Obamacare

Yes, Jonathan Gruber Is An Obamacare "Architect"

The health law's allies are trying to distance themselves from the economist's remarks about the deception involved in passing the law. But they're only proving him right.

|

In the space of a week, Jonathan Gruber has become a non-person in Washington. Until last Monday, the MIT health economist was widely and uncontroversially cited as an "architect" of the Affordable Care Act, a go-to expert regarding the law's politics and mechanics. But after multiple videos surfaced in which Gruber said or implied that the bill's backers relied on deception and an assumption of voter stupidity in order to pass it, Obamacare's backers moved swiftly to distance themselves from Gruber and downplay his role in the creation of the law. 

Asked about Gruber's videotaped declaration that "lack of transparency" provided "a huge political advantage," Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi responded dismissively. "I don't know who he is," she said. "He didn't help write our bill." A Wall Street Journal item by Neera Tanden, the president of the liberal Center for American Progress and a former administration staffer, opened by insisting that Gruber "did not make policy, nor did he work for the White House, HHS, or any congressional committee." Jay Angoff, the former overseer of the health law's implementation at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), told Politico that Gruber was neither a legislator nor a staffer. "He's like 300 million other Americans who can have their opinion."

Even the president himself weighed in. Responding over the weekend to questions about Gruber's statements, President Obama pushed back on Gruber's role, labeling him "some adviser who was never on our staff." Gruber's remarks, Obama said, were "not a reflection on the actual process that was run" when crafting and passing Obamacare.

These reactions from Obama and others were, for the most part, technically true—but nonetheless misleading about Gruber's influence on the law. At a minimum, they were not fully transparent about his role. In attempting to downplay Gruber's remarks, Obamacare's supporters had instead proved him right.

Nancy Pelosi, for example, knew Gruber's name when she cited his work by 2009 in support of the law. And while Tanden is technically right that Gruber did not work for the White House, the Department of Health and Human Services, or any congressional committee as a staffer, he did, as she notes, work as a contractor, receiving almost $400,000 for a technical analysis of the law.

As for whether Gruber helped write the law, he has claimed explicitly that he did. In a 2012 lecture on the structure of the law, Gruber says that the small business tax credits are a portion of the bill that he "actually wrote."

In a video marking the anniversary of the Massachusetts health care law, which Gruber helped design, Gruber says he "helped President Obama develop a national version" of the same law. The video was produced and distributed by President Obama's campaign organization.

Reporting backs up Gruber's claim. A 2012 article on Gruber in The New York Times reported that he "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."

Yes, Gruber was an adviser, as Obama describes him, but that significantly understates his role. In addition to the nearly $400,000 he received from the administration (more than Obama's senior staff earns annually), his work was cited repeatedly by the administration as evidence for the law, and Gruber participated in high-level discussions with the president himself about what policies the law should include.

When the bill was being scored by the Congressional Budget Office, Gruber was one of just three outside economists summoned to an Oval Office meeting with the president and CBO director Douglas Elmendorf to look for ways to adjust the law in order to receive a better score, according to The Washington Post. That discussion, Gruber later said in a 2012 PBS documentary on the creation of the law, "became the genesis of what is called the Cadillac tax in the health care bill." Gruber also visited with senior administration officials at the White House on several other ocassions, according to visitor logs. 

The White House relied on Gruber not only to help determine policy, but to make the case for why it would work. In November of 2009, as Obamacare was being debated, the White House touted a report produced by Gruber as an "objective" analysis of the law—failing to mention that he had been paid by the administration.

And then there was the time in 2006 when, as a senator, Obama said he'd "stolen ideas" from Jonathan Gruber—in Obama's words, "liberally."

The media has abetted the law's allies in their quest to downplay Gruber's role, as if there was uncertainty about the extent of his influence. An article in Politico on the Gruber flap asks in its headline "Was Jonathan Gruber the 'architect'?" Four months ago, however, there was no question about his role. The same reporter described Gruber as "one of Obamacare's chief architects" in the opening line of a piece.

Gruber was not just "some adviser" who ran computer simulations but played no role in setting policy. He was not just like 300 million other Americans, some guy with an opinion.

He was intimately connected to the law and its creation, an influence on Obama before his presidency, paid handsomely to analyze Obamacare's effects, invited to at least one presidential meeting at the White House to help determine its structure, and directly involved in the writing of the law's legislative text on Capitol Hill.

It's clear from their dismissive remarks that the administration and its supporters want to avoid too much discussion of this. They don't want to be associated with the man or his ideas. But Gruber'a ideas, and his deceptions, are part of the foundation of Obamacare. They just don't want to admit it. 

Indeed, by trying to escape his remarks, Obamacare's defenders are amplifying Gruber's essential point, which wasn't that Obamacare supporters made up spectacular fabrications but instead that they heavily shaded the truth, presenting it and editing it in a way intended to create a false but politically convenient impression: The deception that he described regarding the crafting and selling of Obamacare is again on full display as supporters of the health law desperately attempt to diminish and downplay the role of one of its key architects, despite the plain evidence to the contrary.

As an episode in the ongoing saga of Obamacare, it's both revealing and confirming: The White House and its allies are misleading the public about Gruber just as they have about the law. They don't want the public to know the full truth about either. 

NEXT: At UC-Davis, Students Can't Register Until They Concede It's Wrong to Say 'I'd Hit That'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Damn you people, cannot you just accept that we know better and leave us alone! Lie back and think of Hope and Change.

    /O! Team

    1. This going to hurt me more than it’s going to hurt you.

    2. “Damn you people, cannot you just accept that we know better and leave us alone! Lie back and think of Hope and Change.

      Hope and change…change…yeah that’s right….climate change. Climate change is gonna kill you all if we don’t put these fake scandals away and FIX IT NOW.

      You can believe us on this one because we care about the little people and the Teabaggers are evil and only care about the rich insuran……I mean oil companies.

    3. The majority of Americans never wanted this monstrosity. It was built on calculated lies, told repeatedly, and it is sustained on lies.

      What’s more – it doesn’t make anything cheaper AT ALL. I tried for hours to find a health insurance plan for less then $500/month and COULD NOT DO IT. I’m a 28 year old healthy female. No reason I should be paying that much. I never even go to the doctors. They are counting on the healthy to pay for the old and unhealthy. Nope, not me.. not falling for it. I’d rather just take the $100 penalty.

      Why can’t it be more like auto insurance? Private market.. easy to get quotes. I can go online and get a $25/month auto quote from Insurance Panda, but when it comes to health insurance, I use the government’s SCAM website and have to pay out the eyeballs. WOW

      This is a bad law, and should be repealed? but Obama and the Democrats won’t hear of it because Obamacare was never about health care, it was and is about power and control.

      1. Yeah sure but before you know it you’re preggers and Boom! health expenses skyrocket! Besides it isn’t actually insurance – it’s a transfer payment from the young and healthy to the old and sick.

      2. Why can’t it be more like auto insurance?

        Because auto insurance doesn’t operate like health insurance does. You don’t use auto insurance to cover routine maintenance on your car; not so with health insurance, which is typically used for even minor checkups. The “true cost” is disguised with co-pays and other price manipulations. Just try getting a quote for something as benign as a broken arm from your local hospital–people will act like you’re from another planet.

        This was a broken system before Obamacare; Obamacare just exacerbated the effects.

        1. I’d also point out that in the long run the probability that an individual will need their health insurance benefits approaches 100%

      3. You’re just a Panda troll.

      4. I’d rather just take the $100 penalty.

        Uh, yeah. Except that’s only the minimum penalty. That’s the penalty you’d pay if you had zero income – it can be substantially more. And the second year it doubles. After that it gets much worse. These mofos mean business – you will buy insurance from their cronies or else. You are right – it isn’t about healthcare at all.

      5. This is why you cannot vote Libertarian or any other third party in a major election. Yes you might be voting your conscience by Voting libertarian but you will in effect be voting for a Democrat by not voting in a candidate who can actually stop him from putting legislation as onerous as this into place.

        Remember that the Socialists/Statist/Democrats are much more dangerous to personal liberty and economic freedom than a Conservative will ever be.
        Abolish the Democratic party and contend with the Conservatives in the arena of ideas.

  2. An article in Politico on the Gruber flap asks in its headline “Was Jonathan Gruber the ‘architect’?” Four months ago, however, there was no question about his role. The same reporter described Gruber as “one of Obamacare’s chief architects” in the opening line of a piece.

    Peter don’t bore Ms. Winfield Cunningham with your bourgeois facts and “truth”. She reports the revolutionary truth.

    1. Given that Ms. Winfield Cunninghem is part of the bourgeoisie, I’d rephrase that as “please don’t destroy her bourgeois illusions and sense of entitlement with facts”.

  3. As an episode in the ongoing saga of Obamacare, it’s both revealing and confirming: The White House and its allies are misleading the public about Gruber just as they have about the law. They don’t want the public to know the full truth about either.

    This can not be said loudly, or often, enough.

  4. “The deception that he described regarding the crafting and selling of Obamacare is on full display as supporters of the health law desperately attempt to diminish and downplay the role of one of its key architects, despite the plain evidence to the contrary.”

    Gruber was not only the architect of the law, but of the bodyguard of lies that surrounded it (nod to Churchill).

  5. The lie about lying about how they lied about lying.

    Anyways,
    At this point, what difference does it make?

    1. A lot of difference. A lot of Democratic voters supported this law based on Gruber’s lie. Normally, the Progs avoid being held responsible for their lies by claiming that it wasn’t their fault things worked out so badly. It is forever the fault of bad luck or evil unseen forces at work to subvert the good of the people.

      Gruber’s admission makes doing that a lot harder or maybe impossible. Gruber is admitting that the harm that has resulted from this law was part of the plan and the claims otherwise were a deliberate lie. If people come to believe that, the Progs won’t be able to avoid blame for the harms caused by the law.

      1. and that’s it, isn’t it. The house of cards has been revealed and it is impossible to blame the kochs or fox or teathuglicans or anyone else. And each utterance from Pelosi or Obama about not knowing who Gruber is gets followed with a video/audio clip of them referring to him by name.

      2. I think you may have missed the Hillaryism from VG.

  6. Sure we lied and set up a huge debacle that will ruin an enormous part of daily life and drain our economy, but we did it for the right REASONS. And look – a handful of people might actually get care from it (even though access and care have hazy connections to better health).

    So it’s OK that we performed an evil act against untold numbers of people cause y’know – INTENTIONS.

    1. Bingo – Gruber posts a study he was part of that found exactly that – Medicaid led to higher costs, did nothing to reduce ER visits or hospitalizations or improve healthcare outcomes.

      But – and here’s the important point from the prog’s view – all those billions spent made the Medicaid recipient HAPPIER.

    2. Jonathan Cohn’s latest attempt to explain away #Grubering at The New Republic is pathetic for this reason. He actually closes the piece with something akin to “intentions don’t mean everything, but surely they mean something.”

      I mean, play to type, much? That’s almost like us saying and meaning that Somalia is in fact our perfect utopia.

      That the progressive elitists on the coasts, who genuinely think they’re better than America’s “rank and file” actually pat themselves on the back over their noble intentions should be all the evidence needed to conclude they are nothing more than whiny children.

      These people are idiots, and they are liars.

  7. Sure we lied and set up a huge debacle that will ruin an enormous part of daily life and drain our economy, but we did it for the right REASONS. And look – a handful of people might actually get care from it (even though access and care have hazy connections to better health).

    So it’s OK that we performed an evil act against untold numbers of people cause y’know – INTENTIONS.

  8. is there a memo that goes out to get all these people on the same page- or do they all just default that lying is the best policy?

    1. I think the urban scholar Slim Charles said it best:

      “Don’t matter who did what to who at this point. Fact is, we went to war, and now there ain’t no going back. I mean, shit, it’s what war is, you know? Once you in it, you in it. If it’s a lie, then we fight on that lie. But we gotta fight.”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHol7WW2A8g

    2. or do they all just default that lying is the best policy?

      Lying is progressives’ squid ink.

      1. No one could be a progressive without lying.

        1. agreed – unless you are one of the useful idiots who are used by the Progs to stay in power. Then you are an complete moron and not even smart enough to realize that it is ALL just a big lie.

    3. Now, now. Truth is a social construct. And if all of the right people say something is true, who are you to question them? Your own senses? What kind of selfish prick would elevate their own senses over the will of the Party? You wouldn’t want to be the kind of arrogant bastard who puts your own opinions ahead of the truth arrived at by countless people more intelligent than you, would you? You do value being part of the team, don’t you?

      1. “I recognize no higher authority than the rational judgement of my own mind.”

    4. Definitely the former. It’s one thing for everyone to lie, but everyone telling the same lie requires coordination.

    5. Well, yeah. That’s exactly what Journolist, Journolist 2.0, and its apparent equivalent amongst games journolists with Gamergate are all about.

  9. It’s kind of funny to see Suderman write this article.

  10. BTW,

    How does this asshole, self admitted liar, whose great achievement was figuring out how to game the CBO scoring (which should be fraud) and then went on to rake in many millions of dollars scamming various governments; still have a job as a professor? What does he profess, lying to serve a higher goal- of lining his own pockets?

    1. He has a job and will keep his job because he lied for the Leftist cause and Leftists run MIT. If he had lied in support of a Republican policy, MIT would be yanking his tenure as we speak.

      1. Still, you’d think other Econ professors at MIT would be pretty ticked. One of their own trumpets his dishonesty AND gets caught masquerading as an independent analyst when he was on an interested party’s payroll all along. It doesn’t bring much glory to the department or to academia in general. Fluffy isn’t the only one to note that Gruber has done no favors for climate “scientists.”

        1. They all share the same religion – worship of big government led by elites like them.

    2. I wouldn’t be too hard on the guy. Unlike his political masters, he does occasionally dabble with truthfulness.

      1. And that will be his undoing.

        1. And that’s good. Because there’s an element of Assangism to this.

          The progs will look at what happened to Gruber, and the lesson they will learn from it is to never let the mask slip by telling the truth in any context.

          But Gruber told the truth in the academic contexts the progs need to have functioning as open communication channels to coordinate their activities.

          If what happens to Gruber makes them afraid to tell the truth even to each other, that strangles and hamstrings them. It’s an Assangist self-reinforcing communications destruction feedback loop.

          1. The internet and recording devices makes life very hard for the Progs. They have always been honest with each other in things like conferences and within the halls of academia. But since it was just them there, it never got out. Now thanks to everything being recorded and put up on the net, they no longer have the luxury. That is a real problem for them.

            And there will always be someone important who lets the mask slip. You can’t have that much discipline to never tell the truth to anyone.

            1. Or they will just start electing people stupid enough to believe this shit and not notice the canyons in their logic… Looks towards Elizabeth Warren…

          2. Once again, I’m reminded of a scene from Atlas Shrugged, where people sit in a darkly lit, smoke filled room, speaking in half sentences and furtive glances to avoid saying out loud what they all are thinking.

            1. Lynch Pin,

              That only happens in novels. In real life too many people have egos and big mouths to keep the truth a secret. There will always been someone like Gruber who is just too happy to be in on the joke and unable to keep quiet.

          3. Good point.

          4. The progs will look at what happened to Gruber, and the lesson they will learn from it is to never let the mask slip by telling the truth in any context.

            Except Gruber was always nothing more than a stage prop. He was there as window-dressing to give the whole thing the pretense of intellectual legitimacy. The full bore proggies know enough to keep quiet about this sort of thing (even to their own conscience).

            1. …the pretense if intellectual legitimacy./i

              Unfortunately that is what many of our academic institutions have become over the years.

    3. He didn’t “scam governments”. Governments paid him and got exactly what they paid him for: advice on gaming the economic models he himself had created.

  11. Know who else was called “the architect?”

    1. Albert Sphere?

      1. Nice. Though correct answer was Guy Francon, you get a point anyway.

      2. Sphere? No, you’re thinking of Josef Cueballs.

    2. I don’t know, but let me dance about that person’s works.

    3. Frank Lloyd Wright?

    4. Howard Roarke?

    5. Howard Hughes? No, wait, he was “the aviator”….

    6. Art Vandelay?

    7. Your mama?

      1. Isn’t it ‘yo momma’?

    8. Frank Lloyd Wright ?

      1. ooops

        How about Carl Rove for the comeback win ?

        1. I thought Rove was ‘the brain’?

    9. That guy from the Matrix 2

  12. The reactions from Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and others were, for the most part, technically true

    So their denial of even knowing who he was is “technically true”? Sounds pretty technically false to me.

    1. As with all things political, it ain’t true until you get them to admit it.

    2. I think when past audio clips reveal you mentioning a person by name, the only way the denial is technically true is if we’re talking biblical sense of knowing Gruber.

    3. Could we stop treating these lying scumbags with any respect or deference at all?

      No, none of their denials are even technically true. Even Obama’s most carefully parsed statement:

      “The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters is no reflection on the actual process that was run.”

      Is technically false. Gruber was paid by Obama’s very own Department of Health and Human Services. He worked for Obama’s department.

      Now, if you want to say that “staff” doesn’t include anyone outside of the White House inner circle, go right ahead. But, technically, if you mean a modified version of a noun, you need to say the modifier. Obama didn’t. So he lied.

      Technically.

      1. Especially considering the stardard for “lying” they use whenever they are talking about something a Republican says, they definitely do not deserve any deference.

        A Republican makes a statement that is shorthand for a more complicated idea and instantly you will have 1000 screeching ninnies shouting “LIES!! LIES!! LIES!!” while a Democrat issues some careful parsed half-truth and we’re supposed to bend over backwards to find the most charitble interpretation possible.

      2. That statement also does not really deny that the writers of ACA gamed the CBO and otherwise deceived the public about the features of the bill in order to make it more palatable.

  13. The point to hammer home here – now that the Gruber skirmish has been effectively won – is that Gruber’s brand of bad faith is employed in every other area of progressive political activity requiring “expert” input.

    Anyone who watches Gruber’s performance and does not immediately recognize his tone in the climategate emails isn’t paying close enough attention.

    “Stuff needs to get done to fix stuff, and you’re in the way, and that entitles us to lie,” is the basic disposition of all progressive “experts”.

    1. I find it interesting that we live in a representative democracy and some dude I’ve never heard of, voted on or has any accountability to me is writing laws which affect 360 million people.

      Gruber lied, people died is essentially “a guy who’s never been elected lied, people died”

      1. Why? I never voted for 99.9% of all politicians. And they try to dictate every aspect of my life. It’s not so far fetched – look at the FCC, BLM, Fed Reserve, etc. etc. None of them are elected and they make decisions that affect billions of people.

      2. It is an interesting problem with our system and I suppose with all representative democracies/republics. Those elected to enact legislation lack the expertise to understand it. So ‘experts’ step in to craft the legislation for them to vote on. Now, theoretically, a totally unbiased ‘expert’ or group of could come up with something that the legislators could then vote on, and if passed oversee.

        However, there is no such thing as an unbiased expert – or at least, not one that is any position of authority in any bureaucracy staffed and/or led by (insert Team Blue/Team Red here).

        One thing is abundantly clear – Congress is not even remotely close to doing its job overseeing the vast bureaucracies that infect our society.

        1. Rule by appointed administrators – not elected representatives. We don’t get to vote on who it is who rules us – we only get to vote on who chooses our rulers. If our votes meant much of anything, we’d not be allowed them.

    2. “Stuff needs to get done to fix stuff, and you’re in the way, and that entitles us to lie,” is the basic disposition of all progressive “experts”.

      Normally though, they don’t admit to the lie until much later. They design these programs specifically to punish the middle class and redistribute wealth and then lie and sell them to middle class voters as a way to help the less fortunate while having someone else pay for it.

      When the plan has its desired effect of punishing the middle class, the Progs just blame the evil market or Republicans or something. And often that works. The problem with Gurber’s statement is that it not only shows they lied, it shows they designed the whole bill to make the middle class poorer and give that wealth to the poor. If people realize that, the Progs won’t be able to avoid blame for the harm they have caused.

      1. Everything that was dismissed as right wing extremist lies by the media and the democrats has literally unfolded exactly as predicted by the “wing-nuts”.

        1. shriek hardest hit

        2. Its amazing isn’t it? Really that is the theme of the entire Obama era. Everything the knuckle dragging right said about Obama turned out to be exactly right. It was the country club right and the beltway media right who convinced themselves that Obama was a reasonable person and would be a pragmatic President.

          1. Well, there isn’t proof that he’s really a practicing Muslim who was born in Kenya, but at this rate, that information is due to arrive any time now.

            1. Let’s not forget that he’s also gay and Michelle is a transsexual.

              1. But most importantly Michelle is now “proud of her country for the very first time.” How nice for her.

      2. Substitute “middle-class” for “boergeoisie”. What they really hate is how those digusting climbers refuse to identify themselves with the working-class masses and insist on trying to get rich through trade instead of force.

        The boergeoisie need to be punished for not going with the program.

        1. This is exactly it!

          For all of their rhetoric about helping the middle class (Newspeak for working class) they really want to injure and control the bourgeoisie. They hate that our system is one that profits the bourgeoisie, or middle class, and they want to rearrange it.

          Ultimately, they hate the middle class and love the proletariat, or working class. Everything they do is designed to rob from the middle and give to the working class. It’s no more complicated than that.

          1. They give one hell of a lot more to themselves than they ever do to any working class. That love of the working class bs is precisely that – bullshit. You can’t con an honest man, and marxists, socialists, progressives – whatever – are con artists in the truest sense of the word.

    3. What’s funny is that even with all the monumental evidence that progressives will do anything short of murder in order to get their agenda passed, people like Suderman and his wife attempt portray their actions regarding this law as if they act in good faith.

      1. “short of murder”?

        1. Yea your probably right I should have said “intentional murder” because while their policies will most certainly end up killing people, the officials in charge are probably to short sighted/stupid to foresee that outcome. I think it is to easy to paint my ideological enemies as evil when they are just stupid.

          1. If you’re talking about proggies intentionally murdering people in order to advance their agenda, I might direct your attention to the killings at Ruby Ridge, which were done in pursuit of gun control.

        2. What, no love for the Holodomar?

  14. The Democrats erasing this guy from history like Stalin erasing Trotsky is really delicious. I guarantee you Gruber thought the powers that be really liked and respected him and would stand up for him rather than turning their backs. I bet he is in shock.

    1. I just looked at the latest draft edition. Gruber is an un-word.

    2. Maybe he’ll be disillusioned enough to write a tell all book.

      1. Doubtful. He is deeply sorry he let the mask slip.

        1. You wait, something will be forthcoming. He’ll write some kind of an Op-Ed. It’ll probably be general jeremiad against right-wing media essentially accusing them of forcing the administration to circle the wagons with Gruber left outside.

          None of it will be the administration’s fault, you see, because he’s still a supporter of the law and the process. It’s just all the fault of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

    3. John|11.18.14 @ 11:05AM|#
      “The Democrats erasing this guy from history like Stalin erasing Trotsky is really delicious.”

      USSR joke:
      You can’t change the future, but you can change the past.

      1. Milton Friedman said it better(he may have been quoting someone else though)

        “The Soviet Union is the only country with an uncertain past.”

    4. I am really afraid that this is not true. I fear that it is more of a conspiracy.

      Gruber is never going to suffer. He doesn’t belong in the political light, and everybody knows it. He has already had a major negative affect on the state/federal exchange conversation to be anything but in the way.

      I suggest that, rather, he was asked to take a dive, or that the left decided to use him in this way. Now, Team Left can stand up and point fingers at the “elitist” for saying such a thing. In time, all the press will report is that O—a (blessed be he by Gaia’s Top Men) stood up to Gruber and his snobby ways and was always focused on “TRUTH!” Gruber is a wonderful villan for an unpopular president trying to be seen as less distant, less snobby, less of a prick. No matter how bad O—a is, Gruber is worse, and the Left will use that.

      1. I don’t think so. The problem is they can’t throw Gruber overboard. There is too much evidence to the contrary. Also, their entire brand is based on selling top men like Gruber to run everyone’s lives. So, they can’t sacrifice Gruber without sacrificing their brand. All they can do is pretend he was never their top man.

        If they were trying to do what you are saying, Obama would be saying “this guy lied to us and is a fraud”. That is not what he is saying. Instead, Obama is saying “I never met this guy”. He has to say that because if he admits to the role Gruber actually played, he has to admit to the lie.

        Gruber is devistating to them because he admits that the law was designed to harm the middle class and take that wealth and give it to the poor. The lie isn’t just about getting it passed. The lie also allows them to blame the harm done to the middle class that the plan was designed to do on the market or insurance companies or something else.

        That is what people on the right are missing here. It isn’t just that they lied to pass it. It is that Gruber admitted that the bill was designed to cause the harm it is causing. So not only was the public lied to, the bill was made to cause them harm. Without the lie, the Left has to answer for that instead of ducking blame by saying other factors caused the harm.

        1. Well said, John. Clean that up and you might get it published somewhere!

        2. Thank you, this is helpful.

        3. As I kinda said up thread in an attempt to add to Hazelmeade’s comment: I’m convinced that progressives–like their socialist epistemological parents–hate the bourgeoisie, or middle class, and are set on destroying it and giving its wealth to the proletariat. Once one considers this, every part of their platform comes into sharp focus.

          1. -hate the bourgeoisie, or middle class, and are set on destroying it…

            There’s Obama’s Hope and Change. Finish off the bourgeoisie or middle class. Transform this county into one like the traditional European two class societies of peasants and the elites who harvest them. Show those dung-between-the-toes upstarts who their betters are.

    5. Politico ought to erase him from their archives. http://www.politico.com/news/s…..29959.html

      1. Money shot, right after the intro:

        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.

  15. In a video marking the anniversary of the Massachusetts health care law, which Gruber helped design, Gruber says he “helped President Obama develop a national version” of the same law. The video was produced and distributed by President Obama’s campaign organization.

    Obamacare has no connection to MassCare whatsoever. None. Zip. It’s an illusion. It’s something invented by the cosmo peanuts here on H&R.

    1. Hopefully that will end the Romney boomlet.

      1. Romney is so unprincipled he’ll also be traingulating on Gruber.

      2. And you are so much better off now with Obama instead of Romney?

    2. Isn’t it the same goddamn thing? Use this as a teaching moment, how is it different?

  16. my roomate’s step-aunt makes $77 every hour on the computer . She has been fired for five months but last month her payment was $20090 just working on the computer for a few hours. site here…..

    ?????? http://www.payinsider.com

  17. nor did he work for the White House, HHS, or any congressional committee

    OK, I’ll play this game.

    What pot of money did his $400,000 come out of? That is who he worked for. If neither the White House directly, nor HHS, nor Congress oversaw that particular pot of money, then apparently someone in government has the power to hand out $400,000 contracts with no oversight.

    Come on, guys, take that message to the people. Please.

    1. Yeah, I don’t get this either. If he didn’t work for the federal government, who the fuck paid him and how do I get my $400,000 back?

    2. That’s really the most disgusting part to me.

      He was paid $400,000 basically to bullshit the american public. And, who paid that $400K? The same public he was bullshitting.

      So, basically, government is making people rich for deceiving the public. Explicitly. And then he basically brags about it and mocks them.

      Shouldn’t he at least have the decency to claim he was just creating jobs and stimulating the economy, or something? People like that flavor of bullshit more.

  18. Editors’ Note: January 9, 2010

    On July 12, the Op-Ed page published an article by Jonathan Gruber, a professor of economics at M.I.T., on health insurance and taxation. On Friday, Professor Gruber confirmed reports that he is a paid consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services, and that his contract was in effect when he published his article. The article did not disclose this relationship to readers.

    Like other writers for the Op-Ed page, Professor Gruber signed a contract that obligated him to tell editors of such a relationship. Had editors been aware of Professor Gruber’s government ties, the Op-Ed page would have insisted on disclosure or not published his article.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07……html?_r=0

    He’s a stand-up guy ain’t he.

    1. paid consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services

      nor did he work for…HHS

      Oops.

      1. Technically not an employee, but worked under contract for.

    2. So what, you’re saying Gruber is a liar?

  19. Yes, Johathan Gruber still looks like Karl Childers.

  20. The lying liars are lying.

  21. They denied paying Gruber back when they were claiming him as an ‘objective’ Top Man who validated their claims, now they deny any relationship to him once he admitted to be a liar.

  22. Progressives are buying the notion that Gruber was not a key player in writing the legislation for the same reason they bought his initial lies.

    Even though the context of his statements makes it clear that sympathetic voters on the left were the ones that were lied to, Progressives are able to ignore this conclusion and instead fit it into their own “Republicans only vote that way because they are stupid and easily lied to” narrative.

    Now, they are being lied to and told that Gruber was a non-entity as far as the creation of ACA. Believing that lie and blaming Republicans for trying to make it into an issue is much easier than accepting that they are lied to and reliably fall for the lies.

    1. What is interesting is one of the biggest and most effective Gruber critics on the net is Jane Hamsher at Fire Dog Lake.

      I have always liked Hamsher. She is one of the only Progs writing on the net who seems to not be insane and totally bereft of intellectual integrity. The fact that she is all over Gruber tells me that perhaps some of the Progs understand they were lied to and are not very happy about it. Or they at least think this is going to do grave damage to their cause.

      1. Firedoglake has pretty much always been a critic of the Obama administration. Their views on issues are more in line with Kucinich or Nader-types.

        1. And that represents a significant portion of the party. As stupid as the Naderites are, their criticism of Obama’s corporatism and cronyism is dead on correct and should be shoved in the faces of Obama’s and this bill’s defenders at every opportunity

        2. As easy as it is to make fun of the kucinich and nader types they at least are not unprincipled hacks.

          1. I saw Kucinich on TV.

            He had an amazon blond beauty with mucho clevage on his arm that looked like she was two feet taller than him.

            1. That is his wife. How he got her I have no idea.

              1. WTF ?

                He was a Congressman with loads of power.

                Women flock to the rich, famous, or powerful, regardless of their looks.

                1. Indeed, see the Crazy/Hot Matrix addendum
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKWmFWRVLlU

        3. Re: viewing issue more in line with Kucinich or Nader-types.

          Or said another way, they are actually liberals not Progs.

      2. I had the same thought. She may be a prog, but she has some integrity. Good for her.

    2. On DU, Gruber is almost non-existent compared to the coverage of Keystone right now. They’re happily glossing over the situation with the exception of some griping about the media being unfair to Obama.

      1. On Slate, everyone has agreed that Gruber is right and Republican voters are idiots and that he was right to lie to them because it was in their own best interest.

        The notion that THEY were the target audience for his lies does not scan with them. They are the elite, and nobody lies to the elite. Plus, they are far too smart to fall for it – they knew all along that he was lying!

        1. I wonder who the stupid people he fooled were? Because many people were against it all along and never voted for it. Ezra Klein wasn’t fooled, was he? It’s pretty bad that now they have to decide if they are stupid or just liars if they supported the bill.

      2. Don’t forget Bill Cosby.

  23. my roomate’s step-aunt makes $77 every hour on the computer . She has been fired for five months but last month her payment was $20090 just working on the computer for a few hours. site here…..

    ?????? http://www.payinsider.com

  24. Word from the White House: Objective Analysis Shows Reform will Help Small Businesses, Lower Premiums for American Families

    This was posted on The White House Blog in November 2009. Gruber is stated as the source of that objective analysis.

    1. Was that Objective Analysis included in the $400large he was paid, or was that a different contract?

  25. ” Gruber “did not make policy, nor did he work for the White House, HHS, or any congressional committee.” Jay Angoff, the former overseer of the health law’s implementation @ (HHS), told Politico that Gruber was neither a legislator nor a staffer. “He’s like 300 million other Americans who can have their opinion.”

    Ok.

    ‘requirements of ‘architect’

    – Make policy
    – Employ of White House
    – Congressional Committee
    – Legislator
    – Staffer

    4 of these things are actually all the same. “make policy” implies either ‘member of congress, or staff of congresspeople’

    (*reality = lobbyists and think tanks write actual legislation, hand it to staffers)

    The other requirement is ‘white house staff’.

    So, Congress/Staffer, White House = Architect. Being an ‘adviser’ in any agency capacity is specifically cited as ‘not enough’

    How many of those things were true for the “Architects of the Iraq War“?

    so, Obama says = Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Eliot Cohen, John Bolton, Stephen Cambone, Doug Feith, et al…. none of them can be called ‘architects’ of anything!

    No, it was actually a guy named Randy Scheunemann who most people have never heard of…

    Then: As a Senate staffer, Scheunemann helped draft and push for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which made “regime change” the official Iraq policy of the U.S. …

    So = OMG CLINTON INVADED IRAQ!

  26. Gruber in November 2009:

    “I’m sort of a known skeptic on this stuff,” Gruber told me. “My summary is it’s really hard to figure out how to bend the cost curve, but I can’t think of a thing to try that they didn’t try. They really make the best effort anyone has ever made. Everything is in here….I can’t think of anything I’d do that they are not doing in the bill. You couldn’t have done better than they are doing.”

    Gruber in one of the recent videos:

    “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.”

    1. My summary is it’s really hard to figure out how to bend the cost curve, but I can’t think of a thing to try that they didn’t try.

      He’s not very creative.

    2. Why, it is almost as if what he said in 2009 was a lie designed to win over left-leaning voters!

  27. Is Gruber not a character taken directly out of an Ayn Rand novel? Not only is he sleezy and mendacious, but he has one of those Randian villain names. Groooober.

    1. I’m noticing more and more Ayn Rand villains popping in real life.

    2. Maybe he’s Hans’ and Simon’s youngest brother?

  28. One of the many ironies of progressive ideology is it’s supposed distaste for ‘profiting’, while profiting immensely from their activities. Yet the profits never seem to come from a voluntary exchange, but from government largess. So the message seems to be that profiting from theft is good, but profiting from a voluntary exchange is icky.

    1. I don’t know of a single progressive that actually abides by their ideology in everyday life. Their excuse for having McMansions, SUVs, fancy vacations and fat retirement accounts is “that’s the way the system is, so I might as well join in”.

      1. My wife was raised by two government school teachers and is a bonafide socialist.

        She’s currently in veterinarian school and went to a pricey private college for undergrad. By the time she’s done she’ll have about $300k in student debt.

        Every single year she complain about paying taxes. I want to slap her sometimes.

        1. Jesus, are we married to the same woman ?

        2. and tell me again why you married her?

        3. I don’t know how you manage. I couldn’t.

      2. My experience has been not so much blaming it on the system, but their special needs vs. the hoi polloi:

        “But I can’t take public transit. I need the Land Rover to take Liam and Lark to Sidwell Friends (which we must send them to) and to soccer practice.

      3. But remember, Ayn Rand was the devil for taking Social Security payments.

    2. You forgot your citation, Freddy:

      See, e.g., Warren, Elizabeth

  29. Gruber always knew what he was doing:

    “Coverage first is the natural stepping stone to a comprehensive cost control. By bringing everyone into the tent of insurance coverage, and getting all the interest groups behind a common goal, a move to universal coverage could be viewed in retrospect as the key step towards the cost control this country so desperately needs. So let’s move beyond the PEG principle and recognize the successes of what we have accomplished in Massachusetts and the promise it provides for universal coverage in the entire nation.”

    From a March 2009 piece in the New Republic

    Also relevant: http://www.nationalreview.com/…..ihan-salam

    1. Gruber is admitting the law was designed to harm the middle class. That is what they had to lie about. That, more than the fact they lied, is the big deal here. Gruber just admitted to the middle class that the Progs are out to get them. That is a real problem for the Progs who rely on the middle class not realizing that to stay in power.

  30. Hi peter,

    It’s pretty cool that I can come here and get my right-wing memes from your website instead of heading over to breitbart or glenn beck’s Krazy Korner. One stop shopping, I say.

    Is learning that some MIT professors think you’re stupid a scandal comparable to launching a decade long war in Iraq to look for wmds that you’ve told everyone you had proof were there? From looking at the Reason archives back in 2003 I’d say this issue is much, much worse. You guys sure are great editors.

    1. Yeah, it’s Bush’s fault!

    2. The other guy did bad stuff, so it’s OK if my Hero does bad stuff, too!

      Media outlets should only write about the single worst issue and ignore everything else!

    3. Shorter AmSoc: Yoink!

    4. The problem is the “you are stupid” is only half of it. The other half is that because you are stupid we can sell you a bill that is designed to harm you.

      That is what is important about what Gruber said. He helped write the bill and game it to the CBO and he is admitting the point of the bill was to harm the middle class in order to help the poor.

      Thanks to Gruber, you and your ilk can no longer claim the horrible results of this law are someone else’ fault. Gruber just told us that the law was designed to cause all of this harm.

      Nice try with the “right wing meme” and “he is just some professor” talking points. They won’t work of course. But they are all you have.

      1. This bill doesn’t even seem to help the working poor since the deductibles can run so high.

        This bill only seems to help the working class.

        Does anyone here know if illegals are covered or not ? I’ve never found a solid answer.

        It’s gonna be interesting and maddening if the promised executive action on immigration makes another 5 or 10 million get truely free healthcare for the middle class to pay for.

        1. Yeah. The bill manages to be an entitlement program that doesn’t create a dependent class. The people getting the subsidies are getting screwed too.

        2. Correction:

          I meant to type “only helps the welfare class”.

    5. Booosh !

      So Am So if a guy committed murder last year and got away with it, you say it’s OK for someone to commit murder today since you like him ?

    6. Re: American Stolid,

      Is learning that some MIT professors think you’re stupid a scandal comparable to launching a decade long war in Iraq to look for wmds that you’ve told everyone you had proof were there?

      “Because what this should be about is creating weird equivalencies and red herrings to distract and obfuscate.”

      1. Probably a paid troll so that would be his job, yes.

    7. Clearly two wrongs make a right.

    8. Hi, dipshit!

      american socialist|11.18.14 @ 12:00PM|#
      “Is learning that some MIT professors think you’re stupid a scandal comparable to launching a decade long war in Iraq to look for wmds that you’ve told everyone you had proof were there? From looking at the Reason archives back in 2003 I’d say this issue is much, much worse. You guys sure are great editors.”

      It’s pretty cool I can come here and see what lies and misdirections slimy lefties are trying to float.
      Feel like the asshole you are for falling for that line of crap? Trying real hard to get people to look somewhere else?

      1. Feel like the asshole you are for falling for that line of crap?

        He’s just one of Gruber’s Goobers. 🙂

    9. That’s pretty lame, even for you AMSOC.

    10. Is learning that some MIT professors think you’re stupid a scandal comparable to launching a decade long war in Iraq to look for wmds that you’ve told everyone you had proof were there?

      Can you show me the video where the intelligence agency players are caught on camera saying, “Thank god the american people are so stupid. I mean, without them willing to believe the bullshit we tell them, we would never have been able to invade Iraq. And, that’s just what America needs right now, whether they know it, or not.”

      1. He’s also sort of confused about the ‘support’ Bush got around here.
        Pretty much none.

  31. An article in Politico on the Gruber flap asks in its headline “Was Jonathan Gruber the ‘architect’?” Four months ago, however, there was no question about his role. The same reporter described Gruber as “one of Obamacare’s chief architects” in the opening line of a piece.

    Doesn’t this remind you guys of all those old Soviet airbrushed photos where the out-of-favor suddenly disappear?

    Yeah, the little red Marxians in the media are going old-school on Gruber’s ass.

    1. My favorite story about that sort of thing involved the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Once Beria became a non-person, in order to avoid repaginating the thing, subsequent editions included an oddly long, very detailed entry about the Bering Straits.

    2. “Doesn’t this remind you guys of all those old Soviet airbrushed photos where the out-of-favor suddenly disappear?”

      The USSR, where the past can be changed!

    3. According to one article I read yesterday at Daily Caller, Gruber is the one who talked Obama into going for the Individual Mandate. He’s the son of a bitch we all have to thank for insisting that we must all be turned into peasants who must pay either an insurance premium or a tax simply for being alive. However, this in no way absolves Obama and the rest of responsibility for that singular obscenity.

  32. “not a reflection on the actual process that was run”

    Bullshit. As I recall, they did not even let c-span have the insider access they said they would. Not to mention the bold-faced lies they make about the law to this day.

    1. The entire process was built on lies. They lied to the CBO so they could pass it through reconciliation. They lied about it paying for abortion to get the last few Dems in the House to sign off on it. They lied about it not being a tax so that they could pass the Senate version. They lied about it changing the terms of everyone’s insurance policies.

      But hey, you can totally believe them when they tell you that a guy they paid $400,000 in consulting fees to and has collected hundreds of thousands more from the states advising on the law post passage doesn’t know what he is talking about when he said they lied to get it passed.

  33. How dare you suggest that the Democrats knew or relied on Jonathan Gruber!

    “On the other side was an economist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has become possibly the party’s most influential health-care expert and a voice of realism in its internal debates.

    “Far be it for me to lecture you on politics, Senator Edwards,” Jonathan Gruber recalled saying, and then he did just that. He told Edwards that whatever the merits of Emanuel’s idea, it just would not be politically viable. Instead, Gruber argued for a more incremental approach, like the one in Massachusetts he helped write. Its central elements would be providing subsidies to people who are unable to pay for health care, increasing the number of those who are enrolled in public programs such as Medicaid and creating a public agency to help anyone ineligible for the programs buy health insurance.

    A month later, when Edwards announced his health-care plan, he almost completely sided with Gruber. And he is not alone…the leading Democratic presidential candidates are campaigning in favor of universal health care. But in developing their specific plans, they are embracing the pragmatic steps advocated by the MIT professor and a group of similar-minded policy experts…”

    Edwards and Gruber are a political dream team.

    1. Its central elements would be providing subsidies to people who are unable to pay for health care, increasing the number of those who are enrolled in public programs such as Medicaid and creating a public agency to help anyone ineligible for the programs buy health insurance.

      Read that and then remember this. Gruber justifies the lying because he believed and still believes that Obamacare is the only way to get control of health care costs in this country.

      So, our genius top man MIT economists’ solution to rising health care costs is to have the government give people money to get insurance and on government aid programs that allow other people to pay for their medical care. He and the creatures who wrote this bill actually believed that shit. It is just stunning how fucking stupid these people are.

      1. Our genius top man MIT economist actually had a bunch of good intentions. For example, he believed that the employer tax breaks were a bad idea (correct) but that simply eliminating them wouldn’t work politically (correct).

        The correct solution would have been to move those tax breaks to individuals in a revenue neutral way. But he and his buddies thought they could also squeeze in a big tax hike, so they came up with a way of eliminating the employer tax breaks without replacement.

        1. Remove it in a way that is not just revenue neutral but tax neutral for every individual affected by it. Libertarians are dead wrong in their hatred of employor provided health insurance. It allows people an easy way to pool risk so that health insurance is still affordable for people who are bad risks. Since we will all eventually be old and bad risks if we live long enough, that is a good thing.

          That said, the tax treatment distorts the market by effectively subsidizing the demand for health insurance. And that of course is one of the reasons, thought not the main one, prices keep going up.

          That said, it isn’t the voters who make such a proposal politically untenable. It is the insurance companies. They like getting the subsidized demand and are not going to give it up if they have any say in the matter.

          1. You are right. We need to have employer provided auto insurance too. We also need lots of IRS regulations to make sure the employers do what we want and we need to add dozens of riders to all of the auto policies so that no one can just get simple collision insurance. Oh and while we are at it, let’s get the insurance companies involved as our “partners”.

  34. From the WaPo article I cited above:

    “Gruber championed this idea [universal mandate] in Massachusetts, and over the past year he did the same in Obama’s office, on the phone with Edwards and in conversations with Chris Jennings, Hillary Clinton’s health policy guru…

    Gruber told Obama advisers that they should include a mandate. He said that without the mandate, Obama’s plan would shrink the number of uninsured from 15 percent to 6 percent. Obama’s aides said that they think they could achieve universal care without a mandate, but that they would add one if they did not…

    Gruber disagrees. Yesterday he expressed satisfaction that Democrats have “a sense of realpolitik, of understanding the limitations of what the American voters will go for, while still moving toward the goal of universal coverage.”

    1. What label is attached to a person who despises those who operate without a shred of conscience? Would that quality be antipsycopathy?

  35. Don’t call that lying piece of shit an economist. He’s a court astrologer, just like Krugman.

    -jcr

  36. ruber was one of just three outside economists summoned to an Oval Office meeting with the president and CBO director Douglas Elmendorf to look for ways to adjust the law in order to receive a better score

    Why would the director of the CBO attend a meeting that was trying to figure how to game the CBO?

    1. He probably didn’t consider it gaming the CBO. In his mind it was adjusting the law to create real economic effects, because Gruber lied about what was changing. Also, the CBO has Congressionally-mandated rules they have to follow about scoring laws, regardless of whether they think it makes sense. For example, the arbitrary 10 year impact duration.

  37. Think about how slickly Democrat elites swept Gruber from his central role on the stage into his present silent nihilonia, and outside the few primarily Internet news and knowledge sources those elites don’t yet control, no common American heard a word or was any the wiser. Now imagine what the World’s going to be like when those same elites finally have control of the Internet and those last very few news and knowledge sources…

  38. It is fun to trace the Democratic process through the Kubler-Ross stages of loss when they are caught in another lie.

    “If you like your plan, you can keep it”

    1. Denial – Obama never said that!
    2. Anger – How dare the evil TeaThuglicans misrepresent Our Dear Leader’s words that way!?
    3. Bargaining – It is all Junk Insurance anyway! We needed to force people to cancel it for their own good.
    4. Depression – It is a shame that Fox News is spinning this so well that it obscures what an amazing success story ACA really is!
    5. Acceptance – Yes, he lied. He probably shouldn’t have. But ACA is The Law now, so suck it!

    “Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever”

    1. Denial – We don’t even know who this guy is!
    2. Anger – How dare the RepubliKKKants try to spin this as some kind of scandal!?
    3. Bargaining – Well, Republicans really ARE stupid, so if he had to lie to win them over, it was all for the Greater Good.
    4. Depression – Rush and Sean are going to go crazy about this and try to portray it as some kind of pattern of deception, rather than one man, whose identity is unknown to us, acting alone.
    5. Acceptance – Well, he has been removed from the pages of history. Who is up for brie and clove cigarettes?!

    1. You missed the part where they simply say BOOOOSH!
      See commie kid, above.

    2. I don’t think they are yet resolved, what with their messianic worship of the one…

      What they heard was “If HE likes your health plan, you can keep it”. And we all know he does not…and no we already knew he thought we were stupid…somehow goober didn’t get the memo not to say it in public.

  39. If only Obama went all out with cannabinoid medicine to lower costs.

    Cannabinoid medicine if fully exploited could ultimately save the US $1 trillion a year. I’ll give you two diseases to start:

    Cancer at $85 bn a year. About 2/3rds of diabetes at $115 bn a year. I’m sure I could find another $800 bn if I went through the whole list.

    1. Dysmenorrhea.

  40. Gruber’s CV on the MIT site also lists him as a member of the “CBO Long Term Modeling Advisory Group, 2000-2010”. He knew exactly how to make the numbers lie to get the CBO result he wanted.

    We know the numbers were lies because he has failed completely in making Obamacare live up to any of the so called “promises” scored by the CBO.

  41. my roomate’s mother-in-law makes $66 /hr on the computer . She has been without work for 8 months but last month her paycheck was $21762 just working on the computer for a few hours. take a look at the site here….

    ?????? http://www.payinsider.com

  42. Gruber merely revealed the intentions of the people who wrote the law. It’s not like Obama started with a blank piece of paper and the likes of Gruber whispered false advice into his ears and misled him.

    Sales people can mislead customers on products, even if they didn’t design and build them. Gruber actually argued for the law knowing that it was written in deceptive fashion.

    So at best – Gruber was some distant adviser, but the White House treated him like a VIP and did nothing as they watched him mischaracterize the law to the public.

  43. We can carp about this all we want but we’re stuck with ACA.

    1. not for long – the people are so fed up with the lies that the law will overturned very soon.

  44. Doesn’t this scandal sort of sound like the Email’s with the climate scientists bending the hockey stick to get the result they wanted?

    Unfortunately the very best way to discredit science in the minds of the general populous is to use is to so distort the facts as to create an alternate result, the antitheses of real science.

    Bill Nye took a little beatdown from Kennedy on “The Independents” last night for trying to pull out the “Truth Distorter” and Name Caller on people he doesn’t agree with!

  45. Jay Angoff, the former overseer of the health law’s implementation at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), told Politico that Gruber was neither a legislator nor a staffer. “He’s like 300 million other Americans who can have their opinion.”

    Yes, except that they don’t each get paid over $400 grand for their opinions.

    1. “Yes, except that they don’t each get paid over $400 grand for their opinions.”
      That kinda separates him from the rest of us right there, doesn’t it?
      That and meeting with Obo to discuss the issue. I don’t recall an invitation to air my views. Did you get one?

      1. No. I’d consider sending Obo an invitation, but I’d probably be arrested.

  46. This is worse than the time he held Nakatomi Plaza hostage.

  47. my roomate’s step-mother makes $70 hourly on the internet . She has been out of work for 10 months but last month her pay was $19227 just working on the internet for a few hours. original site…..

    ?????? http://www.payinsider.com

  48. The link to “uncontroversially” seems to be broken.

  49. I am one of 300 million Americans with an opinion of the ACA. I would like my $400K please.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.