Is the Affordable Care Act Doomed?

[MajGenl.Meade]

For once LJ and rubato are in sync. No apparent point. Oh well.

[Lord Jim]

he has recently begun free-associating just to keep the klieg lights on.

Yo rube...

Those comments he made on video are more than a year old and he made them in what he thought were private forums...

Frankly, I would think a man like Gruber would be a role model for you...

A cynical, sneering, self-superior arrogant twit who thinks it was perfectly alright to deliberately lie to the American people because they don't know what's best for them?

I'd think you'd have a poster of this guy on your wall...

[Lord Jim]

Fifth Video Emerges, Showing Gruber Mocking Man Worried About Obamacare

A video from Vermont shows Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber mocking a Vermonter who expressed concern about single-payer health care.

In the 2011 video shot by TrueNorthReports.com and released on Thursday, Gruber appears before the Vermont House Health Care Committee to present recommendations for a universal, publicly financed health care program.

The recommendations were part of the 2011 “Hsiao Report” submitted to the legislature by economist William C. Hsiao and co-written by Gruber.

As Gruber sits listening, the committee chair reads a comment from a Vermonter who expresses concern that the economist’s plan might lead to “ballooning costs, increased taxes and bureaucratic outrages,” among other things.

After hearing the Vermonter’s worries, Gruber responds, “Was this written by my adolescent children by any chance?”

The remark was met with uproarious laughter.

The video is the fifth in string of videos to surface this week in which Gruber publicly mocks citizens or boasts of his use of deception in crafting health care policies. Gruber is being paid $400,000 by the state of Vermont to advise Gov. Peter Shumlin on how to finance Act 48, Vermont’s single-payer health care law. His recommendations will be presented to the Vermont Legislature in January.

Contrary to Gruber’s snarky insult, the comment was not written by an adolescent.

“It was actually written by a former senior policy adviser in the White House who knew something about health care systems,” said John McClaughry, a two-term Vermont state senator and adviser to President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

“No one should trust this man,” McClaughry said. “Based on the rest of the stuff that’s come out on the videos, nobody can trust this guy. He has no use for transparency. He thinks people are stupid, and he’ll do anything to get this thing through and pocket his $400,000. That’s not in the interest of the people of Vermont.”

ailysignal.com/2014/11/14/fifth-video-emerges-showing-gruber-mocking-man-worried-about-obamacare/

[BoSoxGal]

The Truth About Gruber-Gate
Kate Pickert @katepickert Nov. 13, 2014 - TIME

Republicans think they have found a smoking gun that exposes a nefarious plan by the Obama Administration to lie to the public in order to build support for the Affordable Care Act. This week, several videos from 2012 and 2013 have surfaced that show MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber, a former paid consultant to the Administration on health reform, calling the American people “stupid” and saying “a lack of transparency” was crucial to getting the ACA passed in 2010.

“Stupid” is not a great word to use to describe anyone, and Gruber said Tuesday that he regretted the comment. But rather than a smoking gun, Gruber-gate is actually a flash of candor in a debate that was filled with disingenuous statements from both sides. Supporters of the law did, in fact, do their best to obscure unpopular provisions—like new taxes. But Republican opponents were just as deceptive in their efforts to exaggerate the law’s potential negative effects. Neither is excusable.

The American people did not really understand the intricacies of the ACA before it passed. In April 2010, 55% of Americans said they were “confused” by the law, even after it passed and its provisions had been parsed for months in the media. Some of the confusion was due to Washington rhetoric that obscured the true details of the law and some can be blamed on a media that focused more on the politics of the bill than its policies.

It also seems unrealistic to expect average citizens to sort through a piece of legislation as large and complicated as the ACA to judge fact from fiction. Instead, the public largely relied on the opinions and information disseminated by politicians they agreed with generally.

That’s where the party-line deceptions come in. In one video, Gruber says that if the public had really understood that the law would require healthy people to pay for sick people, it wouldn’t have passed. He also says that the penalty for not having insurance is a “tax,” even though Democrats didn’t use that word to describe it because it would have made the law politically unfeasible. In another video, Gruber explains that a new ACA tax on high-cost health plans supposedly levied on insurers would actually be passed through to consumers.

None of these facts are exactly revelatory. Healthy people subsidizing sick people is how health insurance works. Whether it’s perceived as a “tax” or not, nobody wants to pay a financial penalty for not having insurance. And of course it’s true that any company—including an insurer—will try to pass overhead costs on to its customers.

The truth is there was deception on both sides of the debate that preceded passage of health care reform. Two wrongs don’t make a right—transparency is always better and more fair—but such context is necessary when judging Gruber and his remarks caught on tape. Republicans propagated talk of “death panels” and the notion that health reform would “ration” care, putting a board in charge of deciding who could live or die. The ACA does neither. The GOP also peddled the false idea that Democratic health reform was a “government takeover,” an argument that conveniently left out the fact that government dollars account for more than half of all health spending, with or without the ACA. And Republicans cast the entire discussion of the “public option,” a Medicare-like government insurance plan consumers could buy if they wanted to, as socialized medicine for all.

I’ve talked to Gruber many times over the past six years. He’s a good source because he’s smart, candid and was privy to the Democratic behind-the-scenes thinking and maneuvering that preceded passage of the Affordable Care Act. Gruber has always spoken so freely that I suspect the Obama Administration never felt completely at ease with the idea that one of its chief consultants was out there explaining everything, untethered. Comments Gruber made in 2012 about the health law’s subsidy system, which were also caught on tape and which he later described as “off the cuff,” could weaken the government’s case when it defends the law before the Supreme Court next year. (I reached Gruber to discuss this latest video controversy and he declined to comment on the record.) Gruber’s usually willing to talk and often, it seems, he’s not thinking much about the political ramifications of what he says.

In 2013, for instance, I asked Gruber if Democrats understood that the ACA would slowly and methodically erode the system under which millions of Americans get health insurance through their jobs. In pitching the ACA, Democrats had been adamant that the law would support and sustain the employer-based system, not erode it. But Gruber knew better and he told me so, likening workers being kicked off job-based health plans to people “falling off a building,” an outcome that architects of the ACA knew was likely and had planned for.

At least one Republican in Congress has called for hearings over Gruber’s newly revealed comments. Buoyed by a midterm election that gave the party a larger majority in the House and a new majority in the Senate, Republicans are hoping that Gruber-Gate might help them dismantle parts of the ACA next year.

What’s significant about Gruber-gate, though, is not that the Obama Administration was less transparent about what the ACA would do than its critics. It’s that Gruber admitted that his side participated in this unseemly dance.

[MajGenl.Meade]

But Gruber knew better and he told me so, likening workers being kicked off job-based health plans to people “falling off a building,” an outcome that architects of the ACA knew was likely and had planned for.

So... what we kinda got here is that the Obama administration and its Democrat supporters in Congress purposely created a plan that would cause people to fall off buildings (metaphorically) and lied about it in order to CHANGE a situation that they did not want to see continue.

Republicans purposely opposed this CHANGE and in order to maintain status quo ante and to stop people falling off buildings (metaphorically) they too lied about the horrors of the plan but it turns out that the "lie" that people would fall off buildings (metaphorically) wasn't a lie after all but was not only true but also was an intentional act perpetrated by Democrats.

I decided not to post the picture that suggests itself

[oldr_n_wsr]

It also seems unrealistic to expect average citizens to sort through a piece of legislation as large and complicated as the ACA to judge fact from fiction.

Seems our elected representatives (both rep and dem) were in the same boat as us "stupid people". It was rushed though, on Christams eve without any vetting process. Don't you think something as big, unwieldy and disruptive should have gone though a more lengthy review?

And a lies are still lies:
"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" and "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor".

I don't expect to be able to figure out all of the intricasies in AHA, but our "leaders" should have a good understanding of any and all bills, and the ramifications of those bills BEFORE they vote on it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

...our "leaders" should have a good understanding of any and all bills, and the ramifications of those bills BEFORE they vote on it.

Sadly, I think they kinda did.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I don't know about that. I think the ACA was not reviewed by most and the rank and file dems were told to "just pass it". Even Nancy Pelosie said, "we have to pass it to see what's in it".
There might have been a few who knew, but averall I think many/most did not. And shame on any rep or sen who did not read and understand this bill this that is this far reaching before voting on it.

[Sue U]

It also seems unrealistic to expect average citizens to sort through a piece of legislation as large and complicated as the ACA to judge fact from fiction.

Seems our elected representatives (both rep and dem) were in the same boat as us "stupid people". It was rushed though, on Christams eve without any vetting process. Don't you think something as big, unwieldy and disruptive should have gone though a more lengthy review?

That is simply not true. Obama began the healthcare reform process and turned it over to Congress in February 2009. While a Senate version of the bill was passed on December 24, the House did not pass the healthcare reform act until March 2010 (it was signed into law March 23, 2010). It is difficult to imagine how a legislative process more than a year long (and with years of groundwork beforehand) can be considered "rushed through," or how legislation with the level of public discussion that PPACA had could have required "a more lengthy review." Anyone who says they "don't know what's in it" is either lying or willfully ignorant, since the text has always been available for anyone who's interested. However, like any legislation, no one can foresee all the consequences of something as large and with as many moving parts as this particular bill, so to some extent it's unavoidable that we can't know how well it all works until it's actually working.

But Gruber knew better and he told me so, likening workers being kicked off job-based health plans to people “falling off a building,” an outcome that architects of the ACA knew was likely and had planned for.

So... what we kinda got here is that the Obama administration and its Democrat supporters in Congress purposely created a plan that would cause people to fall off buildings (metaphorically) and lied about it in order to CHANGE a situation that they did not want to see continue.

No, they did not "purposely create[] a plan that would cause people to fall off buildings" or lie about it. They created a plan that provided an alternative to employment-based health coverage (which is the world's most stupid system to begin with) and planned for potential consequences. Nothing about the ACA requires any employer to cut an employee benefits program. But to they extent they might, the ACA provides subsidies to help people obtain their own individual insurance.

[MajGenl.Meade]

No, they did not "purposely create a plan that would cause people to fall off buildings" or lie about it. They created a plan that provided an alternative to employment-based health coverage (which is the world's most stupid system to begin with) and planned for potential consequences. Nothing about the ACA requires any employer to cut an employee benefits program. But to they extent they might, the ACA provides subsidies to help people obtain their own individual insurance.

In 2013, for instance, I asked Gruber if Democrats understood that the ACA would slowly and methodically erode the system under which millions of Americans get health insurance through their jobs. In pitching the ACA, Democrats had been adamant that the law would support and sustain the employer-based system, not erode it. But Gruber knew better

Hint: underline, bold and italics = lie

[Sue U]

In 2013, for instance, I asked Gruber if Democrats understood that the ACA would slowly and methodically erode the system under which millions of Americans get health insurance through their jobs. In pitching the ACA, Democrats had been adamant that the law would support and sustain the employer-based system, not erode it. But Gruber knew better

Hint: underline, bold and italics = lie truth

FTFY.

It is exactly true that the ACA preserved the stupid employment-based system of health coverage -- which is why we still have a stupid employment-based system of health coverage today, and not a single-payer or national healthcare system. Because the debate in 2009 was whether we should scrap the stupid employment-based system of health coverage in favor of a sensible system of socialized (booga booga!!!) medical care. The insurance companies (and their employer health plan clients) won out.

No, they did not "purposely create a plan that would cause people to fall off buildings" or lie about it. They created a plan that provided an alternative to employment-based health coverage (which is the world's most stupid system to begin with) and planned for potential consequences. Nothing about the ACA requires any employer to cut an employee benefits program. But to they extent they might, the ACA provides subsidies to help people obtain their own individual insurance.

Hint: underline, bold and italics = also truth

ETA:

The purpose of the ACA was not to replace employee health plans, but to provide a means for those who didn't have employer-provided health insurance to obtain coverage through subsidized private insurance. Some employers looking for new ways to cut their employees' compensation have taken advantage of the program and their employees by dumping workers onto exchange coverage and blaming the government for the fallout. And that is the lie about the ACA.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Gruber / you. You / Gruber. So difficult to decide who's got the right of it. Mind, I've 'known' you longer...

ETA still, I've often thought that the employer-based health plans were a bad idea in totality. No employer should feel forced (by guilt and competition) to shell out for its workers. Get rid of it and let the employees pay for their own. That would/may be the single biggest factor in reducing health care costs (not to mention advancement, equipment, skills and so on). With company insurance policies no longer available to be sugar-daddy, both patients and the medical industry would have to scale back and get used to it.

[Sue U]

Gruber / you. You / Gruber. So difficult to decide who's got the right of it. Mind, I've 'known' you longer...

Which way does that cut, exactly?

But you don't need to take my word for it. Just look around you. Do we still have an employment-based health insurance system? The fact is, 60% of Americans get their coverage through their employment; about 16% are on Medicare, and about another 16% get Medicaid.

[MajGenl.Meade]

You have more cred, locally.

[BoSoxGal]

The purpose of the ACA was not to replace employee health plans, but to provide a means for those who didn't have employer-provided health insurance to obtain coverage through subsidized private insurance. Some employers looking for new ways to cut their employees' compensation have taken advantage of the program and their employees by dumping workers onto exchange coverage and blaming the government for the fallout. And that is the lie about the ACA.

[oldr_n_wsr]

That is simply not true.

I stand corrected. Thanks for hte info.
But why did Pelosi say, "we have to pass it to see what's in it." Did they not give her a copy? Did her aides not pass along the info?

[Guinevere]

Because that's not at all what she meant -- the context has been totally removed and the quote used simply as an attack on the ACA and the Democrats:

That quote, often truncated to “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,” or even just paraphrased to hew to the right’s narrative of the quote, has been perverted to mean that the Affordable Care Act was just too many pages, and Democrats just wanted it passed without anyone reading it, and rammed it down America’s throat. While Gregory at least read the whole quote, his interpretation was similar to the narrative that developed over time, that “there was such a rush to get this done—no Republicans voting for it—and now there are unintended effects of this that were foreseen at the time, that you couldn’t know the impact of, and that now this is coming home to roost?”

The influence of that narrative is a testament to the effectiveness of a relentless echo chamber. Here’s how Pelosi’s quote was covered by Politico on the day she made it:

Pelosi: People won’t appreciate reform until it passes
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that people won’t appreciate how great the Democrat’s health plan is until after it passes.
“You’ve heard about the controversies, the process about the bill…but I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is legislation for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America,” she told the National Association of Counties annual legislative conference, which has drawn about 2,000 local officials to Washington. “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.”
During a 20-minute speech, she touted benefits she thinks will be tangible to the audience’s employers. She said there’s support for public health infrastructure and investments in community health centers that will reduce uncompensated care that hospitals now need to deliver.
“You know as well as anyone that our current system is unsustainable,” said Pelosi (D-Calif.). “The final health care legislation, which will soon be passed by the Congress, will deliver successful reforms at the local level.”
Almost immediately, though, the conservative media seized on the quote, and perverted it into an indictment of the law’s complexity. The meaning that was so perfectly plain to an objective reporter on that day has been completely lost.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-context- ... ill-quote/

[oldr_n_wsr]

Again I learn something.
Thanks

[dgs49]

Fortunately, it did not take a week of pouring through the thousand-plus page bill to understand very clearly that it was sold on lies and distortions, the President's unfortunate quote notwithstanding ("...if you like your doctor...").

The law prohibited insurers from excluding people with pre-existing conditions, regardless of how costly they were. The law required coverage for dozens of things that have no business being covered by insurance (e.g., birth control pills). The law presumably made it possible for Forty Million people ("The Working Poor") to get subsidized coverage.



Hmmm.

And we were told our premiums wouldn't go up significantly. because there would be a billion healthy young people buying insurance they didn't need, thus subsidizing everyone else (like me).

O yeah, we all believed it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I think the administration buffaloed everyone.