Another Speak-O: ObamaCare Architect Jonathan Gruber Bragged About Passing ObamaCare By Fooling the American People
Rarely is a lefty this honest about his dishonest intentions. Circulate the video far and wide:
Marvel at his straightforward honesty about the Democrats’ dishonesty:
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 healthy people are going to pay in – you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… 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 get anything to pass. And so, you know, it’s a second-best argument. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.
Well, sure. As he says, if CBO scored the mandate as a tax, the bill would have died. If you told people that healthy people were going to pay for sick people, it would not have passed. So yes: they deliberately wrote the bill in a tortured fashion to hide these things. Duh.
But that’s not all they hid. Passing this bill required a whole series of deliberate lies.
If they told people: if you like your doctor, too bad because you are going to lose him, the bill would have died.
If they said: if you like your plan, too bad, because we’re going to replace it with a more expensive one that has a bunch of stuff you don’t need, the bill does not pass.
If they had been honest with people and said: the penalty for avoiding the mandate is a tax, and we are going to go to court and argue that it’s a tax — the bill probably would have died.
And if they had said: the federal government is cramming this down people’s throats, and it doesn’t matter if states participate or not . . . the bill would not have gotten Ben Nelson’s vote, and would have died.
That’s OK: the Scott Lemieuxes and Brian Beutlers of the world will still call you a “Halbig troofer” if you make that last point.
Watch them ignore this guy or pretend he had nothing to do with ObamaCare. Remember: the New York Times called him “Mr. Mandate.” He was basically the architect of the bill. And he just told you, in no uncertain terms, that they had to lie to the public to get it to pass.
If the GOP does not put this on endless loop for the next two years, until every American has seen it multiple times, they are idiots.
I’m serious: endless loop through November 2016. Let’s do this.
Patterico (9c670f) — 11/10/2014 @ 6:03 pmHillary is famous for her secret healthcare meetings
happyfeet (831175) — 11/10/2014 @ 6:05 pmIf the GOP does not put this on endless loop for the next two years, until every American has seen it multiple times, they are idiots.
Yeah, so what’s your point? 😉
nk (dbc370) — 11/10/2014 @ 6:09 pmMr. P except for on the video this post doesn’t identify Jonathan Gruber which might make it harder for people to find this post by asking the googles
happyfeet (831175) — 11/10/2014 @ 6:11 pmAs he says, if CBO scored the mandate as a tax, the bill would have died. This wasn’t a secret, or even well hidden.
Almost nobody in Congress cares about the facts, but only what the CBO score is, and everyone knows their numbers, are to say the least, deeply flawed, and will prove wrong in practice, but they are the only numbers they have got, and if they don’t use them, they have nothing to use.
And everyone knows bill writers go a step further and manipulate them.
And they do ridiculous things like using 10-years’ worth of some tax change to pay for 6-moonths worth of appropriations.
Sammy Finkelman (ea9037) — 11/10/2014 @ 6:13 pmif you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in – you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed…
It was a regressive tax on all but the very poor, who qualified for Medicaid or subsidies… Democrats are normally against that.
Sammy Finkelman (ea9037) — 11/10/2014 @ 6:15 pmthe mandate is a tax, and we are going to go to court and argue that it’s a tax — the bill probably would have died.
No they didn’t argue that the mandate was a tax – they argued that the penalty for not having insurance was a tax. The mandate itself – the other fork in the road – they are still not admitting it is a tax (to the extent that people overpay for insurance at least)
Sammy Finkelman (ea9037) — 11/10/2014 @ 6:18 pmI got the termination letter from my COBRA, today.
Insurance guys, what does it mean
“You may be eligible to convert some or all of your current medical coverage (if you were continuing in a medical plan) to an individual policy of insurance.
If you are interested in obtaining a conversion policy, for a fully insured plan you will need to contact your insurance company for more information.”
What is a conversion policy and what good does it do me?
Sammy, this question is not for you unless you are in the insurance business.
nk (dbc370) — 11/10/2014 @ 6:22 pmThanks; I was sloppy in the post. I added the words “penalty for avoiding” to make it more clear.
Patterico (9c670f) — 11/10/2014 @ 6:25 pmhappy,
Thanks, I added his name to the title. Isn’t community help wonderful?
Patterico (9c670f) — 11/10/2014 @ 6:26 pmOf course the GOP hierarchy is not going to publicize this. Why do you insist on
seeRpea (d2c6e3) — 11/10/2014 @ 6:33 pmbelieving they are against the ‘ObamaCare’? What have they done to cause you to
believe this?
I don’t know, seeRpea, something about every single one of them voting against it?
Patterico (9c670f) — 11/10/2014 @ 6:38 pmMr. Gruber is already on video stating, before the bill was passed, that the subsidies were for state-run exchanges only, in an attempt to get the states to set up their own.
He has subsequently tried to walk that comment back, but here he is stating that he will lie thru his teeth whenever it helps the bill. Surely, SCOTUS will further discount his walkback given these latest comments, no?
ras (be1e0d) — 11/10/2014 @ 6:41 pmI wonder if John Roberts has seen this.
Patricia (5fc097) — 11/10/2014 @ 6:49 pmoh please, an empty of voting? when they could have stopped it from coming to a vote
they know was going to pass? How about the support given to the man who almost invented
‘ObamaCare’, Mr Romney?
I’ve seen nothing from them since – maybe, maybe the lawsuit which still hasn’t
seeRpea (d2c6e3) — 11/10/2014 @ 6:49 pmhappened. Why was there no issue raised about a President deciding by fiat who would
and would not be liable to pay a tax? I did not see any Republican advertisement that
even hinted at repealing/rolling back ‘ObamaCare’.
The GOP hierarchy is not against the principle of ‘ObamaCare’, just miffed at how it was
done and who got “credit”.
13. ras (be1e0d) — 11/10/2014 @ 6:41 pm
No, he stated that in 2012, well after the bill was passed, but before the IRS issued itsfinal regulations. He probably thought that’s what they were going to do, and was trying to justify it, although they were well set on the coursew not to do that, but perhaps he mistakenly thoght they would. Or perhaps, oin the other hand, was trying to influence them.
To pass the bill. And most of what he is saying is how it is spun.
What he said was that because uit needed to be spun a certain way, and/or scored a certain way, they were limited in how they drafted the bill, and it wwasn’t such a good bill as it could have been.
As for the Halbig issue, I think they never anticipated the creation of healthcare.gov. The secretary of HHS was supposed to write software for SEPARATE exchanges for any state that did not write one itself, but I don’t think there is anything in the language of the bill, that the Secretary of HHS was actually supposed to operate such an exchange. They just didn’t think it through, maybe.
Sammy Finkelman (ea9037) — 11/10/2014 @ 6:50 pmSo many people that you’d think would know better just don’t seem to grasp the concept that when they say things out loud there are often cameras and mics on, and also that there is this new thing called the internet that is forever.
elissa (3b4cf5) — 11/10/2014 @ 6:50 pmRe: #13 , Mr Patterico would a judge be allowed to take this into consideration?
seeRpea (d2c6e3) — 11/10/2014 @ 6:51 pmare only things said directly to the court ethically allowed to persuade a judge?
Note that this conference was in OCTOBER 2013!
Perhaps there is hope to see the Khalidi tape after all.
askeptic (efcf22) — 11/10/2014 @ 6:51 pmO/T, but about the newly released Reagan Tapes:
They came to light because of a FOIA request that was just filled, one that had been filed in 1996!
A lot of ‘splainin’ that needs to be done.
askeptic (efcf22) — 11/10/2014 @ 6:54 pmNo to both.
Patterico (9c670f) — 11/10/2014 @ 7:00 pmCourts are allowed to take judicial notice of generally known facts, seeRpea. And some things that are official public record, even if you have to look them up. I don’t think this qualifies.
nk (dbc370) — 11/10/2014 @ 7:03 pmHow could it be introduced as evidence?
JD (285732) — 11/10/2014 @ 7:09 pmOn a follow up to the question,
as I understand it, the issue is whether or not the law means what it literally says or not,
and comments by Mr. Gruber seem to make it clear that they meant what they said because of how they perceived the political forces would make states cooperate.
Is that going to be something that can be submitted as evidence, or not? And if not, why not, and with this bit of fact, is the case not primae facia over?
Can a case really be decided in conflict with such primae facia evidence for some reason not admissible??? If so, the law really is an a**.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/10/2014 @ 7:13 pmJonathan Gruber: MIT Department of Economics, Phone (617) 253-8892, Fax (617) 253-1330,
ropelight (929cbc) — 11/10/2014 @ 7:13 pmEmail gruberj@mit.edu
the only thing the GOPe will reliably take a stand against is a conservative candidate in a primary, or against anything that threatens their personal perks & access to power.
they don’t really care if they win a national election again, as long as they keep their individual seats.
redc1c4 (6d1848) — 11/10/2014 @ 7:21 pmThey told me if I voted for Mitt Romney this kind of stuff would happen.
MSL (5f601f) — 11/10/2014 @ 7:24 pmThis is evidence for the court of public opinion — politics.
It should indeed be used aggressively for that purpose. I commend, and agree with, our host.
It is not something one should expect to see even in a footnote in an appellate opinion rejecting the Administration’s ridiculous position about state exchanges.
It’s actually superfluous to the legal arguments in the case before the SCOTUS. You don’t have to impeach the credibility of someone who’s claiming something that’s already flatly and unequivocally contradicted by the plain language of a statute. (Unless you prefer divination and feel-goods to the Rule of Law.)
But it’s a useful bit of “Take that!” to deliver unto those who are repeating the Administration’s ridiculous arguments in political discussions (i.e., everywhere but SCOTUS briefs).
Beldar (fa637a) — 11/10/2014 @ 7:24 pmBut Beldar,
if the plain language of the statute is plain why is there a court case at all, because some judges that don’t know how to read said “OK, sure”?
If it is plain, why does SCOTUS need to hear it at all?
If the case defending ObamaCare hinges on a claim that there was a mistake made in the writing of it, and that it was intended to read something else.
, then there are two courses of action I can see:
1) It says what it says, tough.
=> but if that is the case, why do they need to waste their time?
2) well, maybe you have a point, let’s see if we can hand-wave and find a reason to rule in your favor
=> in which case showing that their fundamental premise is wrong, and known to be wrong, and get the heck out of my court before I slap you with contempt.
I mean this seems like arguing whether or not water is wet without allowing a cup of water to be brought into the room.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/10/2014 @ 7:33 pmThe trial is over, MD. Was there a reason why this obvious fake photoshop, made by Birthers on the dark side of the Moon, with the assistance of the Illuminate and agents of the Kur from the planet Gor, could not have been introduced timely? And that’s just to start.
nk (dbc370) — 11/10/2014 @ 7:41 pmRelated: When is the last time you heard the number of uninsured? I could not escape that data if I spent even 5 minutes online back in the day.
My understanding is that even allowing for the phony baloney number of sign-ups, that number is unchanged. With the coming renewal notices, there will most definitely be more uninsured than their were prior to passage.
So, how stupid are Republicans to not be pronouncing this truth on a constant basis?
Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 11/10/2014 @ 7:52 pmMD in Philly: I have less grace than our host in suffering the fools and liars who pretend that this is a legitimate legal dispute. I do not think that this is a close case. I don’t think it’s a debatable case. I don’t think anyone who argues that the defined term “State” means anything other than its definition in that same statute is arguing in objective or subjective good faith. If I were a judge and Eric Holder came in my courtroom making this argument, I would sanction him under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, even though that ruling would surely — as a matter of practical politics, not law — be promptly vacated by an appellate court.
There are tons and tons of legal arguments I can engage in with Lefties who I will concede are arguing in objective and subjective good faith, even though they’re badly mistaken or foolish.
This is not such an issue. I would not be an effective advocate in court to oppose the Administration on this case, because I could never listen to their lawyers argue these ridiculous positions without losing my own composure and laughing aloud.
Beldar (fa637a) — 11/10/2014 @ 7:53 pm“If the GOP does not put this on endless loop for the next two years, until every American has seen it multiple times, they are idiots.”
Do you promise? A week from now, a month from now, a year from now, longer, will you actually embrace the wisdom of this comment when the GOP once again fail us. To loosely quote Dabney Coleman’s character, Mark Winslow, in Modern Problems ““I hope you’ll come to the healthy conclusion that they’re a manipulatin’ bunch.” (I’d prefer a more accurate quote, but this is a family blog).
Alas, Republicans are dependably idiotic (and the handful that aren’t do so at their own risk). I think your link is the first and last I’ll ever see of this Gruber video.
ThOR (130453) — 11/10/2014 @ 8:03 pmIt’s on HotAir, too.
elissa (3b4cf5) — 11/10/2014 @ 8:04 pmThat said, Beldar, haven’t some circuit courts already bought the argument which is why it is at SCOTUS in the first place?
I don’t have confidence in how things should be with the government until it is done. There is no reason a 2 year senator with no executive experience, who attended a racist church, who was buddies with a domestic terrorist, should have been elected president, either.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/10/2014 @ 8:05 pmOn a more optimistic note, ’til now, liberal jurists have stuck with the standard bearer of their party. With the recent electoral shellacking and the distancing process that appears to be underway within the Democratic Party, perhaps the courts will be less easily persuaded by Obama’s lackeys in the Justice Department.
One can hope.
ThOR (130453) — 11/10/2014 @ 8:11 pmThank you, elissa.
ThOR (130453) — 11/10/2014 @ 8:12 pmMD in Philly: Yes indeed, what’s unusual is that the SCOTUS is taking this case despite the lack of a split between the circuits.
At least four Justices voted to grant cert. Let’s say it’s only four, and they’re eager to uphold the statute as written. They’re probably the same four who haven’t been voting for cert on the gay marriage cases yet (although a split has finally occurred on that, just this week). Let’s say, hypothetically, that they’re Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.
Smart money says those four don’t vote for cert on gay marriage because they’re not ready to force Kennedy to vote on that issue.
But my tea leaves say they think they can hold Kennedy’s vote on this one.
And my theory is that this case is Robert’s Revenge & Rehabilitation, friends and neighbors. Just a hunch.
Beldar (fa637a) — 11/10/2014 @ 8:25 pmThanks, Beldar.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/10/2014 @ 8:29 pmIf this guy worked for a private company that had just colluded to require consumers to purchase this product even though they knew it wouldn’t perform as advertised, it’d be a massive class action lawsuit.
Lawfare. Let’s find a way to unleash a pile of lawyers on those that knowingly defrauded the electorate. I’m in for $250. I suspect many others would be too. A $20M warchest for lawyers could cause a lot of hurt to start, and videos like this would readily generate that. More funding later if they make progress.
This video is absolutely disgusting. Lawyers: Figure out a way to crack the armor.
Bo Duke (a559dc) — 11/10/2014 @ 8:45 pmForgive my ignorance..couldn’t this just be adjudicated as a straight tax case? Intent goes out the window if the implementation runs counter to established principles, does it not?
Would it benefit our side if this were handled in this way by Roberts?
Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 11/10/2014 @ 9:09 pmPowerline has the Gruber video featured too. It’s getting some play.
elissa (3b4cf5) — 11/10/2014 @ 9:11 pmI’m gonna go out on a limb: It will be 5/4, opinion by CJ Roberts for a majority comprising himself Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy & Alito. The opinion will be remarkably short. The dissent will be long and forgettable.
Beldar (fa637a) — 11/10/2014 @ 9:13 pmSounds about right, Beldar.
Patterico (9c670f) — 11/10/2014 @ 10:12 pmAnd what’s up with Sotomayor enjoining the decision in KS?
askeptic (efcf22) — 11/10/2014 @ 11:35 pmIs she a vote for or against SSM?
I could never listen to their lawyers argue these ridiculous positions without losing my own composure and laughing aloud.
Beldar (fa637a) — 11/10/2014 @ 7:53 pm
Maybe if we all did this we could lop the head off this pig of a bill. Mmmm… roast pork!
Dan (00fc90) — 11/11/2014 @ 3:44 amDrudge has the “Obamacare architect” Gruber video linked this morning as part of a triad of Obamacare stories.
elissa (f6b180) — 11/11/2014 @ 4:21 amDemocrats have a chance to save face – Vote with republicans and form a super majority
mg (8361ab) — 11/11/2014 @ 5:12 amAnd what’s up with Sotomayor enjoining the decision in KS?
Is she a vote for or against SSM?
askeptic (efcf22) — 11/10/2014 @ 11:35 pm
She stayed enforcement of a summary judgment (from what I can tell) which is entitled to de novo review on appeal. That means the decision of the District Court is not entitled to any deference, and the Court of Appeals can substitute its own judgment once it reviews the record. Not staying it would create a lot of havoc. Believe it or not, judges mostly follow their own rules, even wise Latinas. Actually, the District Court should have stayed it for the statutory period within which to appeal. It speaks to a lack of judicial integrity that it did not.
nk (dbc370) — 11/11/2014 @ 5:21 amVideo shows that Roberts should meet up with a sturdy oak branch.
mg (3ecb6c) — 11/11/2014 @ 5:48 amThey are idiots.
Davod (b656c4) — 11/11/2014 @ 7:34 amMD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/10/2014 @ 7:33 pm
I dont go along with the theory this was a mistake. It is too glaring a mistake. And tyhey had a chance to make technical corrections in a second bill that was passed through reconcilation (a bill which eliminated the “Cornhusker kickback – the exemptiopn of Nebraska from a Medicaid requirement)
There was a technical corrections bill.
I also don’t buy the theory that there was an attempt to force states create healthcare exchanges.
The theory I am leaning to is that the bill was deliberately written defectively.
And the reason was Congressional Budget Office scoring.
The Democrats were doing everything they could have to total net cost of the bill over 10 years come in under $1 trillion.
Having the states run the exchanges, saved a little money. So that’s what they wrote. (They also told the CBO to score the tax credits as taking effect in every state)
But they had a zero cost for running and operating the exchanges.
Now it occurred to them, that because of the opposition to the bill, the states might not all get cracking on creating the exchanges right away.
So the bill provided that the Secretary of HHS could create one for a state that neglected to do so.
Create it, not operate it.
That took you into 2011 and 2012.
The defect, not error! could be corrected in the next Congress, when the CBO score wouldn’t matter. And it would not require 60 votes in the Senate to do so.
But…
Sammy Finkelman (ea9037) — 11/11/2014 @ 7:58 amMaybe somebody can look more carefully through this:
March 30, 2011 CBO analysis of the Major Health Care Legislation Enacted in March, 2010:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf
But, although it talks a lot about subsidies obtained on the exchanges, I don’t it attributes any cost to the federal government of writing, and maintaining and operating the exchanges themselves!
Sammy Finkelman (ea9037) — 11/11/2014 @ 8:14 am31.Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 11/10/2014 @ 7:52 pm
I don’t know that, but I heard that HHS says it expects 30% fewer people to sign up for insurance using healthcare.gov this year than did last year – and the number of screens required for a totally new enrollment has gone down from 76 to 16.
Sammy Finkelman (ea9037) — 11/11/2014 @ 8:42 amI love it when Sammah rewrites history.
JD (285732) — 11/11/2014 @ 8:47 amGruber’s words have merited an Instapundit entry. Keith Hennessey has a piece discussing Gruber’s “Kinsley Gaffe”. Lucianne is also featuring the loquacious Mr. Gruber this morning.
elissa (16d100) — 11/11/2014 @ 9:26 amMost Jewish people are of a socialist/marxist bent, so I’m not surprised at mr. Gruber’s revelation. And really, why not? it works extremely well in israel.
On the other hand, we really don’t want or need it here in the USA.
Brian Geary (6af3a8) — 11/11/2014 @ 9:34 amIt seems a bit scary and sobering to think that something that should not even be in court might gain votes of 4 of the 9.
If it can get 4 of the 5, why can’t they get 5 of the 9?
I guess we can cross the bridge if we come to it,
but what do we the people do if the SCOTUS rules in favor of making ObamaCare work in spite of what the law says?
For that matter, even if it is turned down 5-4, what do we the people do about 4 justices refusing to follow the law?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/11/2014 @ 9:42 amIt isn’t as if we needed these people to admit to the fraud. It was obvious that it was a swindle. there’s a lot in there about regulating businesses so they can’t grow to large, and preventing people from working. Nothing about providing healt care. Baucus even admitted as such when he got back from a 10 martini lunch shortly after the bill’s passage, boasting in an alcohol-fueled fit of honesty that it was written to rectify the “maldistribution of income.”
But it sure helps that these people admit it as such, because I’m still at a loss to understand why some people think the GOP would be making a huge blunder by repealing this fraud. Apparently, they’ve grown attached to Obamacare.
I am amazed. How does anyone grow attached to a law that was written to never deliver the goods, and was written based upon the assumption that people are stupid enough to fall for it?
The next part of the fraud involves the same people who think American voters are idiots promising to fix this thing. They believe, having been stupid enough to fall for this fraud once, the voters ares stupid enough to fall for all the follow on lies. They’re bragging about it. They had all the follow on lies on notes in their hip pockets before the first bill was passed.
It can’t be fixed. To fall for the lie that it can be is to prove that people like Gruber who think we’re all a bunch of idiots are in fact right on target. At least about enough of us.
Steve57 (c1c90e) — 11/11/2014 @ 9:35 pmThe GOP hierarchy is not against the principle of ‘ObamaCare’, just miffed at how it was done and who got “credit”. — seeRpea (d2c6e3)
You’ll get no argument from me if your contention is that ideological squish-squish has infected the body politic, including that which constitutes far too many Republicans. The breathtaking stupidity behind all of that is evident amongst all those Americans who even today continue to blame George W Bush for current economic woes instead of President “Goddamn America.” That one single statistic (per various opinion polls) may be a big factor behind Barry being even more arrogant in his scapegoating than he’d otherwise be and his belief that his leftism has a magic glow around it.
Come to think of it, Jonathan Gruber does have a good point when he cites the “stupidity of the American voter,” since, as the saying goes, it takes one to know one.
Mark (c160ec) — 11/12/2014 @ 12:25 am