“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” says the MIT economist who helped write Obamacare. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”
During the sell-in period for Obamacare, Gruber, a participated in the lying about the bill. For example he wrote an editorial for the Washington Post in support of the Cadillac no-tax tax.
As we prepare for the final round of debate over health reform, perhaps the most contentious issue will be financing...So in the end, we have a policy that provides the necessary financing to pay for subsidies to low-income families; induces employers to buy more cost-effective health insurance, lowering U.S. health-care spending; offsets a bias in our tax system that favors more expensive insurance; and raises wages by $223 billion over 10 years. To put a twist on an old saying: The Senate assessment on high-cost insurance plans doesn't walk like a tax or talk like a tax -- because it is not a tax. It is an innovative way of financing the health reform we so desperately need.Huh its not a tax? I am not an economist,and the closest I have ever been to MIT was taking my Nephew Joshua out for dinner when he was getting his PHD from MIT, but the Cadillac tax is a tax. In fact its a tax that will effect the middle class.
A few months ago Gruber was on the Hugh Hewitt show admitting that the everyone's insurance costs will go up to pay for the health insurance of the poor.
What they’re [the supporters of the Obamacare fix] saying is basically, they’re saying there should be a free lunch. Here’s where I disagree with them, and I don’t care if they’re Democrats. They’re wrong. Basically, they’re saying that there should be a free lunch, that we should make insurance affordable for the sick, but not make it more expensive for the healthy. That’s not the way insurance works. Insurance is the healthy and the sick pooling together to pay one fair price, which is what the American public wants. By an overwhelming majority, the American public wants fair insurance markets. Fair insurance markets mean the healthy pay more. That’s what fair insurance markets mean. So what Landrieu and Feinstein are those, they’re just not understanding basic economics. They’re claiming you can have it both ways. They’re claiming we can fix insurance markets and yet not make people pay more, and that’s simply wrong.