Source: FOX News
Nancy Pelosi claimed Thursday she didn’t know who
ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber is, after several tapes surfaced showing
him gloating about how the law was written to take advantage of the stupidity
of the American voter.
Problem is, Gruber’s analysis of the law was cited
extensively by her office back in 2009. (see below)
Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, tried to downplay
Gruber’s role during a press conference on Thursday.
She claimed she doesn’t know who he is, and that he
didn’t help write the law. “Let’s put him aside,” she said.
However, Gruber was involved in the process – as his
newly surfaced remarks make clear – and his analysis indeed was cited by
Pelosi’s office when she was House speaker in late 2009.
At the time, her office put out a “health insurance
reform mythbuster” press release pointing to the work of “noted MIT health care
economist Jonathan Gruber” in examining the House bill’s impact on premiums.
They noted that Gruber found it “would result in lower premiums than under
current law for the millions of Americans using the newly-established Health
Insurance Exchange.”
Pelosi also mentioned Gruber during a press conference at the time. (see video below)
Still, when the press release was brought to Pelosi’s
office’s attention on Thursday, aides indicated she does not know him – as she
does not know everyone they have cited on their website.
And her spokesman claimed Gruber was not technically a
bill author. "We've cited the work of dozens upon dozens of economists
over the years. As the Leader said today, Mr. Gruber played no role in drafting
our bill," Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said.
Democrats have been putting some distance between
themselves and Gruber after a series of recordings – mostly from 2012 and 2013
– have surfaced showing him bad-mouthing American voters.
The latest shows him speaking at the University of Rhode
Island in 2012 about the law’s so-called "Cadillac tax.” The “Cadillac
tax” mandates that insurance companies be taxed rather than policy holders. He
said that taxing individuals would have been “politically impossible,” but
taxing the companies worked because Americans didn't understand the difference.
“So basically it's the same thing,” he said. “We just tax
the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break
we get, it ends up being the same thing. It's a very clever, you know, basic
exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”
The new video follows another showing him speaking on a
similar topic at an October 2013 event at Washington University in St. Louis.
Referring to the "Cadillac tax,” he said: "They proposed it and that
passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the
difference." He also has said a lack of transparency helped the law pass.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, traveling with
President Obama in Burma, said he disagrees with Gruber's comments.
Earnest claimed the bill was written in a transparent way
and that it's Republicans who aren't transparent about how they would replace
it.
And then there's this from Nancy Pelosi's official website: (Let's see if she deletes it.)
Health Insurance Reform Mythbuster - ‘Health Reform And Insurance Premiums’
12/01/2009
Opponents of health insurance reform continue to spread myths about the recently-passed Affordable Health Care for America Act. For example, they are claiming that health reform would increase premiums for most of America’s families. But the facts continue to knock these myths down—including a brand-new report from the independent Congressional Budget Office.MYTH: The House health insurance reform bill would result in higher premiums.
FACT: An analysis of the House bill by noted MIT health care economist Jonathan Gruber concludes that the bill would result in lower premiums than under current law for the millions of Americans using the newly-established Health Insurance Exchange – including those who are not receiving affordability credits to help them purchase coverage. (The Health Insurance Exchange is for those without access to affordable employer-sponsored coverage.) As Gruber states: “the premiums that individuals will face in the new exchanges established by this legislation are … considerably lower than what they would face in the non-group insurance market [under current law], due to the market reforms put in place by the House plan, the mandate on individuals to participate regardless of health, and the market economies of new exchanges.”
- The Gruber analysis shows that, on the Exchange, a family at 425 percent of poverty (whose income of $93,710 means that they would receive no affordability credits) would see their premiums reduced by $1,260 or 12 percent compared to current law. Similarly, the Gruber analysis shows that, on the Exchange, an individual at 425 percent of poverty (whose income of $46,030 means that they would receive no affordability credits) would see their premiums reduced by $470 or 12 percent.
- The annual savings are much larger for lower income populations that receive affordability credits. Under the House bill, when the bill’s affordability credits are taken into account, a family at 275% of poverty (income of $60,640) would save $5,030, or 47 percent in premiums compared to current law and a family at 175 percent of poverty (income of $38,590) would save $9,050 or 84 percent in premiums compared to current law.
- Gruber also points out that, even as individuals and families on the Exchange are paying less, they will be getting more:
- The coverage those on the Exchange get under the House plan would be better than today’s typical coverage in the non-group market.
- For example, it would protect individuals and families from high out-of-pocket costs.
- That’s in addition to other consumer protections in the bill – like ending discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and guaranteeing that your coverage won’t be dropped or watered down when you get sick or need it most.
- Furthermore, for the vast majority of Americans who get their health insurance in the employer-sponsored group market, the Congressional Budget Office has just released an estimate that, under the quite similar Senate bill, premiums would either be reduced or stay the same. Specifically, for the millions in the employer-sponsored large group market, premiums would be reduced by up to 3 percent or stay the same. And for all Americans, copays would be eliminated for preventive care and out-of-pocket expenses would be capped.
- Like Gruber, CBO found that for Americans using the non-group market, their coverage would significantly improve under the Senate bill. The CBO data indicate that the Senate bill would reduce premiums by 14 to 20 percent for people in the non-group market when comparing plans that provide equivalent coverage.
For the CBO analysis, please click here.
_________________________________________
Posted by Norman E. Hooben
No comments:
Post a Comment