Showing posts with label Romneycare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Romneycare. Show all posts

Thursday, November 20, 2014

By Larry Elder, Nov. 20, 2014

Economist Milton Friedman said the promotion of bad policy requires two types of advocates. "Do-gooders," he said, act in good faith but out of ignorance in promoting counterproductive policies. The second type are the "special interest" rent-seekers, those who stand to personally profit from the scheme.

For economist Jonathan Gruber, the primary architect and intellectual godfather of both Romneycare and Obamacare, we need a new category. Gruber is a two-fer -- both a do-gooder and a rent-seeker. Gruber, so far, has pocketed $6 million advising the federal and state governments on the very law he helped design.

Massachusetts retained MIT economist Gruber to help design its signature health care measure. President Obama later employed Gruber to do the same thing for Obamacare, which Gruber called a deficit-reducing measure that bends the cost curve down. But it turns out when Gruber lets his hair down, he speaks very differently about the nature and goals of Obamacare. Recently, some rather embarrassing videotapes of Gruber comments have surfaced.

Gruber on cost controls: "Cost control turns out to be very, very hard to do. Probably the single biggest frustration I have with critics of this law are people who say it didn't go far enough. ... We do not solve our cost problem in health care in the U.S. with this legislation. We simply do not, OK? But you know what? That's because it was impossible to do so."

Gruber, in 2012, explaining how Massachusetts pulled off Romneycare: "The dirty secret in Massachusetts is the feds paid for our bill, OK? In Massachusetts we had a very powerful senator you may know named Ted Kennedy. ... Ted Kennedy and smart people in Massachusetts had basically figured out a way to sort of rip off the feds for about 400 million dollars a year."

Gruber, in 2012, admitting that Obamacare was intentionally designed so that only enrollees in state-run exchanges -- not the one run by the feds -- receive subsides and tax credits (a matter the Supreme Court will soon decide): "I think what's important to remember politically about this, is if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits."

Gruber, in 2013, on voter stupidity: "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever. ... Look, I wish ... that we could make it all transparent, but I'd rather have this law than not. ... Yeah, there are things I wish I could change, but I'd rather have this law than not."

Gruber, in 2012, on Americans' lack of understanding economics: "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."

Gruber, in 2013, on Democrats' efforts to disguise a direct tax on people who purchase so-called Cadillac plans: "Then another Massachusetts hero, John Kerry ... came up with a great substitute idea. They said ... 'What if we instead just levied a 40 percent tax on the insurance companies that sell these terrible expensive Cadillac plans?' We said, 'Well, that's pretty much the same thing. But why does it matter?' 'You'll see.' And we proposed it, and that passed because the American voters are too stupid to understand the difference."

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in 2009, extolled his credentials: "I don't know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT's analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange."

Then-Sen. Obama, in 2006, bragged about how he stole ideas from Jon Gruber: "You have already drawn some of the brightest minds from academia and policy circles, many of them I've stolen ideas from liberally. People ranging from Robert Gordon to ... Jon Gruber." In 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called Gruber "one of the most respected economists in the world."

Today neither Pelosi nor Obama knows the economist from a fence post. Asked recently about Gruber, Pelosi said, "I don't know who he is." When asked about him, Obama shrugged and reduced Gruber to some guy who "was never on our staff": "The fact that an adviser who was never on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters is not a reflection on the actual process that was run." According to Fox News, Gruber visited the Obama White House at least 19 times.

In deciding this key issue about state exchanges, the Supreme Court may throw the Gruber's own words right back at him -- and rule Obama's unilateral reinterpretation unlawful. Then even Pelosi will know Gruber's name.



Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Monday, November 17, 2014

Gruber: To Pay For Romneycare 'We Figured Out A Way To Rip-Off The Feds'




Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Tuesday, November 11, 2014



Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Jonathan Gruber, the architect of both
Romneycare and Obamacare
Source:  www.townhall.com
By Larry Elder, Jul. 31, 2014

Last week, by 2-1 vote, a Washington, D.C., appellate panel ruled that the Obama administration unlawfully changed Obamacare. Meanwhile, on the same day, on the same question, a panel from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the other way. This issue is headed for the Supreme Court.

Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, is -- according to CNBC -- the "intellectual godfather" of what is perhaps Obamacare's most serious court challenge. Cannon says when Congress drafted Obamacare, they made it clear: Tax credits, grants and other subsidies would be available only to those enrollees who sign up via state-funded exchanges.

Right after the appellate court decision, Cannon told me; "The way the [ACA] law works ... and it's all there in black and white, the statute gives states the ability to veto certain parts of the law's regulatory scheme, including the subsidies that shift from enrollees in the health insurance exchanges the cost of their very expensive insurance ... to the taxpayers. That's what those subsidies are there for, to shift those costs from the enrollee to the taxpayer. States have the power to veto those subsidies, and all they have to do is not cooperate -- not implement the law by creating a health insurance exchange or doing other things."

But only 14 states agreed to set up their own exchanges. So Obama simply picked up his pen and rewrote the law to give the tax credits to the federal exchange as well.

Cannon says: "So what these lawsuits are about is the people who are being injured by that decision by the administration -- the people who are being subject to those taxes, those penalties, even though they are by law exempt, saying, no, wait a second, what you are doing here is illegal. The law is clear; you don't have the authority to implement those provisions where states have vetoed them. Congress gave states that power. If you want to call this a glitch, you can call it a glitch, but it's a glitch that has to be fixed by Congress, because that's who writes the laws in this country -- not the IRS, not the executive. If you want to fix the law, go back to Congress."

Defenders of the administration's decision claim that Congress actually just made a boo-boo, a drafting error, an unintentional mistake by not giving the fed exchange the same benefits. And therefore Obama's interpretation is simply following the intention of Congress.

But Jonathan Gruber, the architect of both Romneycare and Obamacare, admitted in early 2012 that Congress wanted credits to go only to state exchanges, and the feds used this as an inducement to "squeeze" the states into setting up their own state-run exchanges: "The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its [health insurance exchange] backstop, I think, partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it. I think what's important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you're essentially saying to your citizens you're going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country."

A week earlier, Gruber said: "By not setting up an exchange, the politicians of a state are costing state residents hundreds and millions and billions of dollars. ... That is really the ultimate threat, is, will people understand that, gee, if your governor doesn't set up an exchange, you're losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens."

Flash forward, and once the appellate panel decisions came in, Gruber changed his tune: "We can go to the people who wrote it and say did you ever intend this as a poison pill or is it a typo every single one says it's a typo? And every single one of them will say this is just a typo. So there is no mystery here."

And three days later, Gruber was confronted with his 2012 statements that subsidies are tied to state exchanges. His explanation? Gruber said: "I was speaking off the cuff. It was just a mistake. My subsequent statement was just a speak-o -- you know, like a typo."

Expect SCOTUS again to come down 5-4. But this time Justice Roberts will get it right. As Cannon put it: "This is not a constitutional challenge to the law. It's not asking any court to strike down the law. It's actually asking them to uphold the law."

Respected leftwing law professor Laurence Tribe, who once taught Obama, supports Obama's action. But he concedes that the administration faces an uphill battle. "I don't have a crystal ball," said Tribe. "But I wouldn't bet the family farm on this coming out in a way that preserves Obamacare."

Saturday, July 26, 2014


"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Friday, March 21, 2014

By Larry Elder, March 20, 2014

When liberal pro-Obama scholars question the legality of President Barack Obama’s actions to implement Obamacare, the issue of illegal presidential use of power moves from partisan to frightening.

George Washington Law School's Jonathan Turley is the second most-quoted law professor in the nation and a two-time Obama voter. He recently testified before Congress on Obama's extensive use of executive orders and administrative actions to make unilateral changes in Obamacare, immigration policy, minimum wage and in the IRS qualifying standards for non-profit status.

As to Obamacare, Obama, so far, changed it in at least a dozen major ways, including, but not limited to, postponing the employer mandate, allowing insurance carriers to let their insured keep an old policy, and, more recently, redefining the Obamacare "hardship" exemption so broadly as to nullify the individual mandate for at least two more years.

Was this legal?
           
Turley said: “President Obama has repeatedly violated this (separation of powers) doctrine in the circumvention of Congress in areas ranging from health care to immigration law to environmental law. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis with sweeping implications for our system of government. …” We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system.”
           
Turley challenged Congress to re-assert its authority. “If balance is to be reestablished,” he said, “it must begin before this President leaves office and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority. No one in our system can ‘go it alone’ -- not Congress, not the courts, and not the President.”
           
Obama sold Obamacare with many now-broken promises. Saving costs was a big one. In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office set the net cost of Obamacare at $599 billion over 10 years -- citing a gross cost of $848 billion less $249 billion in tax revenues and other cost savings. But recently the CBO revised the 10-year price tag to more than $2 trillion.
           
Economist Jonathan Gruber, the father of Romneycare -- which was the template for Obamacare -- recently admitted that well, no, costs will not be going down. “Covering people with health insurance doesn't save money," said Gruber. “That was sometimes a misleading motivator for the Affordable Care Act. The law isn't designed to save money. It's designed to improve health, and that's going to cost money."
           
So, Obamacare won’t save money, but at least those too poor to afford health insurance will now lead healthier lives, right? Not necessarily.
           
Oregon, years ago expanded its Medicaid program -- the way Obamacare does now -- to include some of Oregon's low-income uninsured. Because of costs, Oregon did this on a random lottery basis. Some got it, some, unfortunately, wanted to but couldn’t. But this allows comparisons. Oregon, for example, can now compare the health outcomes of the now-insured Oregonians--against those who wanted to get insurance, but couldn't. Surely, the now-insured are healthier compared to those without health insurance?
           
But there were no significant differences in their health care outcomes. While the newly insured did increase their doctor visits for preventative and primary-care services, some could not get appointments with doctors, many of whom wouldn't take new Medicaid patients. Emergency room use went up 40 percent among the new Medicaid patients, not down -- all for non-emergency medical needs. “Forbes” health care researcher Avik Roy writes, "The result calls into question the $450 billion a year we spend on Medicaid, and the fact that Obamacare throws 11 million more Americans into this broken program.”
           
Worse, the uninsured dislike Obamacare even more than do those with health insurance. A recent Kaiser Health poll found that among the uninsured, only 22 percent have a favorable attitude towards Obamacare, a far lower percentage than the 56 percent of uninsured who are unfavorable toward Obamacare.
           
Before Obama became president, he said if he were “starting from scratch,” he’d go with a single-payer system. A few months ago, Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid was asked whether Obamacare would lead us to single-payer. Reid said, "Absolutely." This is the real plan.
           
Single-payer is universal healthcare system used in Canada. It remains popular. But in 2009, the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association said: “(Canadian doctors) all agree that the system is imploding. We all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize.” What did the outgoing CMA president propose? He said: "A health-care revolution has passed us by” and “competition should be welcomed, not feared." So while the Canadian Medical Association urges more competition and privatization, America moves towards even more government involvement in health care.
           
In the annual index of countries rated on "economic freedom," the United States -- since 2008 -- has slipped from the number 5 position to 12th. Canada -- at number 6 -- is now more "economically free" than the United States! Economic freedom and prosperity go hand-in-hand.
           
Yet this administration makes it clear it is more interested in wealth re-distribution and less interested in wealth creation. President Obama is quite adept at the former, clueless about how to achieve the latter.


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook