) estimate that there will be a negligible change in the uninsurance rates of undocumented immigrants. Nationally, their share of all uninsured ages 0-64 is projected to rise from about 10% to 25% as a result of the improved coverage of the rest of the population.
* Impacts of the ACA on health insurance for undocumented populations will likely vary by state. For example, an estimated 1.2 million undocumented immigrants are expected to remain uninsured in California once ACA is fully implemented or 41% of the total uninsured in the state, compared with 25% nationwide. In contract, New York is estimated to have the third largest number of uninsured undocumented immigrants in the country, 265,000, which will account for an estimated 16% of that state’s total undocumented population.
Policy options to address access to care barriers for undocumented immigrants
* It may be possible to design programs that focus on those left out of health care reform generically, including those who are US citizens and permanent residents, that will also benefit the undocumented.
Catch that last line in the “Key Findings” section of this report? A report depending on data from Jonathan Gruber?
“It may be possible to design programs that….will also benefit the undocumented”?
That program has now been designed. No less than Secretary Burwell is now on video saying this is exactly the result the Obama White House was looking for. It is called an executive order giving amnesty to millions of those undocumenteds. An amnesty that would then enable millions of the undocumented to qualify for ObamaCare. With data on both health care and illegal immigrants supplied by…Jonathan Gruber.
Question: Was this Commonwealth Fund Report - with Gruber’s data on undocumented immigrants and health care - used in any fashion by Secretary Burwell? Or the Obama White House? Or anyone anywhere in the Obama administration? Not to mention the Democrats’ leadership in Congress? As news accounts have vividly illustrated, Nancy Pelosi herself is on video tape talking up Mr. Gruber - despite her current denial. Gruber is on record in this PBS Frontline interview from 2012 admitting he discussed ObamaCare in the Oval Office with the President himself in 2009. He pointedly notes just how well connected he is inside not only the White House but the Harry Reid-run Democratic Senate.
Says Mr. Gruber:
“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 again? Did this Commonwealth Report on health care for illegals make its way to Secretary Burwell and the HHS bureaucracy? To Mr. Gruber’s friends anywhere in the Obama administration and on Capitol Hill? Thus encouraging the push for amnesty so the undocumented could receive ObamaCare? A belief
Five years ago, Congressman Joe Wilson’s breach of protocol on the House floor was prompted by his accusation that President Obama was lying about his intentions in supplying ObamaCare to illegals.
With a stroke of a pen on an executive order giving amnesty for illegal immigrants, the President will, among other things, at last prove Joe Wilson correct. Mr. Obama did lie. And helping with all that data on both health care and immigration?
Jonathan Gruber.
- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-lord/2014/11/14/who-lied-jonathan-gruber-linked-getting-obamacare-illegal-aliens#sthash.IPhsLrHY.dpuf
AD FEEDBACK
-
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Newly surfaced videos are adding fresh energy to the efforts of congressional conservatives to repeal President Barack Obama's health care law, feeding into their contentions that the overhaul was approved through a scheme of deception.
Some are calling anew for hearings on the law, which is about to begin its second year of coverage for millions of Americans. And activists are telling lawmakers to make good on their talk of scrapping the law or face defeat in the next elections.
The videos show MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, an adviser in the law's drafting, saying that "the stupidity of the American voter" helped Democrats pass the complex legislation.
"The Gruber clip has caught fire," says David Bozell, whose ForAmerica group campaigns against the health care law online.
In one video, Gruber describes what he depicts as the behind-the-scenes political strategy of the law's supporters. At a 2013 University of Pennsylvania public forum, he says Americans' lack of understanding helped Democrats pass the legislation.
Other impolitic statements have continued to dribble out in which Gruber claims that the law was written to deceive federal budget watchdogs and mocks conservatives' concerns over health care policy.
He has since disavowed the most controversial remarks, saying he "spoke inappropriately and I regret having made those comments."
Republicans, who made big gains during last week's midterm congressional elections, have stood unified against the law they deride as "Obamacare," and they now point to Gruber's comments as yet another reason to dump it. They say the remarks show a cynical strategy by Democrats to camouflage the law's politically unpalatable aspects and sneak them past an unsuspecting public.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is among those calling for hearings, perhaps including Gruber as a witness.
"This is what we complained about when we fought it for all those months on the floor. Nobody understood it," McCain said.
Another advocate for scrapping the law, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, branded the measure "just a bundle of deception."
The videos have put Democrats on the defensive. Traveling with Obama in Asia this week, White House press secretary Josh Earnest defended the health law and said he would "disagree vigorously" with Gruber's assessment. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., instrumental in the law's passage, said she did not know Gruber - despite having cited his analysis at least once in the past during an on-camera briefing with reporters.
"He didn't help write our bill," she said this week.
Both policy and politics are in play for the GOP. If congressional Republicans fail to push hard for repeal, they'll face angered activists.
As the head of one influential conservative organization met with activists in Georgia this week, the mere mention of Gruber's name drew jeers and brought people to their feet.
"It certainly has lit a fire among the grass roots," said Heritage Action for America CEO Michael Needham. "All it does is confirms what everyone knows: I don't think anyone in this country thought this law was passed without obfuscation."
"How can you put another red penny toward this program?" asks ForAmerica's Bozell, "when the architect of it says the only reason it passed is a lie?"
Few others, however, would call Gruber the architect of the massive law. He was a paid outside consultant, hired to crunch numbers as the legislation was developed. Ironically, he was brought on board because of expertise he acquired in helping Republican Gov. Mitt Romney set up a health care expansion in Massachusetts. That plan became the basis for Obama's law.
Many Republicans contend there was a lack of transparency when the legislation was being put together. However, according to Democratic tallies, House lawmakers spent almost 100 hours and the Senate more than 160 in public hearings and debate on the measures, much of it televised on C-SPAN.
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said Gruber's comments show that "the president and his party intentionally hid Obamacare's true costs." But as it was being written, the law was frequently reviewed by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the often-critical Medicare Office of the Actuary.
---
Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Donna Cassata contributed to this report.
---
Follow Philip Elliott on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/philip-elliott
© 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
-
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-one-man-could-obliterate-obamacare-11685
-
This guy needs to held to account. Everyone involved in this crime needs to be held to account for this. This is a conspiracy to rob money from the American people. A willful and purposeful deception. Now that they have fucked everything up they are sitting around laughing about how stupid the American people are. When is enough going to be enough?
-
This guy needs to held to account. Everyone involved in this crime needs to be held to account for this. This is a conspiracy to rob money from the American people. A willful and purposeful deception. Now that they have fucked everything up they are sitting around laughing about how stupid the American people are. When is enough going to be enough?
The issue is the base of the left agrees with tactics like this.
Ask strawman, vince, whork etc. they dont care how their agenda gets implemented only that it gets implemented.
-
The issue is the base of the left agrees with tactics like this.
Ask strawman, vince, whork etc. they dont care how their agenda gets implemented only that it gets implemented.
Tony - yes or no - have we been correct from Day 1 about Obamacare?
-
Tony - yes or no - have we been correct from Day 1 about Obamacare?
It's indisputable.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
More on Jon Gruber
New York Times ^ | January 15, 2010 | Paul Krugman
Posted on November 14, 2014 11:29:12 PM EST by gusopol3
In fact, it’s hard to see who else you could have hired. Modeling health reform is a very detail-driven business: you need a detailed statistical representation of the population, together with detailed estimates of behavioral responses to incentives. Gruber has spent years developing such a model, which is maintained and update at considerable expense. Who else could bring the same resources to bear? Well, I guess the administration could have turned to the Lewin Group, but aside from the fact that Gruber has such sterling academic credentials, Lewin is owned by United Healthcare.
In other words, Gruber is a real authority, and the obvious person to fill a needed role. As I’ve written before, he should have taken more pains to reveal that role. But there was nothing corrupt about the arrangement.
(Excerpt) Read more at krugman.blogs.nytimes.co m ...
-
BRISBANE, Australia — President Obama dismissed renewed criticism of his signature health care law Sunday and disputed an assertion from a former architect of the policy who claimed the administration had deceived lawmakers.
Jonathan Gruber, an economist, suggested last year that the administration’s signature health-care legislation passed in part because of the “stupidity of the American voter” and a “lack of transparency” over its funding mechanisms.
“I just heard about this,” Obama said at a new conference, after wrapping up two days of meetings with world leaders here at the G-20 Summit. “The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed his opinion that I completely disagree with — it is no reflection on the actual process that was run.”
It marked the first time Obama has weighed in on the video, which became public after he left Washington for a week-long trip to Asia. Gruber is an MIT economics professor and health care policy expert who was a paid consultant for the Obama administration on the Affordable Care Act.
His remarks were captured on a video that recently surfaced on social media and have been seized on by Republicans who want to dismantle the law. Conservatives in both chambers of Congress said they might call on Gruber to testify on Capitol Hill, a process that would reopen the ugly political fight over a law that has already enrolled millions of Americans in new health care plans.
“We had a year-long debate,” Obama said. “Go look back at your stories. One thing we can’t say is that we didn’t have a lengthy debate over health care in the United States. Every press outlet here should go back and pull up every clip and every story. It’s fair to say there is not a provision in the health care law that was not extensively debated and was not fully transparent.”
In a news conference that touched on several diverse topics, Obama also spoke for the first time about his face-to-face meetings with Russian President Vladi mir Putin. The two leaders, whose relations have turned icy over Russian support for Ukrainian separatists, spoke informally several times at an economic forum in Beijing last week and at the G-20 Summit in Brisbane.
Obama called the discussions “business-like,” and said he warned Putin that if he “continues down the path that he is on ... the isolation that Russia is currently experiencing will continue.”
On Syria, Obama reiterated that his thinking had not changed over his refusal to send in U.S. ground troops to fight in the U.S.-led campaign against the Islamic State militant group in Syria and Iraq. The president has authorized an increase in troops to act in support and advisory roles in the Middle East, but he said suggestions that his military advisers are requesting U.S. forces to fight on the front lines is wrong.
The president said that Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has not recommended that he reverse his position. Rather, Obama said, Dempsey has envisioned hypothetical situations in which more direct action from the U.S. military would be required.
“Yes, there’s always a circumstance in which the United States needs to deploy U.S. ground troops,” Obama said. “If we discovered [the Islamic State] had gotten possession of a nuclear weapon, then yes, you could anticipate that not only Chairman Dempsey would recommend sending U.S. troops to get the weapons out of their hands, I would order it.”
The question, Obama continued, is “what are those circumstances? I would not speculate on those.”
On immigration, the president acknowledged, when pressed by a reporter, that any changes to border control laws that he makes through executive action could be overturned by the next president. Obama has vowed to act on his own after a comprehensive legislative bill failed in Congress last summer, and the president is weighing steps that could shield up to 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation.
“The record will show I’ve actually taken fewer executive actions than my predecessor,” Obama said. “Nobody disputes that. What’s changed is the reaction of some of my friends in Congress about me exercising what are normal and frankly typical exercises in presidential authority. But you are right that the very nature of executive action means a future president could reverse that action. That’s always been true.”
Obama also was asked about the potential for a government shutdown if his move to change immigration laws, which Republicans fiercely oppose, sparks a political fight that results in conservatives refusing to pass a bill to fund the government beyond next month, when the current funding bill expires.
“I take Mitch McConnell at his word when he says the government will not shut down. No reason for it to shut down,” Obama said of the Kentucky Republican who will become the majority leader of the Senate in January. “We’ve traveled that path before. It’s bad for country; it’s bad for every elected official in Washington.”
Fng lying pos. F him
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/16/what-exactly-was-grubers-role-in-the-creation-of-the-health-law
Oshitface caught in another lie.
-
Obamacare architect’s “stupid” voter remarks create real problems (especially with a GOP Congress)
Daily Digest News ^ | November 16, 2014 | Dan Taylor
Posted on 11/16/2014 7:51:00 AM by Cincinatus' Wife
The recent comments by an architect of Obamacare have created real problems for supporters of the act as Republicans win sweeping elections and pledge to hold hearings to roll back some of its measures.
MIT economist and Affordable Care Act architect Jonathan Gruber created quite a stir recently when he attributed the success in pasting legislation for it to the “stupidity of the American voter.” The comments took place at an academic conference last year and is only just now becoming public, and Republicans are seizing on it as they seek to attack the ACA, according to the Boston Globe.
The GOP is sure to use it as justification for new hearings on the act and potentially repealing it, at least partially. The comments will give them fodder to argue that the American voter was lied to, and thus it deserves another look. Gruber himself may be called to testify, in what is likely to be quite the partisan spectacle on Capitol Hill.
Gruber said the remarks were “off the cuff,” but acknowledged he regretted making them. He said his essential point was that the Obama Administration had to convince the Congressional Budget Office not to list the individual mandate as a tax even though it essentially was, because anything couched as a tax increase would not be politically feasible. He also said the Obama Administration did not tell the public that healthy people would subsidize premiums for sick people under the ACA.
The firestorm that erupted was largely ignored by Gruber and the Obama Administration as it was largely confined to right-wing circles. However, it has lately become impossible to ignore, especially with Republicans now holding the reigns of power in both the House and Senate.
The scandal has also distracted from any of Obamacare’s successes. A New York Times report recently said that after a year in place, the ACA has largely succeeded in delivering on the president’s main promises, as the number of uninsured tumbled by about 25 percent, with several million more expected to sign up in the next few years.
However, the downsides include the fact that 30 million will remain uninsured despite the act. Republicans will seize on those downsides as they reexamine the issue in the coming months and years.
-
The CBO Effectively Used Gruber’s Model to Score Obamacare
Weekley Standard ^ | November 16, 2014 | JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
Posted on 11/16/2014 12:58:00 PM by Cincinatus' Wife
Two well-placed sources on Capitol Hill say that the Congressional Budget Office effectively used Jonathan Gruber’s model to score Obamacare. That model favors government mandates over market competition and claims that essentially the only way to achieve a large reduction in the number of uninsured Americans is to impose an Obamacare-like individual mandate. Moreover, because the model that the CBO used in scoring Obamacare is the same one it uses today, any alternative to Obamacare that doesn’t include an individual mandate — which is to say, any conservative alternative — would be scored by the CBO as falling well short, in terms of coverage numbers, of Gruber’s preferred legislation.
While the CBO’s model isn’t exactly the same as Gruber’s, one well-placed congressional source says that the two models are “eerily similar.” That source adds that, not only was Gruber one of the CBO’s academic advisors at the time that Obamacare was scored — a claim echoed by the Huffington Post — but two of Gruber’s graduate student protégés worked on the scoring.
Gruber himself describes his model and the CBO’s as being “very similar.” In early 2011, he wrote:
“CBO and I both estimate [the] that Affordable Care Act will cover about 60 percent of those who would be uninsured absent the law. We both find that there would be a very modest reduction of employer-sponsored insurance, that premiums in the nongroup insurance market for the same quality product would fall, and that there would not be much effect on premiums in the employer-provided insurance market.”
For the record, before Obamacare passed, the CBO predicted that the president’s signature legislation would have led to 19 million more people having health insurance by 2014 (see Table 4). In reality, Obamacare has maybe hit half that number — and many if not most of Obamacare’s newly insured have simply been dumped into Medicaid.
While failing to disclose it at the time, the Obama administration paid Gruber almost $400,000 in taxpayers’ money because, in the Department of Health and Human Services’ words, he had “developed a proprietary statistically sophisticated micro-simulation model” to which the Obama administration wanted access. Noting how “similar” Gruber’s model is to the CBO’s, the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler writes that, with access to Gruber’s model, the Obama administration “could predict with reasonable certainty how CBO would score legislation.” Kessler adds, “Given that legislation in Washington often falls or rises depending on the CBO score, that made this model a very powerful tool for administration officials.”
Given the importance of Gruber’s role, why wasn’t it made more transparent? Well, as Gruber might say — and has said — “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” especially given “the stupidity of the American voter.”
Gruber had influence over the CBO, the White House, and Congress alike. Indeed, it seems that it might be hard to overestimate his importance; his role was central to the efforts of President Obama and his Democratic allies to shove Obamacare down an unwilling citizenry’s throat.
Jane Hamsher called attention to Gruber’s singular role just days before the House’s fateful vote on Obamacare. In a piece published by the Huffington Post on March 18, 2010 — three days before Paul Ryan’s rousing and timeless speech on the House floor and the vote to follow — Hamsher highlighted that “the White House, the Senate, the DNC and other Democratic leaders...distributed Gruber’s work and cited it as independent validation of their proposals, orchestrating the appearance of broad consensus when in fact it was all part of the same effort.” Moreover, “Gruber’s work was not that of an independent analyst but rather work performed as a contractor to the White House and paid for by taxpayers.”
Hamsher’s piece is worth quoting at length, for it shows that Gruber had his fingers all over Obamacare, even as the Obama administration did its best to wipe away the prints.
She writes,
“How did the feedback loop work? Well, take Gruber’s appearance before the Senate HELP Committee on November 2, 2009, for which he used his microsimulation model to make calculations about small business insurance coverage. On the same day, Gruber released an analysis of the House health care bill, which he sent to Ezra Klein of the Washington Post. Ezra published an excerpt.
“White House blogger Jesse Lee then promoted both Gruber’s Senate testimony and Ezra Klein’s article on the White House blog. ‘We thought it would all be a little more open and transparent if we went ahead and published what our focus will be for the day’ he said, pointing to Gruber’s ‘objective analysis.’ The ‘transparent’ part apparently stopped when everyone got to Gruber’s contractual relationship to the White House, which nobody…bothered to disclose.
“Two days [after the Senate bill was unveiled], Gruber published a paper entitled ‘Impacts of the Senate High Cost Insurance Excise Tax on Wages: Updated,’ claiming that the excise tax would result in wage hikes of $234 billion from 2013 through 2019….
“The next day on [November] 21st, Ron Brownstein wrote in the Atlantic about Gruber’s effusive praise for the cost-cutting measures in the bill:…‘You couldn’t have done better than they are doing,’ says Gruber. [Brownstein also wrote that Gruber told him, “I'm sort of a known skeptic on this stuff.”]
“On Monday the 23rd, the DNC was sending the Brownstein column around in its entirety...one of 71 emails they would send touting Gruber's work....
“David Brooks of the New York Times was not convinced that the Senate bill would be deficit neutral, so Peter Orszag pointed him to...Brownstein's ‘insightful article on health care costs’….
“Paul Krugman cited Gruber’s glowing analysis in the Brownstein article – ‘this is the best effort anyone has made’ -- as one of the reasons he supported the Senate bill....Jeff Bingaman mentioned the Krugman piece on the floor of the Senate, and entered it into the Congressional Record….
“On November 27, following the release of the CBO score, Gruber issued another report saying the Senate bill would reduce non-group premiums (Gruber is one of the CBO’s academic advisors)….
“The next day... [Politico’s] Mike Allen [wrote a piece] with the headline ‘MIT analysis backs Obama health plan,’ leading readers to believe that Gruber’s work represented outside confirmation. The DNC didn’t flinch at that description, sending around an email on the 29th with the subject line: ‘MIT Analysis backs Obama Health Plan’….
“On the 29th Nancy-Ann DeParle, head of the very White House Office of Health Reform that Gruber was hired to consult for, posted perhaps the most misleading column of all on the White House blog….
“She identified Gruber as an ‘MIT Economist who has been closely following the health insurance reform process’ who had ‘issued a compelling new report.’…
“On November 30th…Harry Reid took to the floor of the Senate…, saying ‘just a few days ago an MIT economist -- one of the nation’s foremost economists -- a man by the name of Jonathan Gruber, analyzed our bill and concluded it will help Americans pay less and get more.’
“…Nancy Pelosi touted ‘the Gruber analysis’ on the Speaker's website.
“On December 3, Kathleen Sebelius released a statement…[and] substantiated [her] claims…by citing Gruber’s November 3 testimony before the HELP Committee….No mention that he was a contractor to HHS….
“On December 28, Gruber published an Op-Ed in the Washington Post -- in which he neglected to mention his contract to consult with the White House on this very issue. He was asked point-blank if he had any contracts related to the piece for which he was being paid, and he said ‘no.’”
In other words, an overwhelming number of the ostensibly independent statements or scores that were made or published in support of Obamacare —from Krugman, Klein, Brownstein, the DNC, Reid, Pelosi, Sebelius, and even, to a significant degree, the CBO itself — were traceable to the support of one man and his model. And that man was Jonathan Gruber, who was secretly under contract with the Obama administration.
Perhaps it’s time to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a winning conservative alternative that would lower costs, secure liberty, and make it possible for any American who wants to buy health insurance to be able to do so. And perhaps it’s time to make sure that Jonathan Gruber’s influence over the CBO’s scoring of Obamacare, and of Obamacare alternatives, doesn’t extend into the next Congress.
-
Obama addressed MIT economist Jonathan Gruber’s comments for the first time on Sunday.
“The fact that an adviser who was never on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters is not a reflection on the actual process that was run,” Obama said at a press conference in Australia, Politico reports.
In an interview with PBS in 2012, Gruber said he discussed the Cadillac tax with Obama at the White House.
As Slate’s John Dickerson reported on Friday, Obama prominently acknowledged Gruber’s role in helping craft the law in the past.
Gruber’s role was further explicated by a former adviser to Kathleen Sebelius, the former secretary of Health and Human Services.
“I remember many a call to Jonathan Gruber about his expertise in Massachusetts as we were formulating the plan,” said Neera Tanden, who is currently the president of the Center for American Progress, in 2012.
Asked Sunday if he misled the public in order to get the federal health care bill passed, Obama said “No. I did not.”
“I would just advise every press outlet here: Pull up every clip and every story. I think it’s fair to say there was not a provision in the health care law that was not extensively debated and was fully transparent,” Obama said, according to Politico. “It was a tough debate.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
-
Skip to comments.
Gruber-gate gets to Obama: ‘No, I did not’ mislead Americans (Says the Liar in Chief)
Hotair.com ^ | November 16, 2014 | NOAH ROTHMAN
Posted on November 16, 2014 at 5:22:42 PM EST by Kaslin
All the president’s men could not shield the commander-in-chief from fallout surrounding recently uncovered comments made by Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber.
The health policy and implementation expert who worked closely on the Affordable Care Act and the Massachusetts health care reform law has backed the administration into a corner after it was revealed he repeatedly celebrated the misleading way in which the law was crafted and the “stupidity” of the American voter over whose eyes the wool was pulled.
“The fact that an adviser who was never on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters is not a reflection on the actual process that was run,” Obama told reporters in Australia where he is attending a G-20 summit.
When asked directly if he or his administration had, as Gruber insisted, intentionally misled the public and oversight organizations like the Congressional Budget Office when they crafted the Accordable Care Act, Obama’s reply was terse and direct. “No,” he said. “I did not.”
Obama was joined on Sunday by Health and Human Services Sec. Sylvia Burwell who appeared on Meet the Press to distance herself and the administration from Gruber.
“I have to start with how fundamentally I disagree with his comments about the bill and about the American people,” she began emphatically.
Burwell was, however, not asked to respond to those comments. She was asked by moderator Chuck Todd about whether what Gruber said about “mislabeling” new taxes on health insurance plans as fees was true.
Neither the secretary nor Obama addressed Gruber’s charge directly because it is impossible to deny its accuracy.
It is not the first time the president has been pulled into a controversy over the implementation of Obamacare. After weeks of controversy following a cascade of Americans who lost their individual coverage plans which were not compliant with new Obamacare regulations last year, the president was forced to issue a personal apology.
“I am sorry that they– you know, are finding themselves in this situation, based on assurances they got from me,” Obama told Todd in the fall of 2013.
Just days after Obama issued this apology, however, it was revealed that the president was aware that millions of noncompliant plans would be cancelled. Despite his apology for the incorrect assertion Obama made on numerous occasions, that you could keep your plan if you liked your plan, the administration knew this was not true.
“That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them,” NBC News reported.
Anyone who followed the Obamacare debate in 2009 and 2010 is already aware that Obama was not being truthful when he denied that the ACA was written to evade scrutiny. Though noting that it is an imperfect feature of the American system, intellectually honest liberals who support the law are already defending the lamentable practice of deceptively crafting legislation so that it avoids creating controversy.
So how long will it be before Barack Obama is forced to walk back his definitive declaration that he never knew the ACA was crafted so as to mislead the people’s representatives who passed it?
-
nother ObamaCare Deception
As Jonathan Gruber knows, the health-care law is a tax machine. The ‘Cadillac’ levy will hit the middle class.
ENLARGE
David Klein
.
By
Tevi Troy
Nov. 16, 2014 6:12 p.m. ET
308 COMMENTS
Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist, is making himself a household name, and not in a good way. A series of videos have emerged in recent days showing Mr. Gruber—an architect of the Affordable Care Act—telling college audiences that major parts of the law were designed purposely to mask its true cost to individual Americans.
As Mr. Gruber put it, speaking last year at a conference at the University of Pennsylvania: “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.”
One example cited by Mr. Gruber is the so-called Cadillac tax, as the ObamaCare excise tax on high-value employer health plans is known. The tax, which he helped devise and will take effect in 2018, imposes a 40% levy on individual health plans worth more than $10,200, and on family plans worth more than $27,500. As Mr. Gruber’s remarks were unearthed last week, economist Mark Wilson and I released a study of the excise tax that shows he is right about its deceptive design. The tax is likely to hit many people who don’t have high-end coverage.
Mr. Gruber says in one video that his real aim was to reduce the tax break available to those who get employer-sponsored insurance, about 170 million Americans. He lamented that it would be hard to persuade Congress to reduce people’s tax breaks: “You just can’t get through. It’s politically impossible.” True enough—the excise tax does the job instead. It is a stealthy way to reduce the tax preference for health care without taking it away from employers.
Mr. Gruber also noted that the real impact of the tax would fall on individual Americans: “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.” In another video that surfaced on Friday, he explained that the only way to get rid of the tax preference for employer-sponsored insurance was “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.”
Our study bears this out. While the tax is designed to be paid by companies, employees or consumers will see significant increases in costs. These cost increases will be passed on in several ways. Large employers who are subject to the excise tax in 2018 will pay an average of more than $2,700 per employee a year from 2018 to 2024. As Mr. Gruber admits, and basic economics confirms, this cost will be passed on to consumers or to employees in higher prices and lower compensation.
Employers, being rational actors, will not want to pay these taxes and will reduce their health-care benefits to limit their potential exposure to the tax. Doing this will cause employees to be hit by the excise tax in at least two other ways. If employers increase taxable wages to compensate for reducing the value of their plans, then employees will be paying more in taxes for the same compensation levels, and more after-tax out-of-pocket expenses for their health care.
From 2018 to 2024, the excise tax could cost 12.1 million employees an average $1,050 in higher payroll and income taxes a year, if employers increase their taxable wages as they reduce the cost of health-care benefits. Alternatively, if employers only reduce the value of their offerings without increasing wages and salaries, these employees could see up to a $6,150 reduction in their health-care benefits and little or no increase in pay.
Mr. Gruber also implicitly acknowledged that calling the excise tax a “Cadillac” tax is misleading, as the tax’s reach will expand. “Over time it’s gonna apply to more and more health-insurance plans,” he said, elaborating in a separate speech that the “tax that starts out hitting only 8% of the insurance plans essentially amounts over the next 20 years [to] essentially getting rid of the exclusion for employer-sponsored plans.”
This means that eventually the excise tax will affect an increasing number of workers who don’t have top-flight health insurance. By 2031 the cost of the average family health-care plan is expected to hit the excise-tax threshold. The tax’s creeping reach is reminiscent of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was originally designed to hit only the wealthiest taxpayers but now nails the middle class.
The all-too-candid MIT economist is not likely to have a hard time paying for his own health care—Mr. Gruber reportedly received $400,000 for advising the Obama administration on the Affordable Care Act. But he is having a hard time explaining his unguarded comments about the law. His views may be obnoxious, but Mr. Gruber has performed a public service by finally telling the truth about ObamaCare and providing a glimpse of the mind-set of those who foisted it on the country. The American people are smart enough to see Mr. Gruber and the Affordable Care Act for what they are.
Mr. Troy is the president of the American Health Policy Institute and a former deputy secretary of Health and Human Services.
-
Health-Care Reform
Liberal Arrogance at the Core of Obamacare
Lanhee Chen
comments icon443 time iconNov 14, 2014 10:14 AM EST
By Lanhee Chen
Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber has gotten in trouble for remarks that applaud -- in the words of Washington Post reporters Robert Costa and Jose DelReal -- “the deliberatively deceptive way” the health-care law was written to get it passed in Congress.
Gruber's comments, made over the last several years, reveal a disdain for the American voter (whom he described as stupid) and for people's ability to understand the policy discussions that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist and his fellow liberal wonks engaged in when they crafted the Affordable Care Act.
But none of us should be surprised by his perspective. Liberal thinkers and policy-makers have never believed that individuals can manage their own health care. This is why they’ve said government should be involved in even our most basic health-care decisions, such as what benefits an insurance plan must include.
This viewpoint also explains their opposition to options that give consumers greater power over their own medical care, such as health-savings accounts, and their rejection of reforms that increase private competition and enhance consumer choice in Medicare.
The paternalism is warranted, they argue, because without the government, people would fall prey to big, bad corporate interests and their efforts to relentlessly maximize shareholder value.
Thus, Obamacare is all about the federal government making decisions on behalf of Americans because -- as Gruber and his liberal brethren would argue -- the people are unable or unwilling to make the choices that elites believe advance the social good. That’s why President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress invented the mechanisms in the law that, for example, transfer resources from those who are young and healthy to those who are old and sick.
Gruber apologized for his incendiary and arrogant comments. But the sentiment behind them is something I doubt he'll ever apologize for.
To contact the author on this story:
Lanhee Chen at lchen301@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor on this story:
Katherine Roberts at kroberts29@bloomberg.net
-
Train Wrecks, Lies, and Videotape
Jonathan Gruber reminds us why we hate Obamacare.
By David Catron – 11.17.14
SmallerLarger
Print Article
Send to Kindle
digg
email
facebook
reddit
stumbleupon
twitter
ADVERTISEMENT
An important point has been buried in the avalanche of commentary about Jonathan Gruber’s indictment of the electorate as intellectually deficient. The “father of Obamacare,” as he was known in his salad days, inadvertently acquitted nearly half of us with his reference to “the stupidity of the American voter.” The professor’s condescending comments can only apply to those people who actually believed the empty promises our President made on behalf of his health care “reform” law. A large plurality of the voters always knew that Obama, his congressional accomplices, and creepy little hirelings like Jonathan Gruber were lying to us.
As for the voters who believed all the misrepresentations, they were more credulous than stupid. Though it was obvious to millions of us that the ironically named Affordable Care Act was never going to increase access to care while also improving quality and decreasing cost, Obama’s supporters thought he was a “post-partisan” politician who could be trusted. They failed to subject his implausible claims to serious scrutiny and therefore missed what was wrong with the rosy picture he was painting. It is these voters who should be most insulted by Gruber’s remarks. It is their naïveté that the President and his co-conspirators cynically exploited.
Inevitably, some of these voters have finally opened up their eyes, and they are not at all happy with what they see. Among them is Burke Beu, a lifelong Democrat who recently described his rude awakening in the Wall Street Journal: “I voted for Barack Obama in 2008, then lost my job in the Great Recession… I voted for President Obama again in 2012, then received a cancellation notice for my health insurance.” And he has not been taken in by White House propaganda concerning the source of his employment and insurance travails. He places the blame precisely where it belongs: “This was due to Obamacare, the so-called Affordable Care Act.”
Regarding Gruber, Beu reacts with understandable outrage: “Now we learn in videos that came to light this week that Jonathan Gruber, MIT economist and a key architect of the Affordable Care Act, proudly relied on his perceived ‘stupidity of the American voter’ as the basis for designing ObamaCare.” And, the good professor’s opinion notwithstanding, Beu is intelligent enough to know that this snide comment is aimed at all of the voters: “Such comments, along with the program’s notoriously dysfunctional website and false assurances that people can keep their previous health plans, are insults to every citizen regardless of party.”
Stories like Beu’s have played out countless times across the country. This unquestionably played a role in the drubbing the Democrats just received and, in a sublime manifestation of poetic justice, it also caused the Gruber videos to surface. Most of the six now in circulation, including the original “stupid voters” clip, were found by investment advisor Rich Weinstein. Like Beu, Weinstein believed Obama’s “you can keep your insurance” lie. Thus, when his coverage was canceled and he was “forced to buy compliant insurance at double the price,” he “got pissed” and began the research that eventually uncovered the incriminating videos.
Now that their deceptions have cost them Congress, disillusioned their supporters, and sown the dragon’s teeth that produced a legion of damning videos, how has the Obama administration and its congressional partners decided to deal with the situation? By telling more lies, of course. Nancy Pelosi actually claimed that she had never heard of Dr. Gruber. This was… well… stupid. As Emily Zanotti pointed out in this space last week, “Pelosi herself dropped Gruber's name in an interview about the ACA back in November of 2009.” Also, his name was apparently featured prominently in a Pelosi’s press release, which has now vanished from her website.
For its part, the White House is now denying that Gruber played a significant role in designing the health care law. In fact, on Sunday morning, the President himself reiterated this transparent lie as follows: “The fact that an adviser who was never on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters is not a reflection on the actual process that was run.” The President evidently believes the reporters traveling with him are also stupid. And he may well be correct in their case. Not one of them asked how such an unimportant adviser got into the White House meeting during which the deceptive “Cadillac Tax” was concocted.
Nor did any of them ask Obama how such a bit player managed to get so heavily involved with his DOJ in the IRS subsidies case, King v. Burwell, that the Supreme Court has recently taken up. As Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute pointed out last month, “Gruber has been cited in every single previous government brief in King, and in the government’s major filings in Halbig.” Oddly enough, however, he is missing from any Obama administration filing made since his incriminating videos began appearing. Apparently, the government lawyers are under the impression that the Supremes are just as dull-witted as Gruber finds the voters.
There was never a chance that Obamacare would provide universal coverage, but it will take universal stupidity to save it. Conservatives who have always opposed it will have to be stupid enough to stop pushing for repeal, disillusioned progressives will have to be stupid enough to accept broken promises and exorbitant insurance premiums, and the Supreme Court will have to be stupid enough to rule that the meaning of PPACA has no connection with its text. Jonathan Gruber has finally done the nation a service. He has reminded us of the deceptions that got Obamacare passed and demonstrated how much its authors despise ordinary Americans.
-
HEHEHEHEEH!
Pelosi and the clowninchief claiming that they don't know who Gruber is or that he had no role in crafting crapcare.
Bunch of lying idiots. And the bigger idiots are the morons who keep voting for the democratic party.
-
Bob Schieffer to Gruber: If Obamacare Is As Bad As You Say, Then Give Back Money You Made As Advisor
BOB SCHIEFFER: I was dumbstruck when I heard the comments that are surfacing from an economist named Jonathan Gruber, who was paid four hundred thousand dollars to help shape the President's health care plan. First, he allowed his health plan passed only because of a lack of transparency and this is a direct quote, "the stupidity of the American people." Then Friday our Nancy Cordes found a couple of other things he said going back to 2011.
JONATHAN GRUBER: First by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people and we all know it's really a tax on people who hold those insurance plans.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And there was this about Massachusetts health care plan.
JONATHAN GRUBER: The dirty secret in Massachusetts is the Feds pay for our bill. Okay. Ted Kennedy and smart people in Massachusetts had basically figured out way to sort of rip off the Feds for about four hundred million dollars a year.
BOB SCHIEFFER: I'll be honest, while I favor health insurance, I am not wild about the new plan and how it became law either. But here is my question for Mister Gruber. If all this was as bad as you say, why did you take the money you earned as an advisor, nor is it too late to give it back? What we have here is another example of the sorry state of American politics where people take money for things in which they don't believe and whether it's good for the American people is not even a question. As for the President he may want to consider that old politician's prayer, Lord, I can take care of my enemies; just protect me from my friends.
-
33, Do you think there's a chance that obama is falling on the Gruber grenade - all these tapes coming out - on purpose?
As in, he is giving mcconnell the political cover to give obama his bloated spending budget for another year?
In exchange, obama plays the lame-duck fool in the press... giving FOX a nice story, giving right-wing repubs some red meat for the base, giving getbiggers vindication... we're all debating this, all over again..
In the meantime, as politico points out, mcconnell is out of the TedCruz attacks, and mcconnell is giving obama his $$$
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/barack-obama-mitch-mcconnell-112919.html?hp=t1_r
In another week, we've all moved on from "gruber" and obama/congress have their spending in place for another bloated budget year - and we didn't even notice.
What do you think, 33? Bush did it all the time - issued warnings to overlap bad political stories. Obama does these 'racial slip ups' every time he has something shady to do, and we all scream about beer summits while everyone quietly agrees to another 3 trillion dollars in debt.
Your thoughts? Are we foolish to focus on 'told ya so' on something permanent like obamacare, while something that can change now - the horrible budget - is quietly sneaking thru?
-
More CT's.
Its not a one week story - Communist Care as a story is never going away until its repeaeled one way or another.
-
More CT's.
Its not a one week story - Communist Care as a story is never going away until its repeaeled one way or another.
Okay. But will you agree that obama has, in the past, used Beer summits and freguson and trayvon to keep our eyes off og monster spending and other shady shit?
Like, maybe he's happy about Gruber in the news because fewer people are talking about AMNESTY?
Such timing, no? A US Prez releases the BIGGEST exec order in HISTORY? OPENING BORDERS when the congress and nation are against it - but the big 4 news stories on http://www.foxnews.com/ are
1) Ebola 2) obamacare 3) Gruber 4) Ferguson.
You're telling me that ONE DOC dying of ebola, or ONE TOWN THAT MIGHT RIOT is more important/significant than amnesty being forced?
Surely, you can't call this a CT. Surely you don't overlook the BENEFIT to obama - were screaming about ferguson (great timing) and Gruber (amazing timing) while what is happening? AMNESTY!
Please, you're smarter than these fcking lemmings, dude. You know it's not a CT, you know it's beyond obvious. FOX news doesn't have amnesty on their front page - and it's days away from 5 million new citizens. Please, tell me you're not falling for it.
-
Of course - but some of us can focus on more than 1 thing at once.
Okay. But will you agree that obama has, in the past, used Beer summits and freguson and trayvon to keep our eyes off og monster spending and other shady shit?
Like, maybe he's happy about Gruber in the news because fewer people are talking about AMNESTY?
Such timing, no? A US Prez releases the BIGGEST exec order in HISTORY? OPENING BORDERS when the congress and nation are against it - but the big 4 news stories on http://www.foxnews.com/ are
1) Ebola 2) obamacare 3) Gruber 4) Ferguson.
You're telling me that ONE DOC dying of ebola, or ONE TOWN THAT MIGHT RIOT is more important/significant than amnesty being forced?
Surely, you can't call this a CT. Surely you don't overlook the BENEFIT to obama - were screaming about ferguson (great timing) and Gruber (amazing timing) while what is happening? AMNESTY!
Please, you're smarter than these fcking lemmings, dude. You know it's not a CT, you know it's beyond obvious. FOX news doesn't have amnesty on their front page - and it's days away from 5 million new citizens. Please, tell me you're not falling for it.
-
Of course - but some of us can focus on more than 1 thing at once.
I don't think FOX news can. OR they want amnesty too.
The word AMNESTY does not appear on their home page. unreal.
Lots of shit about Taylor Swift, and yes, "17 Unexpected Uses For Honey: We're Trying #12 This Weekend"
But not a word on amnesty. Do you think it's overlooked - or is FOX NEWS in on the obama amnesty agenda?
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/11/16/Obama-on-Gruber-I-Just-Heard-About-This-Today
LMFAO he is either the dumbest man to walk the planet or the biggest liar
Take your pick libfags
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/11/16/Obama-on-Gruber-I-Just-Heard-About-This-Today
LMFAO he is either the dumbest man to walk the planet or the biggest liar
Take your pick libfags
duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude
he's a big old distraction! He's probably 5 minutes away from a monster contract for millions with a 'think tank' for taking this public hit.
nobody is talking about amnesty! Not fox, not msnbc.... argh!!!!!!!!
They're all falling for this dumb shit - obviously obamacare was a planned shit sandwich - but leaking video in the days before amnesty is signed by obama alone? argh!
Ten minutes til Rush. PLEASE tell me his show isn't a 3 hour circle jerk on 'i told you so' while amnesty just dances on by.
-
duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude
he's a big old distraction! He's probably 5 minutes away from a monster contract for millions with a 'think tank' for taking this public hit.
nobody is talking about amnesty! Not fox, not msnbc.... argh!!!!!!!!
They're all falling for this dumb shit - obviously obamacare was a planned shit sandwich - but leaking video in the days before amnesty is signed by obama alone? argh!
Ten minutes til Rush. PLEASE tell me his show isn't a 3 hour circle jerk on 'i told you so' while amnesty just dances on by.
I dpnt listen to Rush
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-obamacare-popularity-hits-new-low-2014-11#comments
;D
-
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/16/john-kerry-called-gruber-our-guide-on-a-lot-of-this-video/
-
Gruber was ‘some adviser,’ indeed
By Chris Stirewalt
Published November 17, 2014
FoxNews.com
GRUBER WAS ‘SOME ADVISER,’ INDEED
President Obama on Sunday called Jonathan Gruber “some adviser who never worked on our staff.” Obama told Chief White House Correspondent Ed Henry that he had “just heard about” the multiple times Gruber was caught on camera bragging about helping the White House exploit “the stupidity of the American voter” to pass the health law. But that sure doesn’t gibe with new details about the time when Obama summoned Gruber to the Oval Office for an emergency meeting with a handful of top advisers to salvage passage of ObamaCare amid a 2009 breakdown in the Democrat-controlled Congress. Given the president’s hugely crummy reputation for being forthcoming about his signature law, it seems that blowing off questions about what appears to be evidence of an intentional lie in the crafting of the law would be a bad idea.
Prof was a campaign prop - President Obama’s re-election campaign featured the now-infamous MIT economist Jonathan Gruber in a video, in which Team Obama highlighted Gruber’s role in crafting ObamaCare to attack claims made by former Massachusetts Governor and 2012 Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Watch here.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/16/john-kerry-called-gruber-our-guide-on-a-lot-of-this-video/
-
Agreed. But you're upset because a private company isn't using its airtime to talk about the things you want them to talk about. I mean, I don't like half the crap on direcTv, but sheeit, it's america baby, we sure don't want to dictate what they can or cant talk about.
Also, all networks tell lies. Turns out, there really aren't walkers eating people and whatnot - but AMC continues this lie every week :( Once you realize and accept the cables news networks are just entertainment channels, it all makes sense.
You really are stupid if you thought the walking dead was an episode of the news!! Call me nutty but I picked up on the fiction right away... You argue that the MEDIA lies - by stating that dead people really don't come back???
-
HEHEHEHEEH!!
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think the president was not told about what's going on, and the reason is that they have had six years experience of the press essentially conspiring with them and the amazing show of events that you just had in that piece in which the administration issues statements, it uses Gruber reports, it's echoed by their minions in the press that's repeated by Democrats as if this is objective evidence, it's simply one example of it.
The other one is, I think that they calculated the president could go a week without talking about it and then pretend he never heard of it because you wouldn't hear about it in the press and in fact except for FOX, you look at all the networks and you showed that last week, it's been a blackout. I remember reading, I think it was on Saturday, there was a story on this, it was probably the first time in The New York Times on page 12 in a box way down at the bottom and the whole impetus of the story is, Republicans are upset about or criticizing about.
This is a scandal of the first order and they imagined they would actually get away with it. And when you see everybody pretending that they had never heard of this guy, when you show the evidence to everybody, he had meetings in the White House 19 times. So when they make the movie, it will be called The Man Who Never Was. And I think this is an extension of the Secret Service scandal. Gruber jumped the fence into the White House, he got through an open door and sat in the Oval Office and joined 19 meetings and that's exactly what happened.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/11/17/krauthammer_on_gruber_this_is_a_scandal_of_the_first_order_and_they_imagined_they_would_get_away_with_it.html
-
Skip to comments.
Steve Rattner: Jonathan Gruber was 'the man' on Obamacare
Politico ^ | November 18, 2014 | By KENDALL BREITMAN
Posted on 11/18/2014 11:19:34 AM by Oldeconomybuyer
Jonathan Gruber was “the man” behind Obamacare, according to a former adviser to President Barack Obama.
“The problem is not that Gruber helped them put Obamacare together, because he was the man,” Steve Rattner, who worked as Obama’s lead adviser in 2009 for the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, said Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“The problem is what he said in the last two weeks and how the White House has handled it,” Rattner added.
Rattner said his influence was enormous.
“Jonathan Gruber was, back in the day in 2009, the guru on health care,” said Rattner, who was known as the “car czar” when he worked in the administration. “I remember that when I was in the White House, he was certainly viewed as an important figure in helping to put Obamacare together.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
-
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392787/grubers-deception-john-fund
-
duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude
he's a big old distraction! He's probably 5 minutes away from a monster contract for millions with a 'think tank' for taking this public hit.
nobody is talking about amnesty! Not fox, not msnbc.... argh!!!!!!!!
They're all falling for this dumb shit - obviously obamacare was a planned shit sandwich - but leaking video in the days before amnesty is signed by obama alone? argh!
Ten minutes til Rush. PLEASE tell me his show isn't a 3 hour circle jerk on 'i told you so' while amnesty just dances on by.
Lying again. It never ends. ::) Yes, Fox News is talking about amnesty.
-
http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/18/obama-2012-campaign-press-release-gruber-helped-write-obamacare
Busted. F you obama
-
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/18/politics/gruber-obamacare-promises/index.html
Busted again.
-
Lying again. It never ends. ::) Yes, Fox News is talking about amnesty.
when i posted that, the word 'amnesty' didn't appear on their home page.
With obama dropping a big A-shit on our heads friday, IMO, there is no bigger story. :(
-
when i posted that, the word 'amnesty' didn't appear on their home page.
With obama dropping a big A-shit on our heads friday, IMO, there is no bigger story. :(
Oh stop it you lying liar. They have been talking about amnesty every single day.
-
:-\
-
In true Hillary "What difference at this point does it make" Clinton style.
‘Who Cares?!’: MSNBC Host Goes Off on ‘Pathetic’ GOP for Hyping Gruber
by Matt Wilstein | 4:14 pm, November 18th, 2014
On Tuesday, Politifact informed the world that over the last week Fox News covered the Jonathan Gruber story nearly 10 times more than MSNBC did, mentioning the Obamacare “architect’s” name 779 times compared to 79 times. And when Gruber’s name is mentioned on MSNBC, it’s not always uttered with the same contempt you’ll likely find on Fox.
The Cycle’s Ari Melber proved that to be the case on Tuesday when he railed against those on the right who try to turn Gruber’s comments about the “stupidity of the American voter” into a massive scandal.
First, co-host Krystal Ball said: “The problem with this law has always been the fact that when people look at the details, they like what they’re getting, but when they hear Obamacare they don’t like what they’re getting,” she argued. “So, it’s actually the opposite problem of what he is saying, right?”
But Melber took a more aggressive approach, calling Gruber nothing more than “some dude” who shared his opinions about the law. “Who cares?!” he exclaimed, saying that Gruber did not even “work directly” on the Affordable Care Act. “I hope this is what Republicans continue to do, because it’s pathetic. And the fact that they’re so excited about this, trying to go do oppo research on some dude that no one ever cared about, no one ever heard of.”
“‘Oh my god, Barack Obama hasn’t heard of Jonathan Gruber?’” Melber said, imitating his competitors Fox News. “Neither has the American voter, which doesn’t implicate their intelligence at all. No one cares about Jonathan Gruber, I swear to you!”
Watch video below, via MSNBC:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/who-cares-msnbc-host-goes-off-on-pathetic-gop-for-hyping-gruber/
-
These libs are putrid scum
-
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/jon-stewart-calls-obamas-latest-scandal-pretty-slimy
-
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/19/vermont-cuts-gruber-off/
-
Jonathan Gruber: Obama personally asked me to help disguise unhelpful Obamacare facts
Hotair ^ | 11/17/2014 | Guy Benson
Posted on 11/17/2014 1:00:19 PM by SeekAndFind
That’s not quite his verbatim quote, but it’s pretty darn close:
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO
“The problem is it’s a political nightmare, and people say ‘no, you can’t tax my benefits’…so what we did a lot in that room was think a lot about well how could we make this work? … And [Obama] is really a realistic guy. He was like, ‘look, I can’t just do this.’ He said ‘it’s just not going to happen politically. The bill will not pass. How do we manage to get there through phase-ins and other things?’ And we talked about it. He was just very interested in that topic.”
And why was Obama so keen on obscuring the nature of his signature law’s taxes? Perhaps because he’d just recently spent months relentlessly hammering John McCain over a proposal to tax health benefits “for the first time.” So he needed MacGruber to swoop in and help craft a strategy of evasion and deflection. Noah mentioned over the weekend that in his response to Grubergate, Obama insisted that he’d never misled the public on Obamacare (which virtually nobody really buys at this point, and for good reason) and disavowed Gruber’s seemingly endless damning comments. One formulation that stuck out to me was his assertion that Gruber “was never on our staff.” This is exceedingly weak spin. The video above contains evidence that the president was personally huddling with Gruber on the Obamacare sales pitch, charging him with fashioning accounting tricks that might provide a politically-necessary fig leaf — which Paul Ryan dismantled at the pre-passage “health care summit.” It’s impossible for the White House to just divorce itself from this guy. He was very much their guy. Not only did they furnish Gruber with $400,000 for his services, they made him a leading point person for “drafting the specifics” of the law with Congress. Via the New York Times:
Along with these credentials, Mr. Gruber’s position as an adviser to the influential Congressional Budget Office also left him perfectly positioned to advise the White House on health reform. “The most important arbiter of everything was the C.B.O.,” said Neera Tanden, who was a senior adviser for health reform at the Department of Health and Human Services. The C.B.O.’s assessment of a bill’s efficacy and costs strongly influences political debate, but the office does not publicly reveal how it calculates those numbers. “We knew the numbers he gave us would be close to where the C.B.O. was likely to come out,” Ms. Tanden said. She was right. After Mr. Gruber helped the administration put together the basic principles of the proposal, the White House lent him to Capitol Hill to help Congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation.
That 2012 profile also quotes Gruber cheerfully describing himself as a “card-carrying Democrat” who routinely holds election night “victory parties” with friends. (How did this year’s celebration go, I wonder?) Obama can try to pull a Pelosi with Gruber. Good luck with that. Alternatively, he can keep lying about not having lied, but only the hardest-core of partisans will believe him. Even Obamacare supporters like Ron Fournier are throwing in the towel, conceding that the law was constructed on a “foundation of lies.” Indeed.
-
How ironic. This dude is so smart he couldn't keep his mouth shut. Had he done so, he would have continued to make bank off the "stupid" American voters.
Gruber's contract with Vermont ends after missteps on ObamaCare pile up
Published November 20, 2014
FoxNews.com
WASHINGTON – Following an embarrassing string of missteps, Vermont has stopped paying controversial economist Jonathan Gruber for his work on the Affordable Care Act.
A spokesman for Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin said Wednesday that the state would no longer pay the ObamaCare architect.
“As the Governor and I have said, the comments by Mr. Gruber are offensive, inappropriate and do not reflect the thinking of this administration or how we do things in Vermont,” Lawrence Miller, said Wednesday in a statement. “As we have also said, we need solid economic modeling in order to move forward with health care reform.”
Miller continued that he told Gruber, “that I expect his team to complete the work that we need to provide the legislature and Vermonters with a public health care financing plan. I’ve informed Mr. McGruber that we will not be paying him any further for his part in completing that work.”
Gruber’s original contract with the state was worth more than $400,000. He’s already been paid $160,000.
The news about Gruber was made public at an informational session for Vermont’s legislators.
Last week, the state’s Senate Minority Leader, Joe Benning, called on Shumlin to terminate Gruber’s contract following the release of videos showing the MIT professor intentionally deceived the public in drafting the Affordable Care Act.
“I join with my Senate colleague, Sen. Kevin Mullin, in urging the governor to terminate his contract,” Benning, R-Caledonia, told Vermont Watchdog. “If the powers that be attempted to trick them like that, then those people should be immediately removed from positions of authority, be they elected officials or hired contractors.”
Benning is the second member of the Vermont Senate to call for Gruber’s termination. Last week, Mullin, R-Rutland, a member of the Health Care Oversight Committee, told Vermont Watchdog the governor should “terminate his contract immediately.”
Over the weekend, Lawrence Miller, chief of health care reform for the Shumlin administration, announced Gruber would continue to serve as financing consultant for single-payer health care.
According to the contract obtained from the Agency of Administration, Vermont was paying Gruber $400,000 for “policy expertise, research, and economic modeling related to the implementation of Green Mountain Care.” Gruber’s work will be presented to the Legislature on Jan. 15.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/20/gruber-contract-with-vermont-ends-after-missteps-on-obamacare-pile-up/
-
F@&$# YOU, American voters!
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZBU25dtI274/UWgEvl6ijTI/AAAAAAAAKgM/o1_PM7juLiI/s1600/ron-burgundy-2.jpg)
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iGtGwkMSyWU/hqdefault.jpg)
-
F@&$# YOU, American voters!
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZBU25dtI274/UWgEvl6ijTI/AAAAAAAAKgM/o1_PM7juLiI/s1600/ron-burgundy-2.jpg)
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iGtGwkMSyWU/hqdefault.jpg)
That should be "stupid" American voters.
-
That should be "stupid" American voters.
I don't know. That might imply that it's directed only at "stupid" voters, of which we all know a few, when in reality Gruber's comment is directed at American voters in general.
Gruber's comments are a reflection of what Obama and his administration think about the American people.
-
I don't know. That might imply that it's directed only at "stupid" voters, of which we all know a few, when in reality Gruber's comment is directed at American voters in general.
Gruber's comments is a reflection of what the Obama administration thinks about the American people.
He referred to the "stupidity of the American voter," which to me means all American voters.
I agree Gruber was conveying what the Obama administration thinks about Americans.
-
He referred to the "stupidity of the American voter," which to me means all American voters.
I agree Gruber was conveying what the Obama administration thinks about Americans.
Eggxactly!
-
Eggxactly!
El Profeta has spoken. :D
-
El Profeta has spoken. :D
LOL
-
The Affordable Care Act's Embarrassing Moment of Tooth
The administration mistakenly included dental plans in the 7.3 million enrollment total under Obamacare. Without them, the government missed its target.
Russell Berman
Nov 20 2014, 4:04 PM ET
The president and Sylvia Burwell, Health and Human Services secretary (Top: Susan Walsh/AP, Bottom: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
It turns out the Affordable Care Act didn't meet its first-year goal of enrolling 7 million Americans in private insurance plans after all.
The Obama administration disclosed on Thursday that it mistakenly included about 380,000 dental plans in the 7.3 million people who enrolled through state and federal exchanges for 2014. With those dental plans subtracted and including updated data, the Department of Health and Human Services said the number of enrolled Americans as of October 15 was 6.7 million.
The department's secretary, Sylvia Burwell, called the mistake "unacceptable" in a Twitter post and later in a Facebook chat she conducted with MSNBC's Chris Hayes. "This mistake was unacceptable," she wrote.
"I will be communicating that clearly throughout the department. While we understand some will be skeptical, our clarity that this is [a] mistake and the fact that we have quickly corrected the numbers should give people confidence. It is important to continue to focus on the fact that millions of Americans are getting affordable health care."
The news that the Obama administration had met—and seemingly exceeded—the 7 million target earlier this year was seen as a surprising comeback story following the disastrous, error-filled launch of Healthcare.gov and several state exchanges.
Bloomberg first reported the snafu Thursday, citing an analysis by Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The office of Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in a statement that the administration "increased their numbers artificially in order to reach their enrollment goals."
"It seems that this administration’s habit of obfuscation continues long after the failed health care law has passed."
It is the latest in a series of troubling developments for the 2010 law, as the Obama administration prepares to defend it once again against a Supreme Court challenge and tries to combat year-old accusations from economist Jonathan Gruber that officials knowingly misled the public about its impact. The beefed-up Healthcare.gov has had a smoother launch in its second open enrollment period that began on November 15, but the Obama administration has already dropped its projection for how many people will sign up in year two. Officials now believe about 9.1 million people will enroll, down from the 13 million that the Congressional Budget Office had previously estimated.
-
http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/no-easy-fix-for-one-of-obamacare-s-hardest-problems-20141121
Go figure - FU Obama!!!!
-
Gruber loses yet another job
Hotair ^ | 11/24/2014 | Jazz Shaw
Posted on 11/24/2014 8:39:09 AM by SeekAndFind
In a somewhat ironic fashion, if Jonathan Gruber has taught us anything, it’s that telling the truth won’t get you far in the political world. After famously describing how the success of Obamacare relied heavily on the gullibility and short attention span of the voters, both former and prospective employers have been scurrying away from him like he was an Ebola dog. First he saw his old friends Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi stricken with shocking bouts of amnesia where they seemed unable to even recall his name. Then a plush job with the the state of Vermont – to the tune of $400K – had the plug pulled on it. And now, North Carolina has shown Mr. Gruber the door.
North Carolina’s state auditor on Thursday terminated a contract with Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economics professor and health-care expert whose comments on the Affordable Care Act have generated fury among conservatives.
Earlier this week, Wood’s office decided they had to fire Gruber because it couldn’t “eliminate [the] appearance of an independence impairment,” according to a timeline released by the Auditor’s office. Wood met with Republican leaders of the General Assembly on Tuesday to inform them of the decision, then called Gruber on Wednesday.
“Gruber’s comment that it was all right to mislead people to get to a desired outcome that he favored led our auditors to determine he had at least the appearance of an independence impairment,” Bill Holmes, a spokesman for the Auditor’s office, told WRAL.
We probably shouldn’t feel too badly for Jonathan. He’ll still collect $100K on the North Carolina contract, and it’s not like he won’t have many other exciting appointments on his calendar to keep him busy. For example, in just a few weeks he’ll be given the VIP tour of the Capitol when he testifies before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He can undoubtedly look forward to plenty of fascinating question and answer sessions there and the chance to make many new friends.
I have to wonder if Mr. Gruber isn’t missing an obvious opportunity here. Clearly liberal politicians and their friendly media outlets have branded him a villain for having inadvertently exposed how they truly feel about the American public. But what about conservative media? If Gruber needs a new gig after all this is over, perhaps he should just embrace the image of being the reluctant truth teller and take that act on the road. What if he becomes the new health or budgeting expert at Heritage? Perhaps the Stupid Voter Tricks Analyst at Fox News? If he figured out how to get Americans to swallow Obamacare, surely he could describe battle plans for how to sell us on comprehensive immigration reform or tax reform at Investors Business Daily.
The world is still your oyster, Mr. Gruber. You have only to reach out and open it.
-
Gruber loses yet another job
Hotair ^ | 11/24/2014 | Jazz Shaw
Posted on 11/24/2014 8:39:09 AM by SeekAndFind
In a somewhat ironic fashion, if Jonathan Gruber has taught us anything, it’s that telling the truth won’t get you far in the political world. After famously describing how the success of Obamacare relied heavily on the gullibility and short attention span of the voters, both former and prospective employers have been scurrying away from him like he was an Ebola dog. First he saw his old friends Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi stricken with shocking bouts of amnesia where they seemed unable to even recall his name. Then a plush job with the the state of Vermont – to the tune of $400K – had the plug pulled on it. And now, North Carolina has shown Mr. Gruber the door.
North Carolina’s state auditor on Thursday terminated a contract with Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economics professor and health-care expert whose comments on the Affordable Care Act have generated fury among conservatives.
Earlier this week, Wood’s office decided they had to fire Gruber because it couldn’t “eliminate [the] appearance of an independence impairment,” according to a timeline released by the Auditor’s office. Wood met with Republican leaders of the General Assembly on Tuesday to inform them of the decision, then called Gruber on Wednesday.
“Gruber’s comment that it was all right to mislead people to get to a desired outcome that he favored led our auditors to determine he had at least the appearance of an independence impairment,” Bill Holmes, a spokesman for the Auditor’s office, told WRAL.
We probably shouldn’t feel too badly for Jonathan. He’ll still collect $100K on the North Carolina contract, and it’s not like he won’t have many other exciting appointments on his calendar to keep him busy. For example, in just a few weeks he’ll be given the VIP tour of the Capitol when he testifies before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He can undoubtedly look forward to plenty of fascinating question and answer sessions there and the chance to make many new friends.
I have to wonder if Mr. Gruber isn’t missing an obvious opportunity here. Clearly liberal politicians and their friendly media outlets have branded him a villain for having inadvertently exposed how they truly feel about the American public. But what about conservative media? If Gruber needs a new gig after all this is over, perhaps he should just embrace the image of being the reluctant truth teller and take that act on the road. What if he becomes the new health or budgeting expert at Heritage? Perhaps the Stupid Voter Tricks Analyst at Fox News? If he figured out how to get Americans to swallow Obamacare, surely he could describe battle plans for how to sell us on comprehensive immigration reform or tax reform at Investors Business Daily.
The world is still your oyster, Mr. Gruber. You have only to reach out and open it.
Incredible irony. He was too stupid to keep his mouth shut.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/24/jonathan-gruber-warned-of-obamacare-premium-spike-/
>:(
-
Face it, .gov does think that the American public is stupid. And for the most part they are right, tell people what they want to hear and they vote for you. Completely screw them over, and the majority is so idiotic they will vote for you again.
-
Good. Going to be some uncomfortable moments for him.
'Stupidity' consultant agrees to testify
By Sarah Ferris - 11/25/14
Jonathan Gruber, the former ObamaCare adviser in hot water for his comments about the “stupidity of the American voter,” has agreed to testify at a House panel next month, setting up a healthcare showdown in what could be the final week of this Congress.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will also hear from Obama administration official Marilyn Tavenner, who is under fire this week for using inflated enrollment figures for the healthcare law.
“Both Mr. Gruber and Administrator Tavenner have agreed to testify,” committee spokeswoman Caitlin Carroll told The Hill.
Both figures have played a role in major political headaches for the Obama administration, which is facing new allegations of “repeated transparency failures and outright deceptions” from Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).
Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, will be grilled for a number of speeches he has given since 2010 that blame the Obama administration for intentionally obscuring details of the healthcare law in order to assure its passage.
Tavenner, who leads the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), has taken flak after an investigation by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee revealed last week that ObamaCare enrollment figures had been inflated by nearly 400,000.
The administration has been quick to acknowledge that the misreported enrollment count was a mistake, and has defended Tavenner. But hardly any Democrats have stood beside Gruber.
Democrats on the committee are “still considering different options for a minority witness,” according to a Democratic staffer.
The hearing, which is set to take place Dec. 9, will be one of the last for Issa, who has been one of the most vocal critics of the healthcare law.
“The American people deserve honesty, transparency and respect from those who forced the federal government into their healthcare. I expect Mr. Gruber and Administrator Tavenner to testify publicly next month about the arrogance and deceptions surrounding the passage and implementation of ObamaCare,” Issa wrote in a statement last week when he announced the hearing.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/225236-stupidity-consultant-agrees-to-testify
-
Latest Gruber Video Ruins Administration's Supreme Court Argument To Save Obamacare
Truth Revolt ^ | 12.4.2014 | Jeff Dunetz
Posted on 12/4/2014 2:39:40 PM by sheikdetailfeather
f all the Jonathan Gruber videos released so far, this one could be the most damaging. Revealed on Tuesday's Greta Van Susteren program on Fox News, the latest blockbuster has the Obamacare architect explaining if your state doesn't set up an exchange, its residents aren't eligible for tax credits, precisely the opposite of what the Administration is arguing before the Supreme Court. The question before the Supreme Court is whether the language of the Affordable Care Act restricts the premium subsidies (in the form of tax credits) to residents buying insurance from a state-run exchange, and prohibits the credits on the federal exchange which serves a little over 7 million Americans in 36 states. The specific language says participants in the state exchanges get the tax credit, but doesn't mention the federal exchange. The administration is arguing that the omission of the federal exchange is a typo, the plaintiffs argue that there was no intention cover a federal exchange in the bill. A ruling against the White House would severely damage Obamacare because the tax credits are critical to ensuring that lower-income Americans can afford insurance.
(Excerpt) Read more at truthrevolt.org ...
-
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/will-jonathan-gruber-topple-obamacare-113369.html#.VIWh7Wx0zIW
LOL - the RAT party is eating its own
-
The Insiders: The Gruberization of the Democratic Party
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google Plus Share via Email More Options
Resize Text
Print Article
Comments 89
By Ed Rogers December 8 at 5:19 PM
Jonathan Gruber, made famous by his offensively blatant revelations of the deceit behind the construction and passage of the Obamacare law, will testify before Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) and the House Oversight Committee tomorrow morning. I
FILE - In this May 12, 2009, file photo Jonathan Gruber, professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, participates in a Capitol Hill hearing on the overhaul of the heath care system in Washington. A supporter of the Affordable Care Act, Gruber says, "It’s so crazy to think that a society that has Social Security and Medicare would not find this (law) constitutional.” Gruber advised both the Obama administration and Massachusetts lawmakers as they developed the state mandate in the 2006 law that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney championed as governor. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)
FILE – In this May 12, 2009, file photo Jonathan Gruber, professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, participates in a Capitol Hill hearing on the overhaul of the heath care system in Washington.
expect the testimony and the follow-up coverage of the hearing to be anti-climatic. Gruber was caught on-camera speaking off the cuff – multiple times – but you can expect he will be prepared, scripted and lawyered-up tomorrow. So unless you just like watching someone who does deserve some harsh scrutiny squirm, there won’t be much to see.
In a way, Gruber did the Republican cause a favor. He bluntly confirmed what we already knew: That clever Hill staffers and lawyers purposely contrived Obamacare as an opaque thicket in order to disguise many of the law’s fees, taxes, penalties and its general government overreach. After all, remember that then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) famously told us we had to wait until the law passed to find out what was in it.
Well, in that regard, she is right. Obamacare does appear to be the gift that keeps on giving. We just keep finding out more and more about the law’s harsh consequences. Most recently, we have seen how Obamacare disincentivizes the practice of medicine and how this affects doctors in America. An AP story included the fact that already, “Nearly 1 in 5 Americans lives in a region designated as having a shortage of primary care physicians, and the number of doctors entering the field isn’t expected to keep pace with demand.” For those who want to claim Obamacare is working, we’ll have to see how our healthcare system will handle a steadily increasing number of patients while the number of doctors steadily decreases.
It’s too bad the Gruber videos weren’t revealed before the 2014 elections, because they perfectly crystallize the entire Democratic 2014 campaign. That is, don’t admit what you really believe or what you will really do in government. Say things that purposely deceive or at least misdirect the voters from your true intentions. Anyway, Gruber isn’t just a bad episode. He is a living example of what the Democratic Party has become. In its simplest form, Democrats want to talk to the right and then govern to the left. They hide behind platitudes and dishonest attacks on Republicans, but this just doesn’t work, as illustrated by the Democrats’ last gasp in Louisiana this past Saturday, when Senator Mary Landrieu lost her Senate seat to Bill Cassidy, 43 percent to 57 percent.
Sponsor Generated Content
Smart parking to the rescue
By Xerox
Through technology and data, parking systems are improving city congestion.
READ MORE
Despite what is said tomorrow in the House Oversight Committee hearing, perhaps Gruber has already made a lasting contribution to the political vocabulary. If nothing else, he has helped spawn a new verb. As one gentleman wrote in a letter to the editor in The Leaf-Chronicle, “’gruberize’ will now refer to ‘the art of slicking buyers by using catch phrases and weasel wordsmithing.’”
Follow Ed on Twitter: @EdRogersDC
-
Democrats Kept Downplaying Jonathan Gruber’s Role in Obamacare- Then A Bunch of Emails Came Out
BY KELSEY RUPP
IJRSHAREEMAIL
Remember Jonathan Gruber, the MIT professor who became the center of controversy last year over how deeply involved he’d been in the creation of Obamacare?
He’s back in the news.
In 2014, President Obama called Gruber “some adviser who never worked on our staff.”
But emails the House Oversight Committee sent The Wall Street Journal reveal frequent discussions between Gruber and top administration advisors from January 2009 through March 2010.
Gruber, who said that Obama’s healthcare law passed because of a “lack of transparency” and “the stupidity of the American voter,” was in touch with key advisers, including:
Peter Orszag, who was director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an arm of the White House that oversaw federal programs;
Jason Furman, an economic adviser to the President; And
Ezekiel Emanuel, who was then a health policy special adviser at OMB, reported The Wall Street Journal.
In an August 2009 email, Lawrence Summers, then a top economic adviser to Obama, asked Gruber:
“If you were POTUS, what would u do now?”
Gruber responded that the President should hold out for enough money to have universal coverage, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Gruber received nearly $400,000 from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for his work with health-policy computer models.
House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) told the Wall Street Journal:
“His proximity to HHS and the White House was a whole lot tighter than they admitted. There’s no doubt he was a much more integral part of this than they’ve said. He put up this facade he was an arm’s length away. It was a farce.”
Gruber also informed HHS about interviews he had with health policy reporters, including then-Washington Post reporter Ezra Klein.
Jeanne Lambrew, a top Obama administration health adviser who worked at HHS and the White House, thanked Gruber “for being an integral part of getting us to this historic moment” in September 2009. In a November 2009 email, Lambrew called Gruber “our hero.”
Gruber even consulted with Lambrew before answering media requests.
When multiple videos emerged last year of Gruber mocking critics of the Affordable Care Act and commenting that a lack of transparency was necessary for the passage of the bill, Democrats like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid attempted to distance themselves from the Obamacare architect, despite singing his praises while the bill was being debated.
Obama signed the health care bill into law on March 23, 2010.
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/349888-new-emails-show-obamacare-architect-jonathan-gruber-cozy-white-house-admitted/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Owned&utm_term=ijreview&utm_campaign=Politics
-
Democrats Kept Downplaying Jonathan Gruber’s Role in Obamacare- Then A Bunch of Emails Came Out
Gruber... romneycare than obamacare. I don't like that dude.
-
Gruber... romneycare than obamacare. I don't like that dude.
The board's biggest liberal here to provide cover for liberals. It's a full-time job.
-
(http://media.giphy.com/media/rVSZrFGySmllC/giphy.gif)
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/aetna-re-evalutaing-obamacare-business-2016-8
Aetna, the third-largest health insurer in the US, said Tuesday that it was reconsidering its offerings on the state exchanges that make up the backbone of the Affordable Care Act, the healthcare law more commonly known as Obamacare.
Here's a quick rundown of the announcement:
Aetna will not expand its Obamacare offerings into the New Jersey and Indiana state exchanges in 2017, as it originally planned.
Aetna's CEO also said the company was "undertaking a complete evaluation" of the Obamacare business.
On its conference call, the company said it expected an annual loss on its ACA business "in excess of $300 million."
The move comes after the US's largest health insurer, United Healthcare, said in April that it was abandoning the exchanges almost completely.
The Department of Health and Human Services responded saying insurers are "adapting to these changes" of the ACA at different paces and the state exchanges are still sustainable.
In a conference call following the company's earnings announcement, CEO Mark Bertolini said the firm had halted its plans to expand into New Jersey and Indiana in 2017 and was looking into the reasons for losses in the exchanges it was already participating in.
Here's Bertolini (emphasis ours):
"In light of the disappointing year to date performance and updated 2016 projections for our individual on and off exchange products, combined with the significant structural challenges facing the public exchanges, we believe it is only prudent to reassess our level of participation on the public exchanges. Our initial action will be to withdraw our 2017 public exchange expansion plans. Additionally, given the deadline to attest to our final rate filings for 2017, we are also undertaking a complete evaluation of our current exchange footprint as the poor performance of these products warrants such an analysis."
-
i haven't heard trump talk about repealing obamacare much at all this summer.
lots of stuff about hilary being the devil, etc. Not so much about the healthcare bullshit we're all facing daily.
-
Another major insurer to bolt Obamacare while premiums go through the roof
American Thinker ^ | 03 August 2016 | Rick Moran
Posted on 8/3/2016, 12:17:01 PM by Lorianne
Aetna, Inc., the third largest health insurer in America, will not expand its Obamacare coverage into New Jersey next year as originally planned and is reassessing its participation in the Obamacare program.
In a conference call following the company's earnings announcement, CEO Mark Bertolini said that the firm has halted its plans to expand into two new states' exchanges in 2017 and is looking into the reasons for losses in the exchanges it is currently participating in.
"In light of the disappointing year to date performance and updated 2016 projections for our individual on and off exchange products, combined with the significant structural challenges facing the public exchanges, we believe it is only prudent to reassess our level of participation on the public exchanges. Our initial action will be to withdraw our 2017 public exchange expansion plans.Additionally, given the deadline to attest to our final rate filings for 2017, we are also undertaking a complete evaluation of our current exchange footprint as the poor performance of these products warrants such an analysis."
Originally Aetna was planning to expand to New Jersey and Indiana in 2017. It currently operates in 15 states across the US.
The decision by Aetna comes less than 4 months after the nation's largest insurer, United Healthcare, decided to roll back almost all of its Obamacare offerings after sustaining losses and after the Department of Justice denied Aetna's proposed merger with fellow-insurer Humana.
The move could also be worrying for consumers, since the number of insurers offering plans in a state is tightly correlated to the price of insurance.
As far as rate increases in other states, Illinois is being hit particularly hard:
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
-
Illinois insurers seek premium hikes of up to 45 percent
Associated Press
Health insurance premiums for Illinois residents who buy coverage through the Affordable Care Act's marketplace could increase by as much as 45 percent according to proposals submitted by insurers and made public Monday.
The leading insurer on Illinois' exchange, Blue Cross Blue Shield, is proposing increases for 2017 ranging from 23 percent to 45 percent for individual health care plans, according to proposals posted by Heathcare.gov. Another insurer, Coventry Health Care of Illinois, proposed rate increases as high as 21 percent.
Harken Health Insurance Company has proposed a nearly 29 percent hike in individual premiums and Health Alliance Medical Plans Inc. a more than 28 percent increase.
In a statement, Health Care Service Corporation, which operates Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, said that although no final decision has been made, the proposed rates are in line with those in many markets across the country. It added that while some carriers have chosen to exit the market, it is "working toward continuing to provide health insurance options for consumers in Illinois.
Paid Post WHAT'S THIS?
It's College Shopping Time
A Message from IKEA
When it comes to getting everything you need for college, there's a lot to remember. IKEA has developed a college checklist to make the process easier. Check it out here!
See More
"However, that must be done in a sustainable way," the statement said. "Premium rates must cover the anticipated health care needs of our members, and consumer protections exist in the way of rebates if a certain percent of premiums do not go directly to covering medical services and quality programs. "
The proposed hikes have been expected because the health care law has been a financial drain for many companies.
Analysts have noted insurers are facing higher medical costs from customers, and some companies priced their initial coverage too low in an attempt to grab new business.
The Illinois Department of Insurance has until Aug. 23 to review the proposed rates, but, unlike several other states, it doesn't have the power to reject the proposed rates outright.
"We don't put too much stock in the numbers as they stand right now because we know the (Department of Insurance) is really negotiating the rates up until the last deadline," Kathy Waligora, director of EverThrive Illinois' health reform initiative, told the Chicago Tribune.
Illinois' marketplace has been roiled by recent defections. UnitedHealthcare, the nation's largest health insurer, is leaving after just two years of minimal participation. And Chicago-based Land of Lincoln Health, a 3-year-old startup that sold plans throughout the state, collapsed after suffering heavy losses. Its 49,000 enrollees are looking for new coverage for the rest of the year.
Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Copyright © 2016, Chicago Tribune
-
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-state-health-insurance-rates-rise-17-article-1.2740131
>:(
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/aetna-obamacare_us_57b262cbe4b0c75f49d7eb27?section=&
Aetna leaving TwinkCare in 500 counties - good job liberal losers
-
Posted on August 21, 2016 at 7:52:01 PM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet
If politicians don't fix the Affordable Care Act, then the vulnerable Blue Cross and local HMO plans — which serve as the backbone of Obamacare — must exit, said Robert Laszewski, the President of Health Policy and Strategy Associates.
"What the politicians need to do is to understand they have got about a year to fix this," he said in an interview with CNBC's "Closing Bell."
Republicans do not want to fix the existing flaws for Obamacare, Laszewski said. Instead, they want to repeal and replace it. He added that Democrats are now stating that they would rather go to a single-payer insurance plan or a public option within a government-run plan.
Thus, the political system remains fragmented. Laszewski added that regardless of the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, the Republicans won't have enough votes to repeal or replace Obamacare. Likewise, Democrats won't have the votes to pass a public or single-payer option....
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Health/Medicine; Politics