This is old news now and unfortunately forgotten by most.
I remember how incensed I was about the Obamacare farce and just came across these probably forgotten articles in Forbes Magazine that explain the lies and deceit behind the passing of Obamacare.
Click on the headlines below to see the complete article.
Recently, video surfaced of MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber admitting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – a.k.a. ObamaCare – “would not have passed” if Democrats had been honest about its costs. The renowned architect of the Act admitted “this bill was written in a tortured way” to create a “lack of transparency,” an effort that succeeded thanks to the “the stupidity of the American voter.” The video was one of a series of recently discovered video and audio recordings in which Gruber either boasts about how architects of the law deceived the public, or undercuts the government’s position in a case (King v. Burwell) soon to be heard by the Supreme Court that would make the law’s costs more transparent. Gruber has accepted an invitation to testify before Congress on December 9. Here is my effort to help members of Congress and the public understand the depth of the deception he admitted.
“Grubergate” has so many facets, I divided this post into several parts. Here in part one, I present the full context behind Gruber’s “stupidity of the American voter” comments. The context is essential for understanding the breadth and depth of the deception he admitted. Part two explains that indeed Gruber admitted the entire PPACA is just one giant deception. Part three explains that Gruber also admitted he approves of such deceptions when necessary to achieve universal coverage. (Too harsh? Read on.) Part four explains how Gruber’s remarks prove Chief Justice John Roberts was wrong in NFIB v. Sebelius. Part five explains how King v. Burwell, the next big ObamaCare case to go before the Supreme Court, could thwart efforts to hide the law’s costs from voters. Part six shows how Gruber and other PPACA architects, including President Obama and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are determined to keep the deception going. Part seven explains how many supporters of universal coverage don’t even realize they are among those the architects deceived. Part eight offers Congress suggestions on minimizing the harm from the PPACA’s deceptions and preventing similar deceptions in the future.
When health economist and Obama advisor Jonathan Gruber said the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed only because of a “lack of transparency” and “the stupidity of the American voter,” he did more than insult millions of people. He admitted (1) if voters had understood what the PPACA does, the opposition would be so great that it would not have passed because even Democrats would have abandoned it, (2) the law’s authors knew this, and (3) because of this, they consciously sought to deceive voters about the enormous taxes the law imposes on millions of Americans, both at the law’s inception and at every turn during the public debate. In short, Gruber admitted ObamaCare is and has always been one giant deception from beginning to end, and its architects achieved by deception what they could not have achieved honestly.
Gruber admitted all this with just a few sentences in response to a suggestion that the law’s taxes and subsidies should have been made more transparent:
You can’t do it, politically. You just literally cannot do it…
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. Okay? So it’s written to do that. [If] you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.
Let’s take the last sentence first.
“Healthy People Pay In And Sick People Get Money”
As I mentioned in my last post, the centerpiece of the law is its community-rating price controls, which force insurers to raise premiums for the healthy in order to reduce them for the sick, and therefore create a fundamentally non-transparent form of redistribution.