ObamaCare architect: 'Stupidity' of voters helped bill pass

[cali]

An architect of the federal healthcare law said last year that a "lack of transparency" and the "stupidity of the American voter" helped Congress approve ObamaCare.

In a clip unearthed Sunday, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Jonathan Gruber appears on a panel and discusses how the reform earned enough votes to pass.

He suggested that many lawmakers and voters didn't know what was in the law or how its financing worked, and that this helped it win approval.

"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said. "And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."

Gruber made the comment while discussing how the law was "written in a tortured way" to avoid a bad score from the Congressional Budget Office. He suggested that voters would have rejected ObamaCare if the penalties for going without health insurance were interpreted as taxes, either by budget analysts or the public.

<snip>

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/223578-obamacare-architect-lack-of-transparency-helped-law-pass

[Indydem]

1. Super nice guy.

Glad he's on our side.

[cali]

2. those were idiotic and counter-productive remarks. and they will be used against dems

[Cali_Democrat]

4. It's all so very concerning.

Even Bernie Sanders got hoodwinked.

[cali]

6. really? you think these remarks were helpful? wait. It's you

of course you don't see a problem with his comments.

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Like I said, I'm so very concerned.

They even tricked Bernie into voting for it.

[Indydem]

12. It was sarcasm.

He's obviously a douchebag.

[truebluegreen]

15. True, and probably...

but I think we are past the point where this will be an actual campaign issue. Even if the Supremes in their idiocy rule against the federal exchange, it will be very hard to get rid of the law altogether, and 2 years from now it will be even harder...more's the pity (I'd like to see insurance companies trying to compete with a public option).

[SickOfTheOnePct]

18. I'm not sure they would be idiots to rule against the federal exchange

According to Gruber, subsidies were purposely NOT supposed to available on the federal exchange:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/07/25/obamacare-architect-agreed-with-gop-exchange-subsidies-can-only-flow-through-state-exchanges/

In his remarks, Gruber urged state governments to set up their own health insurance exchanges. A member of the audience asked: “It’s my understanding that if states don’t provide [exchanges], then the federal government will provide them for the states.”

Gruber responded: “What’s important to remember politically about [Obamacare] is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.”

(bolding added by me).

That statement pretty much makes lies of all the claims now that it was a typo, or that "state" was meant to mean "state or federal". Based on what one of the architects of the law is saying, the claims of the plaintiffs are correct.

[truebluegreen]

19. Somebody named Gruber, architect of Romneycare, consultant on Obamacare, being quoted by Forbes.

I wonder if anyone involved has an agenda.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

20. Jonathan Gruber was a paid consultant during the drafting of the ACA

And regardless of where the quote came from, he's on video saying it.

He's an advocate of and believes in the ACA, so I'm not sure why you would think his agenda is to sink it.

[truebluegreen]

22. He has a funny way of showing it. nt

[SickOfTheOnePct]

23. Have you watched any of the videos?

If not, I humbly suggest you take a few minutes and do so.

[unblock]

3. did he actually have a hand in obamacare, or just massachusetts' rmoneycare law

[Mass]

8. He was one of the main consultants for this bill with OMB.

[Scuba]

5. Does he know that voters didn't vote on the bill?

[unblock]

11. i'm sure he understands that voter vote for or against congresscritters...

who might themselves have voted against the aca had they thought voters would fail to re-elect them if they thought of the mandate to be a "tax".

[Mass]

7. Nothing new, sadly. This seems to have been the general explanation for the 2014 election as well

voters are stupid.

As for questioning our leaders's quality, the message, the operations, the choices made when it comes to funding whom, this is another story. We're told to stop questioning.

And it is just a continuation of 2013 and 2014, where the Democratc Party has been pandering to some constituencies, rather than trying to deal with real issues.

[Old Nick]

9. So what if it did?

It would mean that, for once, the stupidity helped the Democrats!

[MadDAsHell]

17. I'm hoping you meant helped the American people??

We ought to be shooting a bit higher than just what's most beneficial to a political party.

[unblock]

14. hey look at me! i'm a perfesser who helped create public policy! can i haz senate seat like warren?

[GeorgeGist]

16. Third ways a charm.

[Avalux]

21. I think we all need to realize - this is how most bills get passed.

Lack of transparency; written in legalese that most people either can't or don't have the patience to understand, and a reliance on propaganda to get it through.

It's sickening, really. The American people have no control over what goes on in Washington. NONE.

I don't have faith in anything we're told anymore; and even though these bills are public record, who has the time to sit and pore over thousands of pages trying to figure out what they mean? I remember trying to do that with the ACA bill when we had discussions here over the pros and cons. Nearly impossible and it shouldn't be that way. I don't care if it ends up being a great piece of legislation; the ends do not justify the means.