ruber MIT”s stupidest PhD now denies being the architect of obamacare.

Is he really sorry or just saying the words? I doubt the little dip-shit is sorry  

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/09/house-oversight-gruber-tavenner-hearing/20134045/
 
Could he, his statements of the past and his testimony today be a part of the tearing down of Obamacare? Let’s hope so.  

All you lib, obama ass kissers out there remember he called YOU stupid too.

 
2016 = GOP  WH, Senate and Hous

What a scum bag!     Finally they had to ask him "Are you stupid".   LOL.    Hey you also got called "stupid".

END OF MESSAGE

The govt wont be able to say it was just a "typo" on Ocare language regarding the subsidies which Obama sycophants were saying BEFORE dumbass Gruber vids became viral.  

Gruber spelled out the very logical reason for the way it was written and that was to give the states incentive to build their own exchanges for those specific peeps to get Federal $.  

I have to think Chief Justice Roberts is seething and will reverse course in the Spring. Not that I think it matters much.  

When Dems like Harkin and Schumer are trashing it, two of the biggest SUPPORTERS of it just months ago and with the polls showing it is MORE unpopular today than when it passed, you know its on life support.

wrote ObamaCare ?  Never heard of him !

Once you implement a social program, it does NOT get dismantled. Second, the subsidy issue for the Federal Exchange users will not get overturned. Actually I think it will be resolved before a decision is rendered, i.e. Obama and the Republicans will actually compromise, i.e. rescind the Medical Device tax in return to change the subsidy language. Since 90%+ of the ACA enrollees get a subsidy, I doubt the Republicans want to piss 5M, 7M, people, irrespective of Schumer's dumb ass comment that they don't vote.  

Please answer this one simple question. Would you be OK replacing Obamacare, "the individual market" with Medicare? Just allow these individuals to sign up for Medicare, pay the premiums, and get the subsidy to be handled simply by the Earned Income Tax Credit.  

In order to replace the ACA with Medicare for All, you would have to

        (1) Quadruple the existing Medicare premiums AND keep all the ACA taxes in place
AND impose a individual and employer mandate  (in essence, Medicare would become Obamacare);  OR

         (2) if you kept Medicare premiums the same and did not impose mandates, raise the payroll tax by probably 10% and increase the general revenues allocated to Medicare sufficient to pay for the system. In other words, a staggering tax increase imposed on everyone as opposed to the targeted tax increases in Obamacare which are imposed on beneficiaries of the health care system.

        Either way you would end up with a massive federal agency. How well has the fed gov done in limited attempts at single payer health care? Hint- see the Veterans Administration.

        Now take your 60 billion dollar Medicare fraud figure and multiply it by the number of new beneficiaries in the system 300 million or so. Whew.

        Yes Medicare has lower admin costs that but that’s because they "pay and chase" or just "pay." Private insurers would never allow that degree of waste and fraud.

      Medicare is also poor on preventive care and new technologies. It did not cover colonoscopies until the 2000s, enve though private insurance did since the mid 80s.

        Finally, when you talk about Medicare for all, you are talking about government price fixing for an entire industry. Shame on you St. Croix. Some 17 to 30% of doctors already reject Medicare patients in whole or part bc reimbursement is too low. Expand Medicare to all and you will see fewer doctors entering the field. They don’t get rich. Shouldn’t you at least screw the lawyers first if you must fix price?

      So I’d say your Medicare for All idea is about as well thought out as my idea to buy Dr. Copper this summer

because Obamacare obviously doesn't create a huge government bureaucracy, and it's always so much better to have both the insurance companies and government feeding at the same trough.

Look, either you trust government to run health care or you don't. If Obamacare is such a great idea, than 100% socialized healthcare must be even better. No sense in cutting in those evil insurance companies in on the profit when government can do it so much better. Or, are you actually starting to have doubts about just how well government can run another 15% of this country's total economy?

If you wanted a pure copper play, you should of bought SCCO, but you bought a copper and a oil company. Oh, and it went down another 4% today.  

You really do get riled up. You need to keep a brown paper bag next to your keyboard. Just blow into it and relax. What did I way in that simple paragraph? I mentioned the "the individual market" aka the ACA market. I'm not addressing or care about the 85% of the population currently insured through their company or retired with Medicare.  

I'm talking about a specific slice of the population. I made a 30K foot comment, and you went into the weeds. So we are not talking about 300 million beneficiaries or colonoscopies. And the VA is not a single payer system. Wrong example.

You get an F- on this assignment. Primarily because you're not paying attention, and you're all over the map. And you call yourself a liberal (lmao)

There is ZERO chance the R's will compromise on the subsidies. None. There would be a mutiny on the right if that happened. If the subsidies get pulled, the law goes bye bye. The R's can then say they didn't kill Ocare, the court did. Best of both worlds.  

The medical device tax will pass without any need for compromise. MANY Dems will vote with R's on this as it is a very unpopular provision in the business community in key blue states.

Now to your question...of course not. Medicare is already scheduled to go bankrupt in 2024 and your idea would only move that date forward. No, we need a hybrid law with free market principles. Dems are running from this law which tells me everything. The internal polling may be worse than the public polling, if that's possible.

And I disagree that simply because it is a social program it will stay. The other programs you infer to, social security and Medicare, have approval ratings in the 80's and 90's. Ocare is in I the mid to upper 30's and when the employer mandate kicks in, I believe it will fall into the 20's.  

No program that affects that many people and is THIS unpopular will stick around long. Harkin and Schumer are just the beginning. 28 of the 60 senators who voted for Ocare are now gone. This law is going down. It's now just a question of when.

-- Modified on 12/11/2014 9:10:27 PM

As he points out, existing Medicare is going to need new funds in the near future so expanding Medicare to all just multiplies the deficit substantially. So we’ll add that to my list of reasons why St. Croix’s idea is so bad.

         But Jack is quite mistaken when he opines that Obamacare goes “bye bye” if the subsidies on the federal exchange are ruled illegal. In the unlikely even that happens – there is conflicting language in the ACA about this and ambiguous legislative history, and deference must be given to the IRS’s interpretation of the statute-the ACA will still be the law of the land.  

         If Republicans block an amendment to permit subsidies on the federal exchanges, then what are the Republican governors going to do? Stand on principle and deny health insurance that millions of voters ? Or establish state exchanges so the subsides will be upheld?  

        Unlike expanded Medicaid, there would be no cost to the states for doing this. You really think any state would turn down free money from Uncle Sam? If you think Obamcare is unpopular now, wait till you see how popular a Republican governor is if he literally takes money from the lower middle class that they would use to pay for health insurance.

that issue existed in a vacuum, but it does not. The govs wouldn't just sit there and do nothing and have their affected constituents screaming at them morning, noon and night.

They would put pressure on the senate and house (and will do so behind the scenes) to put forth their ACA replacement law(s) before the ink was dry on the SCOTUS decison. The two would happen almost simultaneously. That is when the country would demand a CBO "scoreable" bill put forth by the R's. It would be poll/focused grouped to death for all the key points and would be popular. I say that because the R's will have greatly benefitted from the D's "going first" if you will. Isnt the second draft of something almost always better than the original? Think your college thesis. Lol.

Then R's would fund a temporary subsidy (maybe until the enrollment period starting in 2016, which would be approx 16-18 months from the SCOTUS decision) so as not to throw the HC market into total chaos that Dems and Obama would be forced to go along with. In the interim, there could be REAL debate and a bi-partisan commission set up to finally get it right or at least better, than it is now.

Obama/Dems will insist on pre-existing conditions to be covered, no lifetime caps, etc etc etc and Repubs will insist on tort reform, buying across state lines, etc etc etc.  

Dems will get the credit for taking on HC, R's will get the credit for making it better. Win/win, right?

I disagree with you and Croix on the chances of SCOTUS ruling the subsidy illegal. Prior to Gruber, I would have said it was only about 20-25% likely. Now, I would say it is 65-70% likely. Roberts got ridiculed by Conservatives after SC round 1 and there were numerous reports Kennedy went ape on him. My guess is he doesn't want to go thru that again and proly feels a bit embarrassed about how the law was passed in hindsight. Roberts could then with a clear conscious strike it down and point directly to a key architect of the ACA for cover.

there will not be enough votes to override a president veto and President Hillary is going to veto any substantial changes to Obamcare,  so we are talking the next 10 years.  So while a temporary subsidy would get passed, any attempt to tack on your beloved Republican Health Care Plan will fail, especially tort reform. Who do you think is one of Hillary's biggest campaign contributors? The trial lawyers.

      That is why I think the Repubs would simply open state exchanges. The software is all done on the federal exchange- they would just take it as a template, call it Covered Texas or what have you,  and staff the exchange with state employees. Easy, cheap, and a surefire way to keep the subsidies flowing.

      As to Gruber, he is not “legislative history” which the Supreme Court can consider when it decides the case. Besides, the testimony he gave UNDER OATH  “explains’ what he meant in his unsworn comments that Fox News plays in a loop, LOL, and his sworn testimony, as I predicted, supports the Obama admin on subsidies. So there is NO WAY Gruber's "dinner party" comments will be cited by Roberts

Another airball from you:

"The VHA is a model of what a government-run, single-payer system would be like. It would provide worse access to health care and dishonest performance figures, while costing more than other health care systems.

The VHA and the Single Payer Health System
The VHA operates an integrated health system providing care for eligible beneficiaries. The physicians, nurses, and other health professionals – as well as administrators – are all employees of the federal government, which also owns the hospitals and other facilities. It is essentially a single-payer, government-run health care system similar to Britain's National Health Service, although the VHA does contract out a small percentage of its care (for example, primary care providers in areas without a nearby VHA facility)."

I could have written virtually every one of your bullet points of criticism. Actually, I'm sure I HAVE written almost all of them at one point or another.

Have you been hiding these opinions? Or have you "come around"?

If the subsidies fell, the ACA would be in chaos and Obama would be forced to do something. This would all take place before Hils ever steps her old crotchety paw into the WH. lol.  

And even if Hils was the prez, she would want to distance herself from all the negativity Ocare has brought and to give the appearance she is "America first". What better way for her to do so than start a commission to fix Ocare with tons of R ideas?

You may be right about Roberts not mentioning Gruber. He wont have to give a reason other that to point to the explicit language of the law, which separates states from the Fed subsidies and rule that way. YOU know he CAN rule that way, although your opinion is he wont.

Oh, he'll get bashed by the Ezra Klein types for sure, but most of them are already on record as saying the Dems botched the shit out of this from day one.

These guys are human. No justice strictly interprets the constitution without prejudice. They bring in their bias and even their politics at times. We all know that.  

Roberts bent over backwards to not look political the first go round. In my heart of hearts, I just don't think he feels obligated to continue what he, and many of us feel, is a law passed on lies and deception. And he could sleep at night feeling he was doing what is best for the country on a very contentious and ambiguous law from the start.

One thing is for sure. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when the SCOTUS meets privately after hearing arguments. And when Kennedy knocks on Roberts door...well...lol.

-- Modified on 12/12/2014 11:52:44 AM

Comparing Medicare to private insurance he said:

"Private insurers would never allow that degree of waste and fraud."

Didn't the two of us argue to death with Mari (back in the summer, I think) which does it better, private sector of massive Fed govt?  

And wasn't he on the pro-Big government side of that argument? LOL.

Mari just had his very own Gruber moment. LO

and certainly is no replacement for the ACA. I have no doubt that you could have made the same criticisms, except possibly for recognizing that M for A would be government price fixing for an entire industry – I have not heard anyone else say it quite like that.
I think even St Croix has given up on that idea although he apparently thinks M for A would still work for the individual market. Nope, you would still have most of the same problems for those individuals.  

       As for “coming around,” I suspect you are erroneously equating our debate about whether the private sector could do a better job running the VA than government managers with my assertion that we don’t want to put the government in charge of health care for all.

        But, if so, you are again missing the key point that poor Jack never came to terms with – the private sector only does a better job than the government when it make a profit; in a pure entitlement system such as VA health care, there is no reason to believe that private managers could do a better job.

       Obamacare is not an entitlement system like the VA where health care is provided for free. Even where subsidies are provided, the insureds have to pay premiums and out of pocket. It thus is a cost sharing system where we allow the insurers to make a reasonable if regulated profit. That is why private insurers would never allow the fraud and waste fed managers permit in Medicare – it would kill their profits.

        Time for you to “come around” and jettison the notion that the private sector always does a better job and to recognize that this is not true with respect to entitlement programs

"I can't just walk into a room and fire people."

Thus the very essence of the problem. People are giving him shit because he isn't doing things fast enough. But why? The system is rigged to keep incompetent and unscrupulous employees.

Private sector has an incentive to get rid of those people. Public sector has a disincentive to do so. That's the obvious truth whether you care to accept it or not.

You lost this argument big time back then and the same thing is playing out now.  

You need to quit while youre behind. Lol.

-- Modified on 12/12/2014 8:32:25 PM

It's a separate system. I never mentioned it. I don't care about it. It's not part of this ACA vs Medicare debate. Got it??????

When I look at ACA, I see a massive infrastructure. CA alone cost over $1B to create and $500M to operate on an annual basis.
- multiple exchanges, using multiple platforms
- multiple call-centers
- required mandates that inflate the premiums, some as much as 50%
- limited plan selections...average of 3 plans per zip code per medal plan
- a complex subsidy/tax program, where you are asking a significant portion of the users to be 1040 knowledgeable.  
- Winners - tax attorneys, CPAs, Intuit

My point is, Medicare has an existing infrastructure in place that can be leveraged. There is a SIGNIFICANT increase in the number of insurance companies participating, and you can eliminate the upcoming IRS debacle associated with the complex subsidy rules. The biggest benefit, no Supreme Court rulings, no ongoing debates on the pros and cons, threats from both parties, and arguing with you.  

On a previous post you threw out outlandish tax increases to cover a transition to Medicare. You also mentioned 300M beneficiaries, when in fact we are only talking about 7M ACA users. You have absolutely no idea on whether or not the subsides being handed out today would be sufficient to cover the transition and coverage under Medicare.

I can't believe I'm trying to argue on behalf of Medicare. I'm only arguing on the issue of which system is more efficient to operate for these additional 7M potential users. Yes, it would be great if Medicare moved to a "chase and pay" model, but that is not the debate.  

Jack wants a market based approach. That sounds wonderful (sarcasm)! Tort reform, selling across state lines is not a plan. They are nice to have, and could have some impact, but I seriously doubt the Republicans are smart enough to design, develop and implement a truly transformative, market based system that focuses on the consumer. Jack, listen to me, when you or any other conservative can at least guarantee that I can get a price on ANY medical procedure within the same timeframe that I can get a price on an airline seat, I will consider it a decent starting point.

Oh mari, I forgot to mention Freeport McMoRan went down another 5.22% today. Good job! Don't you think you need to focus your energies on picking better stocks than trying to justify Obamacare?