SMH

to want to be affiliated with this party. Ugh.

If that's all it takes to make you jump ship, you're not terribly invested in the voyage.

it's "stupid."

well, stupid.

You seem easily discouraged, with your "take ball and go home" attitude-- I simply pointed it out.

Nothing "stupid" about that at all.

If you don't want to be misconstrued, don't make comments that suggest you're abandoning hope.

See how that works?

Keep enjoying those Sensible Centrist election losses, MA. I'm savoring the Democratic sweeps in my county. The Democratic governor of my home state. Liberal/Libertarian *stoners* getting weed legalized in DC.

C'mon, just admit it -- Axelrod's "no, YOU'RE stupid!" tweet was idiotic.

So I'll keep enjoying that, and the fact that a state legislature will keep a one-term gubernatorial nitwit in check.

If you're so thrilled about "Democratic sweeps" then perhaps you won't jump over the rail. Sure didn't sound that way upthread, though, did you?

Not unstable and jumping, not hysterical, not screeching, not whining, hair's not on fire... but always amused when DUers try to assign emotions to another poster.

Although she's no great prize, I tried to send Kay Hagan back to DC. Get ready America, you'll soon be experiencing the joys of Thom Tillis... you're welcome, from North Carolina!

Funny how you assigned "violent" imagery to an act that is one of sometimes enthusiastic and occasionally selfish self-preservation. It's a "ME FIRST" image, not a violent one.

The person jumping over the rail is wearing a Mae West, to float along awaiting rescue, and/or hopping into a life boat.


But if your idea of abandoning ship is killing yourself, well, that means there's more stores in the lifeboats for the rest of the people going over the side.

Look in your own mirror for all that violence, now....

The Third Way/DLC is collectively face-palming
that Gruber was stupid enough to admit that they
are counting on "stupid Americans" to pass
their pro-corporate agenda.

could have passed that Senate. I know people - with pre existing conditions who needed this to get insurance at an affordable price. Are you seriously arguing that in general people are worse off than before it passed?

Please do no respond back that what we need is single payer. I KNOW that works better, is cheaper, and more efficient, but BERNIE SANDERS said at the time that only about 10 Senators would support it!

This entire brouhaha is ridiculous. The right is saying that people were tricked into voting for this -- but the only people who voted on this were 60 Democratic Senators, a couple hundred Democratic Congresspeople and one Republican Congressmen. I would be willing to bet that every single one of them understood that there were people who would pay more than the services they receive. That is exactly the definition of insurance - and, frankly, I am very happy that for 13 years in a row, my employer spent far more than I received in medical services. Why - I was extremely healthy and simply had an annual visit. (They likely paid less the next year when I had my first kid.) When you buy car insurance -- are you than overjoyed when you make a profit over the insurance company because you total the car? I'm happy that my car insurer made a profit on my for each of the last 42 years!

This reminds me of the uproar when a climate scientist referred to "a little trick" that could simplify some calculations. As a mathematician, I didn't rise an eyebrow - because saying something like that was so normal - and simply referred to a clever way to transform the problem (quite legitimately) to an easier one. (Not to mention, I watched the Senate Finance committee when they worked on these revenues, taxes, and other devices to pay for the ACA.
They did talk about what these things were.

On the Cadillac insurance plans, this was talked about in detail -- and Kerry had obtained the backing of unions as long as the threshold above which it was taxed remained above an agreed level. This was done by an excise tax on the insurance policy itself on the amount above the limit. This was easier to pass than the more straight forward approach of just putting a limit on the amount per person for which a company would get a tax break. Note this does exist for other benefits paid for by companies - including life insurance premiums, which above a certain cost are taxable income to the employee.

This was simply closing a loophole that had allowed companies to give top executives "health insurance" that provided anything wanted and paid from the first dollar and paid for things like country club memberships. While the media looked at a few union policies that just edged above the limit, they ignored the executive policies. However, there were many many articles in the mainstream media, the left blogosphere and the right on this policy - and it was controversial.

What is ignored in the article is that the root of the problem is both our complicated tax system and our history of employer provided insurance. For decades, the tax code encouraged employers to provide insurance by allowing the company to declare this as a cost. This reduced the profits they paid taxes on. For them, it meant offering a benefit that really cost them far less than its value to the employer. (This because in essence the government "paid" a percent equal to their tax rate times the premium). For the employee, the benefit was worth more than tax adjusted cost to the employer - and thus increased the value of their compensation more than an employer ignoring this option spending the same amount all in salary. What this did was simply say that above that threshold, companies will not receive further tax advantage - even if it is done in a pretty complex way as an excise tax on the insurance itself.

Getting back to the claim that the "voters" were tricked -- do they really want to argue that the legislators (the only people who voted on this) are so stupid they could not understand that a bill that had to come out revenue neutral HAD to have taxes and revenues?

I can't understand, either, why all those opposing GOP legislators didn't raise the "STOOOPID" alarm just before the time the vote was being taken. Surely, if people were under the mistaken impression that a unicorn was going to shit gold nuggets to pay for this act, they really, REALLY needed to be disabused of that notion.

Why didn't those ... errrrr ..... STOOOOOPID Republican Congressman say anything? Were they ... STOOOPID or something? Or did they hold a truth to be self evident--that there's no such thing as a free lunch, and expect that the American people knew that as well?

I hope that - just once - the Republicans will be caught on one of these things as implicitly believing the American people are dumb enough to believe things like this.

I did, of course, find it beyond ironic that they singled out Kerry for having crafted legislation - something they argued for decades that he had failed to do.

I hope that Democrats can do better than running from Gruber on this.

Free lunch, unicorns, gold nuggets.

Of course you ignore the 800 billion dollars
the private insurance industry has to work with.

And of course INVESTORS in the insurance industry
don't expect a free-lunch-dividend, do they?
They "earned" those dividends that come at the
expense of denied medical procedures.
Corporate Death Panels, protect their investors...
not those that are insured.

There's no way to eliminate the freeloading investors,
bloated advertising budgets, obscene CEO pay,
tax havens and still provide AFFORDABLE healthcare, right!
Because, MONEY.

Even Gruber admits the "market" is a disaster.
Yet has no reservation about forcing millions
of the most desperate people into that
same disastrous market.

There will come a point in time where we do like UK has been doing for years; provide care for all, and if you want "deluxe" care, you pay for it--either out of pocket or through "premium" insurance.

Those guys will never go away entirely--it's just that, if we continue on this path, they don't need to be "necessary" to see a doctor.

That's the road we're on, and if you think we can get there with a wave of the hand, then you're the one who thinks that the unicorn is going to crap nuggets.

We next need a demonstration project of "national health." VT has been making noise about it--I hope they roll it out.

You know, life for people in MA has gotten much better since the implementation of Commonwealth Care. You might not like that fact, but it is a fact.

I always thought the "I've got mine, screw the rest of you" tude wasn't a progressive value. Silly me I guess!

MADem: Their corporate profits are limited.
Their expectations are lowered.

MADem: There will come a point in time where we do
like UK has been doing for years; provide care for all,

MADem: ...and if you think we can get there with
a wave of the hand, then you're the one who thinks
that the unicorn is going to crap nuggets.

MADem: life for people in MA has gotten much better
since the implementation of Commonwealth Care.
You might not like that fact, but it is a fact

If you think single payer was an option, I'll have whatever you're smoking.

Even Bernie Sanders, who (like me in this regard) would like to see single payer, understands that the ACA is way station. You don't dismantle a method of distributing health care overnight. Just doesn't happen.

MADem: No, the ACA wasn't "inevitable"--
we were damn lucky to pull it out.

MADem: If you think single payer was an option,
I'll have whatever you're smoking.

MADem: You don't dismantle a method of distributing
health care overnight

MADem: ...understands that the ACA is way station...
What can the GOP repeal? NOTHING. Because Obama has the veto.

That's how you're talking.

Because there is NO POLITICAL WILL for Single Payer right now.

None. Nada. No chance. Not happening.

It's ACA...or NOTHING.

Pick.

John Stewart COMPLETELY DEMOLISHED
any legitimate defense of the sausage making
and LIES that were wrapped around the ACA.

See also: Daily Show 11/18/14

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/tv7jz8/plan-s-labyrinth

The facts are that the ACA has given real people insurance that they had not had before. I know people who were than able to get the physicals that they should have. I know people who were able to get treatment for serious illnesses. I would bet there are people you know as well.

Is it based on health insurance - yes, but that is due to how health insurance was originally developed here. There is no way that a bill could have passed that did not work from the system we had - warts and all. The reason was that a super majority of people wanted to have their own insurance - from the employer - remain as it was. For most of them, that was the result. (Remember the uproar with people in the individual market angry that they lost substandard plans,)

I KNOW single payer - like Canada or the UK - would be better. However, when Bernie Sanders says it would not get more than 10 Senators, IT CAN NOT BE PASSED. Would you have preferred that those 10 Senators including Bernie, Kennedy, Kerry, and Dodd have sat on their hands and refused to do anything -- losing the opportunity afforded by Obama's election and the majorities he had?

LOL, good one karyn!

karynnk:death panels - have you been listening to Sarah Palin???

life for people in MA has gotten much better
since the implementation of Commonwealth Care.
You might not like that fact, but it is a fact.

karynnj: There is no way that a bill could have passed
that did not work from the system we had

karynnj: Bernie Sanders says it would not get more than 10 Senators,
IT CAN NOT BE PASSED

We could not even get the expansion of Medicare down to age 55. Why is this a fact - because it was tried by a few Senators -- and there was one than one Democratic Senator who said he would vote no. One was enough for it to fail.

As to why single payer could not pass - Kerry, when confronted, answers that it did not have the votes - when asked if it could get the votes, he said there were too many Senators who were "ideologically" against it - and when asked, said that he knew they were unpersuadable.

I notice that you have confused me and MaDem - and though I consider that a compliment, we are not the same person.

karynnj: We could not even get the expansion of Medicare
down to age 55. Why is this a fact - there was one than one
Democratic Senator who said he would vote no.

karynnj: As to why single payer could not pass -
Kerry,..., answers that it did not have the votes -
too many Senators who were "ideologically" against it -
and when asked, said that he knew they were unpersuadable.

The fact was completely relevant to what you were speaking about. Your question on why is what is irrelevant. It was the reality that existed at that moment. What it meant was that it was then not an option.

Define ideologically - why it is a perfectly good English word - and it was the word used. I assume the meaning was that many Senators were not for a government run healthcare system - even though in Medicare and the VA, they had examples that they funded every year. Not persuadable - he was speaking of peers that he knew well and part of being a successful Senator, was to be able to assess who he had even a prayer of moving in a direction he wanted to move them in. (Consider Sanders reached the same conclusion )

As to your rants that they vote this way because they want to stay on office ignores that many simply do not agree with you as to the best thing to do. It is rather arrogant to assume that your own position is where they would be if there was no outside interest (money) backing a different position.

Saying a Congress Critter is ideologically
opposed to an obvious public good,
or that they were unpersuadable about
an issue that effects a HUMONGOUS chunk
of the nations economy seems disingenuous.

In our "reality", money is what drives
the actions of MOST Congress members.
So am I to accept that the lobbyist from
the insurance industry did NOT force the
ACA on the public while also destroying
the possibility of a single payer option?

Because that is essentially what Gruber is saying
in his inartful, casual, student chat.
That the sway of BILLIONS in revenue blew a hole
in the public's hope for affordable healthcare.

Can we agree that money and a sell out Congress
is the reason we have a half-baked insurance program?
If there was a difference of opinion it was that money
trumps doing what is in the public's interest.

The Crapified Magic of the ObamaCare Marketplace

1. that Single-payer is a workable solution.
2. the market is worth 800 BILLION in revenue
3. that most people complain they pay too much
4. that the market is a disaster.
5. and the specious notion that people "like" the coverage they have...
that makes them dependent on their employer.

and then goes on with straw-men arguments as to
why the "lefts" solution is politically impossible...
Because, money.

PLUS, your link goes on to point out that access
to insurance is no guarantee for health care!
All the exclusions and out of pocket expenses
make the ACA essentially a crap shoot that you
won't go bankrupt despite having "insurance".

AND, how Gruber's economic models are designed
to rule out single payer.
And that same model, that he profits from,
was used in the Vermont Single-payer plan.

A crap sandwich is a crap sandwich.

Having insurance is no guarantee
you won't go bankrupt
Nor does it guarantee "healthcare".

This is a nice strawman you created

Karynnj: Are you seriously arguing that in general
people are worse off than before it passed?

Karynnj: Getting back to the claim
that they were tricked...that the legislators
(the only people who voted on this) are so stupid

1) ACA was not sold on lies. Did you watch even one hearing from the House or the Senate? If you did, you would have heard the discussions between committee members on each and every provision. Not to mention, you did not have to be a super special person to hear this - you just needed either a computer or CSPAN on your cable. (The former was better as every hearing in the key committees was (and is) archived on their website and you can watch it any time you want.

2) Pelosi's comment was in answer to some harassing questions she was getting BEFORE the bill was even finished and sent to the floor before a vote. THAT comment has been used by the right - just as you (a newly arrived person) are using it. Obviously BEFORE the vote, the language was finished and people saw it before they voted. (As is typical, the RW has never hesitated to take comments - like this one - completely out of context. In fact, it might be considered the ACA )version of their using "I voted for it, before I voted against it" - after Kerry carefully had explained not 5 minutes before that he voted for a war funding bill (that Bush opposed) that was paid for by rolling back the tax cuts for the top 2% and then against the bill that added it to the debt. Both were uncharacteristically sloppy comments made in response to hecklers.)

3) ACA is the biggest improvement to access to healthcare since Medicaid in the 1960s.

karynnj" 1) ACA was not sold on lies.
Did you watch even one hearing from the House or the Senate?

karynnj:...some harassing questions she was getting
BEFORE the bill was even finished and sent to the floor before a vote.
THAT comment has been used by the right - just as you
(a newly arrived person) are using it.

Taking just the Pelosi case - the bill had not been finished - thus the answers on details that were demanded were NOT YET AVAILABLE. It is like asking what the next day's baseball score is. Her response was in response to questions on the details. (and yes, her response - as it was - was a huge mistake.)

What Gruber was speaking about to a group of students was that the bill had to avoid a huge number of things -- any one of which would have killed the bill. They needed to get 60 votes - and no Republican was a possibility. This meant that ANY of the 60 Senators could define anything as a deal breaker to him (her) and the bill would have to avoid that unless the person could be persuaded that he/she was wrong.

karynnj: thus the answers on details that were demanded
were NOT YET AVAILABLE.

karynnj: What Gruber was speaking about to a group of students
was that the bill had to avoid a huge number of things

Did David Axelrod even know of Gruber's existence beyond someone was contracted by Health and Human Services at the time, doubtful, so your question is moot, imo.

oh, and fyi, Gruber was working with Health and Human Services so, unless they are operating out of the Oval office, your comment is ridiculous.

my point stands.

Last edited Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:06 AM - Edit history (1)

He certainly did. Since both Obama and Pelosi knew who Gruber was I'll bet Axelrod did to since they were working on the same legislation.

"oh, and fyi, Gruber was working with Health and Human Services so, unless they are operating out of the Oval office, your comment is ridiculous."

and my response was to this:

"I wonder if Axelrod was saying that when Gruber was in the Oval Office with Obama?"

Your post did not contain the key word "meeting" ergo my response and, again, getting back to your original post, where in the article does it name Axelrod at all?

Axelrod knew who he was. But play away if it helps you.

And what you show "meeting"


A really big difference actually.

Obama did and Pelosi did. Yet Axelrod who was working on the ACA did not? BS. Willful ignorance.

You are really grasping at straws, editing your post to bring Nancy Pelosi into your ridiculous claim made me laugh out loud. It seems you forgot your original post to me in your determination to continue to claim something you can't prove.

He was not. Minor players do not meet in the Oval office with the President. Pelosi cited Gruber in 2009 when she was trying to explain the ACA. Now she says she doesn't know who he is. Just like Axelrod, I'm sure ...

please quote where I said Gruber "was a minor player", good luck on that.

When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.

what he thought of Gruber when he was writing the ACA. I would love to hear that answer. Of course the question will never be asked.

given your apparent concern about this.

He has a long history in Chicago where I am from. People know him there. They are happy he is gone.

Easy one!

when one considers where the "stupid" comments were made... on Fux... it makes a lot of sense. Apparently he was probably paid well to spew his comments. He's an economist, how many of those do you actually trust?

He met with him in the Oval Office. And fox is not where the 'stupid' comments were made. They were made at a conference.

the Fux logo in the corner of the screen. Regardless, seems he talks out of both sides of his mouth. He may have been trusted back then but so were some other alleged allies who only ended up walking after being trusted with a certain amount of info and then acted as turncoats of a sort. Remember that Sen. from NH who was going to be a cabinet member only to leave as soon as he heard enough to make an attempt to sabotage the president's plan? And all those "civil servants" put in place by B&C just before leaving office. Those operatives are still in place too. Not all of the SES are allies of the current admin. so I am not surprised that it is someone who, now protected by the R regime, will now come out and spew for a fee. IMHO.

seeing as he has contracts with at least 8 States re his microsimulation model. I can't help but wonder, now that his name and his remarks about the stupidity of the American people, how eager those States will be to have his name attached to them in any way.


"In any case, the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 has been lucrative for Gruber and his microsimulation model. All told, he has been hired by at least eight states to provide advice or assist in creating the health-insurance exchanges that are at the heart of the Affordable Care Act: Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamacare-architect-jonathan-gruber-fire/story?id=26919286

Seems to me I saw him on several news shows last year, around Sept. and Oct., talking up the ACA. Can't recall which but all were probably on MSNBC evening time news shows since those are about all I was interested in paying any attention to at the time.

Seems he's an opportunist first, whatever else he claims to be at any given moment second.

It turns out Mr. Gruber has made stupid remarks multiple times while speaking about Obamacare, they are only coming to light now, here is a doozy:

"A fifth video was revealed today where he seems to be teasing a Vermont man concerned with possible unintended consequences of the Affordable Care Act. After listening to the man’s concerns, Gruber responds, “Was this written by my adolescent children by any chance?”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamacare-architect-jonathan-gruber-fire/story?id=26919286

"Seems he's an opportunist first, whatever else he claims to be at any given moment second."

Exactly.

as a substitute for actual health care do indeed appear "stupid" to those of us that wanted actual health care reform.

However Axelrod's comments beg the question, why did the party champion the Heritage Foundation's stupid ideas to begin with?

It may well be good for the insurance industry, but as the insurance industry's role is simply as unnecessary middle men extracting profit via denial of actual health care, only fools and those interested in the profits of vultures thought it was a smart idea to begin with, so was Axelrod stupid as well or just complicit in the vultures' schemes?

the best outcome would be for single payer to end up being the system we end up with. We have had to play nice with the opposition, somehow I hope the outcome is single payer. Not sure how to bring that about but if I'm going to hope for something out of all this, it would be single payer. I was also hoping that the current ACA would lead to it eventually.

2naSalit: the best outcome would be for single payer
to end up being the system we end up with.
We have had to play nice with the opposition

single payer was not going to pass, as anyone who hasn't been living under a rock knows.

I merely agreed that Heritage Foundation ideas are stupid (or brilliant if you are the ones profiting from them).

There are good Ideas on how to accomplish the goal of providing healthcare that do not require an entire structure of health care denial experts that provide no service other that obtaining profit by denying care. I certainly implied it was rather stupid to pass an insurance law instead of a health care law when it was the health care itself that was (supposedly) the desired outcome.

To answer your assumption (even tho answering stupid assumptions is stupid as well) - I give no thought whatsoever to repealing the insurance welfare act as what I favor would render it moot anyway. What I favor would deny Insurance companies both their profit and their Godlike control of what care one receives if any, decisions made based more often on profit motive than the welfare of the patient.

If they were going to expend energy towards nothing more than insurance reform tied to a taxpayer gift to corporate entities, they should have focused entirely on regulating the vultures to end their ability to deny care rather than forcing people to buy a product that many can never afford to use because of co-pays and deductibles.

It was either a stupid or brilliant Idea to make sure those with the least income would be given bronze plans (the only ones they can afford even with the tax money marked to help pay the vulture's premium) designed with the highest co-pays thus ensuring they will not be able to use their "insurance" or as others call such schemes "protection".

Too bad our politicians were too bought to propose an actual health care bill, or after at least trying to, settling on insurance reform with strict regulations and subsidies given directly to those needing the care for both their premiums and co-pays beyond the persons ability to pay instead of a tax scheme where the marks have to hemorrhage cash and get credits later (assuming they have any money after paying the rent and heat.) But they chose the stupidest idea they could instead, one created by the right wing and favored by Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

Neither politically nor logistically. The government can't even administer Medicare without insurance companies.

If there is no mandate, there can be no strict regulation on coverage denials for pre-existing conditions etc. Medicare would not work if people didn't have to pay into it until they got sick. Neither would any other kind of health finance system.

I also noticed that they trained you to claim medicare can not be administered without the recent ever encroaching privatization efforts that have outsourced already some of the work for profit. Sad that you don't realize the insurance companies were imposed on it and have actually added to the administrative costs while decreasing positive outcomes. I assume then you would like to see them finish privatizing it as it was doing too well without vultures feeding of it?

Tell me, why is it that you claim to believe that the only thing that could possibly be done was to adopt the stupidist idea possible (farmed from right wingers)?

If the only things you believe are possible are the implementation of stupid Republican ideas then perhaps you should rejoin your Republican party and have at it and allow Democrats to explore Democratic ideas?

everyone who holds a different opinion is part of a grand conspiracy.

And, to add to the awkwardness, you're making shit up. Whereas I am dealing in facts.

Your claim (nutty conspiracy theory included for context):

I understand single payer insurance and know that it would be more efficient and cheaper than the private health insurance the US system has. (A daughter enjoyed being covered under the National Health in England for a year.)

However, that an option here - even in 2009 when we had 60 Senators. Bernie Sanders said that there were only 10 Senators that would vote for it.

The question is whether it is better than the then status quo. In states that implemented the expanded Medicaid that was envisioned, a new large segment of the working poor (including some lower middle class) people were added. This gave them insurance - and medicaid does not have huge deductibles or premiums.

So, bottom line, given that single payer was not going to happen, should Obama have fought to pass the best plan he could - as he did?

Did Gruber know how the right would pounce on his statement? The ones who have been calling Democrats "elitist" (as the Reps support the elite in everything they do....).....

I am certain that were he being interviewed - video, audio or print, he would carefully parse everything he said and he would not have spoken this way.

Consider for a moment whether anything you ever posted here were taken out of the context of being said to a group of similar minded left leaning Democrats in a very informal forum. (I know I could have a problem)

Not to mention, this is someone who likely obtained and viewed a huge amount of tape -- and cherry picked things that - seen alone - look very elitist.

However, I would counter that it is the Republicans who are assuming the American people are dumb who have suggested this was done to fool the "voters". Consider who exactly "voted" for the ACA. 60 Democratic Senators, 200 plus Democratic Congresspeople and one Republican Congressman. Are you telling me that our legislators are so dumb that they thought there was nothing that could be considered a tax in a bill that had to be revenue neutral?

You are CERTAIN? Really, how so?
Do you have any relation with Gruber to know how or what he thinks?

karynnj: I am certain that were he being interviewed -
video, audio or print, he would carefully parse everything he said
and he would not have spoken this way.

I have seen him testify in the Senate, have heard him speak on the news and have read things he has written. Like almost everyone else, he is more or less formal based on where he is.

It is also not "weasel words". It is phrasing things precisely to ensure that the meaning is unambiguous in the serious formal situations.

I have no idea what your background or experience is, but I am shocked that you do not seem to get this at all. Have you never seen a professional - both at work and informally?

Has anybody read Gruber's comic book "Health Care Reform?" It's a descriptive graphic novel that lays out the problems of the previous health care system and describes, in detail, what the ACA does to reform everything. I read it last year, so I was already familiar with Gruber.

I encourage you all to seek it out. Here's the link... http://www.amazon.com/Health-Care-Reform-Necessary-Works/dp/B00B9ZCCN8

Not surprisingly, it has been inundated with one-star reviews over the past week because despite his intellect, Jonathan doesn't think before he speaks.

From the "reviews"

“Having spent years working to make health care work for Americans, Jonathan Gruber has now provided another service: walking everyone through the benefits of the Affordable Care Act reforms so consumers are armed with accessible information. In an age when information is power, Gruber’s book is fun and informative, and it boils down the facts of health care reform for all Americans.” —Senator John Kerry

“If you want to learn about health care reform, you can do no better than to learn from the master. Jonathan Gruber shows how health care reform works in a way that everyone can understand. Read this book. You will not regret it.” —David Cutler, Professor, Department of Economics and Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

“Jonathan Gruber’s straightforward explanation of what the Affordable Care Act does and why will help people understand what’s true and what’s false about the health reform law. His message is clear and easy to get: when it comes to health care, we’re all in it together; and, together, we will benefit from making the Affordable Care Act a success.” —Judy Feder, Professor and former Dean, Georgetown Public Policy Institute

A comic book. How appropriate. Except this gruber jerk is somewhat less than amusing.





^Some of the $400,000 this creep was paid for his "services" no doubt

I wonder if Gruber is trying to get on of the Koch sponsored university positions?

These comments can't be left out there for the Repubs to chew on. They have to be rebutted. This type of lack of response is what lost us all the Senate seats.

is "stupid"? Can we never do that b/c some too snooty will call "Jr High" when it suits Them?.. ROFL!

Good on ya, David Axelrod!

Mahalo cal!

It is at the "am not..are to" level of discourse.
We are devolving every day it seems. Yes it is stupid.

from supposed grown professionals and statesmen have to do with whether a post makes the home page? Good grief.

I can assume you are referring to David Axelrod but a clarification on your part would be helpful.

You never tell the opposition party the one that doesn't care that 45,000 people a year in this country die prematurely because of lack of health care, that you are trying to get around their stupidity. You just don't. You say that you are trying to come to a bipartisan agreement to bring down costs. You don't call them heartless or racists either, you work on bipartisan agreements to reduce the effects of their heartless policies and institutional racism.

Is that ACA is not a Single-Payer system, and doesn't even have a Public Option.











Now, that is stupid stupid stupid.

The whole concept of elimination of pre-existing condition limitation is to spread the risk . There was no lack of transparency on this concept

but I think any system we implement must not be disruptive in terms of putting people out of work. I think some members of Congress saw the Affordable Care Act as a jobs bill. It was put in place to work within the existing structure and to build upon it.

Eliminating the insurance company middlemen also means eliminating the jobs insurance companies create. We have to consider what happens to the jobs market -- that is, to the thousands of people employed by insurance companies, in creating a replacement.

Then again, who am I to question a guy with a bachelor's degree in poly. Sci from the university of Chicago.

they push will be a strawman of the American people want this and Obama thinks, like Grubber on the ACA, that the American people are too stupid to understand what they are voting for or against.....