ACA Architect: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter' Led Us To Hide Obamacare's True Costs From The Public
You've got to hand it to MIT economist Jonathan Gruber. The guy dubbed the "Obamacare architect" is a viral YouTube sensation. A few months back, he was caught on tape admitting that Obamacare doesn't provide subsidies for federally-run insurance exchanges; it's now the topic of a new case before the Supreme Court.
Today, new video surfaced in which Gruber said that "the stupidity of the American voter" made it important for him and Democrats to hide Obamacare's true costs from the public. "That was really, really critical for the thing to pass," said Gruber. "But I'd rather have this law than not." In other words, the ends-imposing Obamacare upon the public-justified the means.
The new Gruber comments come from a panel discussion that he joined on October 17, 2013 at the University of Pennsylvania's Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics. He was joined on the panel by Penn health economist Mark Pauly. Patrick Howley of the Daily Caller was the first to flag Gruber's remarks.
It was about Obamacare. Big time.
A number of liberal pundits working off of White House talking points became heavily invested in the argument that the election was not about Obamacare. They seemed to believe if the election was about something else, Obamacare wouldn't be repudiated or the GOP would lack a mandate to get rid of it. This was, to put it mildly, silly and desperate.
No matter how many GOP ads were cut, how much direct mail was distributed, or campaign Web sites were created pledging to eliminate Obamacare or attacking Democrats for supporting it, the election could not be a referendum on Obamacare, according to the left-wing blogosphere. But it was. Of all the president's policies that were on the ballot, Obamacare was the most significant.
The Washington Post
SCOTUS Surprises With Review of ACA Subsidy Case
WASHINGTON -- The fact that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear so soon a case involving the legality of subsidies given to consumers using the federally run health insurance exchange means that the plaintiff's effort to overturn the subsidies may have a better chance of succeeding than originally expected, experts say.
On Friday, the court agreed to hear the case, known as King v. Burwell, which is similar to a more well-known case called Halbig v. Burwell. In both cases, the plaintiffs argue that the subsidies being issued in the federally run exchanges to help people pay their insurance premiums are illegal because of the wording allowing for the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Health-Law Enrollment in 2015 Won't Meet Forecast
WASHINGTON-Millions fewer people will enroll in private health plans under the Affordable Care Act next year than the Congressional Budget Office had predicted, the Obama administration said Monday.
The developments are the latest sign that the law, which Democrats passed in 2010 to provide near-universal health insurance, is struggling to reach that goal quickly. Attracting new enrollees to the health law's insurance exchanges has proven more difficult than advocates had predicted, and a slice of those who do sign up for plans haven't kept up with premiums.
Wall Street Journal
Access to this article may be limited.