posted November 10, 2014 10:40 PM            

28 of those lying Socialist demoscat Senatorial comrades got retired from Congress because they lied about O'BomberCare. Stay tuned until the election of 2016 when the rest of the Socialist comrades face reelection.

Obamacare Architect: Lack of Transparency Was Key Because ‘Stupidity Of The American Voter’ Would Have Killed Obamacare
11/09/2014

Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said that lack of transparency was a major part of getting Obamacare passed because “the stupidity of the American voter” would have killed the law if more people knew what was in it.

Gruber, the MIT professor who served as a technical consultant to the Obama administration during Obamacare’s design, also made clear during a panel quietly captured on video that the individual mandate, which was only upheld by the Supreme Court because it was a tax, was not actually a tax.

posted November 11, 2014 08:25 AM            

It's "Obamacare Saturday" in America this weekend, the time when the federal exchange opens and people can start buying Obamacare subsidized insurance plans again.

When the program was launched, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 13 million people would purchase insurance through the exchanges this year, with a projection of 25 million by 2017.

I don't think they're going to make that goal. In fact, it may take another decade at the rate that HHS is projecting growth.

The Hill:

Federal health officials are projecting that ObamaCare enrollment will include at least 3.1 million fewer people next year than congressional budget analysts thought.

HHS, which previously declined to project 2015 sign-ups, said that between 9 million and 9.9 million people are expected to participate in the exchanges in 2015.

The figure was less than the CBO’s projection of 13 million for 2015 enrollment, raising questions about the exchanges' performance, compared with expectations.

HHS officials described their figures as more complete than the CBO's and said the health insurance marketplaces are simply not "ramping up" at the rate the office projected.

Officials rejected the notion that the slower adoption rate could pose a problem for President Obama's signature healthcare law.

"Our charge was to make use of the available data to learn from our experiences and to build a projection from the ground up," said an HHS official, who declined to be identified on the record.

"We think the evidence points to a longer ramp-up rate than the CBO projections had, and that is based on what we've learned over the last year from looking at our own data."

The last CBO estimates were from April, not long after the close of open enrollment. The office estimated that sign-ups on the exchanges would increase steadily to hit 25 million in 2017, a figure that is widely cited as a target for ObamaCare's success.

The HHS said it's likely to take "four or five" years for the system to reach maturity, but emphasized that 9 million to 9.9 million exchange participants in 2015 will still be "important and significant."

The tension between the HHS and CBO projections is likely to draw criticism from Capitol Hill, where critics of the law are sensitive to any signs it might be encountering trouble.

The CBO conducts nonpartisan analysis of laws and legislation that is often seen as authoritative, even as it irritates partisans on both sides.

The new projections are released at a crucial time as federal health officials are preparing for the marketplaces to open for enrollment on Saturday.

The system all but failed to launch last year, a technological and political mess for the Obama administration that nonetheless seemed to lighten as more than 8 million people signed up.

The HHS said Monday that 7.1 million people remained as paying customers in the marketplaces as of last month.

The massive overestimate of sign-ups for this year will be the least of the program's worries. Obamacare's problems are only going to grow:

1. Come tax time, expect and incredible clusterfark. Millions of people will be charged the fee for not having health insurance or the wrong kind of insurance. Millions more will get a bill from the IRS because their subsidy was too generous and they have to pay back to the government what they owe.

2. The business mandate will come into effect later this year. No one knows how many companies are going to reduce the number of employees or reduce hours of full-time employees to exempt them from the law.

3. It is probable that some Obamacare consumers will not see a rise in their premium. But most will.

4. The federal exchange, healthcare.gov, is still not finished and won't be for many months – if ever.

The recent revelation about the Obamacare architect, Jonathan Gruber, who celebrated the law's lack of transparency and called the American people "stupid," underscores the real problem with the Affordable Care Act. It has no credibility. Health insurance has been left in the hands of political hacks and incompetent bureaucrats who continuously lie and cover up the law's inadequecies.

posted November 15, 2014 09:18 AM            

These dimwitted moron Socialists believed Americans are too stupid to penetrate their lies and deceptions about O'BomberCare.

So far, 28 of O'Bomber's Socialist comrades in the US Senate have been involuntarily retired over 2 elections for voting for O'BomberCare.

So far, more than 75 of O'Bomber's Socialist comrades in the House of Representatives have been involuntarily retired over 2 elections for voting for O'BomberCare.

Republicans now hold the majorities in both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate.

Before O'BomberCare, O'Bomber's Socialist comrades held majorities in both the House and Senate.

There has never been a majority of Americans supporting O'BomberCare. Governing against "the will of the people" has serious consequences.

So, who are the stupid ones?

November 15, 2014
Obamacare -- the Truth is Out
Frances Twitty

The American electorate is not stupid about Obamacare… at least not all of us. We listened. We paid attention to the debates. Many of us even read the bill, all 1,100+ pages of it! We knew so-called facts were being touted and spun. Lies, false dichotomies, logical fallacies, quid pro quos, backdoor deals -- you name it -- all were used as tools to pass it. If it was deceptive, underhanded, self-serving and/or illogical, it was added to the Democrats’ bag of tricks. The rallying cry was lies, lies, and more lies -- anything to pass this bill! It was blatant. It was in-your-face. It went on and on. It was amazing to behold. The Democrats were large and in charge. They were in their own utopic bubble and nothing and no one was going to get in their way – including “We, the People”, the majority of whom have opposed the law since its passage.

The people wanted healthcare reform. They wanted lower costs and secure coverage, including coverage for pre-existing conditions, young adult children and the unemployed. That’s it. Otherwise, we liked our healthcare.

What the people received, however, was a whole lot more than they bargained for -- a complete monstrosity of a bill, a convoluted, litigious mess that usurped a huge portion of the economy. It was filled with penalties, fees, mandates, and various taxes on both individuals and businesses. Yet, somehow, someway it was supposed to lower costs. Guess what? That didn’t happen.

As many of us anticipated, healthcare costs have increased dramatically -- again, for individuals as well as businesses. Hillary Clinton’s musings notwithstanding, businesses do create jobs. Unfortunately, with the higher costs businesses have had to bear due to ObamaCare, they are creating fewer of those jobs, specifically fewer full-time jobs. So now some people have access to health insurance that they did not have before, but can no longer put food on the table to feed their families, by the production of their own hands and minds. Granted, health insurance is really nice to have, when you need it. But on the great totem pole of life’s priorities, putting food on the table comes first.

Just about everyone who is not subsidized has seen their expenses go up, directly or indirectly, since the passage of ObamaCare. A few were lucky enough to receive waivers or delays, some might argue arbitrarily and illegally, but those carve outs will not last forever. Some will see the financial hit in 2015. Others, 2016. Still others 2017 and beyond. By the time the full disastrous impact is felt, Mr. Obama will be long gone. And cynically, one might wonder if he planned it that way.

So, where was the mainstream media in all of this? Oh, they were around. They just weren’t doing their job very well. Most of the time, they failed to conduct any due diligence. When they actually did, they ignored the facts (Al Gore would call them ‘inconvenient truths’). As long as what the administration was spewing fit their agenda, everything was copacetic with them. And apparently, it still is.

It would seem that for the most part, the mainstream media has no issues with the recently surfaced videotaped comments of Jonathan Gruber. Presumably, the media agree with what he said. Of course, liberals have always been the ends-justify-the-means kind of feelers. In other words, they are people you cannot trust to be honest and straightforward when they have an agenda.

Now that the public is faced with the truth of what their government thinks of them, thanks to Gruber (who was paid approx. $400k for his stellar work), the only explanation the Democrats can offer is either 1) Gruber lied (yes, accuse the liar of lying when the lie is discovered!) or 2) everyone does it.

The ‘everyone does it’ argument is the very last refuge for the morally-challenged and sounds quite like fingernails on a chalkboard to conservatives. If the Democrats have gone there, and they have, they can no longer feign ignorance. If they defend the thinking and methods laid out by Gruber, they are complicit in the deception and equally as guilty as he is.

In the various videos of Gruber that have cropped up, he not only asserts the stupidity of American voters, but also specifically states that the subsidies were provided to entice (i.e., force) the states to set up their own exchanges. This point is at the heart of King v. Burwell, a case whereby the Supreme Court will decide if ObamaCare actually means what it says -- that subsidies can only be given to those who have purchased health insurance on state exchanges.

The last time the Supreme Court had to decide whether or not ObamaCare meant what it said, it decided that it did. The irony was that the text was not what the government lawyers were arguing it said. If the federal government was forcing people to buy insurance and penalizing them if they did not, the Court would have declared the bill unconstitutional. But if these penalties and fees were in fact a tax, as the Supreme Court concluded, then the bill was constitutional. So in the blink of an eye, a ‘penalty’ became a ‘tax’ and voila! ObamaCare survived to live another day, supported by the taxing authority of the federal government. It was a good trick, really.

As Gruber said, the bill was tortured in an attempt not to call it a tax. Then, the Supreme Court tortured it some more to call it out as a tax. American voters still paid because a tax by any other name is still money out the door.

But you see, this is the essence of liberal big government – elitists thinking they know better than you do, that due to the very nature of their advanced brainpower and overall awesomeness, they get to tell you what to do, how to live, what to think, and who to believe. They get to pick the winners and the losers in their quest for complete control over American lives. And half of us are willing to let them because they tell us it is for our own good! Those in the ‘something must be done’, ‘healthcare should be free’, ‘we all need insurance’, ‘it’s for our own good’ camp are permitting it!

But now, with the revelation of what the Democrats in the federal government really think about us (aka “we, the stupid American voters”), can we not see that we have misjudged them?

Now, none of this is news to conservatives. We have been sounding the alarm bells for many, many years. We have pointed out the deceptions, the logical fallacies, the quid pro quos that went into passing this monstrosity. It is not our fault if the Democrats in Congress chose not to listen and/or to ignore the realities.

The process of passing Obamacare was ugly, the players corrupt, the deals underhanded and the methods disengenuous, but the end result, to a liberal Democrat, erases all that. Like Gruber, they would ‘rather have this bill than not’. If Democrats have to give up truth, transparency, the rule of law and their very souls to get what they want, so be it.

Hence, we found we cannot keep our plans as promised -- they no longer exist. And we cannot keep our doctors either -- those greedy capitalists actually expect to be paid for their work! The cost curve has been bent, but of course, in the opposite direction. Families are still waiting for that $2,500 annual savings they were promised -- which if adjusted for all the increases in premiums, co-pays and deductibles, the lowered cap in annual flexible spending benefits along with the limitation of qualified purchases, the fees and penalties (some of which you see, some of which you do not see, but all of which you ultimately pay) that have occurred since the passage of ObamaCare -- would now be upwards of $10,000 for many of us.

American voters do not like being misled. Or insulted. And Democrats did both of those things. In my best Obama impression: Let me be clear when I say: “Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother!”

Last week, Democrats realized just how meticulously we have been keeping score. The midterms were a huge repudiation of them, their policies, their tactics and their ways. They can hold hands all they want, band together like a political phalanx, and proclaim that the midterms were not a mandate, but the fact of the matter is this: We bought them via donations to their campaigns. We paid for them via generous salaries and benefits. We thought they would be good civil servants, but they just didn’t work as intended. Thankfully, we kept the receipt and we returned them – last week.

posted November 15, 2014 09:32 AM            

Now Pelosi and Dems are washing him out of their hair and denying he helped write the bill.

$400,000.00 tax payer dollars later, who believes them?

posted November 17, 2014 08:40 AM            

November 14, 2014 12:00 AM
Thank You, Jonathan Gruber
Obamistas believe they had to lie to pass Obamacare because Americans are stupid.
Rich Lowry

The epic search of the Greek philosopher Diogenes for an honest man is finally over. His name is Jonathan Gruber, and he is an MIT economist once known as an intellectual architect of Obamacare, although his status is being rapidly downgraded by the law’s supporters with every one of his uncomfortably frank utterances about President Barack Obama’s signature initiative.

Video surfaced of Gruber saying at a panel discussion at the University of Pennsylvania last year that the law was written in a deceptive, nontransparent way to exploit “the stupidity of the American voter.”

Gruber swiftly went on MSNBC to explain that his comments should be discounted because he was speaking “off the cuff.” Then two other videos surfaced of him saying much the same thing at different venues. Calling the American public stupid appears to have been one of Gruber’s favorite rhetorical tropes. At one of his appearances, his audience can be heard laughing appreciatively.

H. L. Mencken famously wrote that no one has “ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.” Or, Gruber might add, ever failed to pass major social legislation by doing the same.

His impolitic remarks now have some Obama supporters suggesting that Gruber — one of the most influential health-care wonks in the country, who was integral to crafting the Massachusetts precursor to Obamacare and then Obamacare itself — is just some random, poorly spoken guy.

This denies Gruber his due. He has done us all a favor by affording us an unvarnished look into the progressive mind, which values complexity over simplicity, favors indirect taxes and impositions on the American public so their costs can be hidden, and has a dim view of the average American.

Complexity is a staple of liberal policymaking. It is a product of its scale and reach, but also of the imperative to hide the ball. Taxing and spending and redistributive schemes tend to be unpopular, so clever ways have to be found to deny that they are happening. This is what Gruber was getting at. One reason Obamacare was so convoluted is that its supporters didn’t want to straightforwardly admit how much the law was raising taxes and using the young and healthy to subsidize everyone else.

Gruber crowed about the exertions undertaken to make an unpopular tax on expensive health-insurance plans, the so-called Cadillac tax, more palatable. It was levied on employers instead of employees. No one realized, Gruber explained, that the tax would be functionally the same even if not directly imposed on workers. This wasn’t a one-off deception. This kind of sleight of hand is crucial to the progressive project, which always involves imposing taxes, regulations, and mandates at one remove from the average person so he or she won’t realize that the costs are passed down regardless.

Most liberals would never come out and call Americans stupid in a public forum, as Gruber did. But the debate between conservatives and liberals on health-care policy and much else comes down to how much average Americans can be trusted to make decisions on their own without the guiding, correcting hand of government. An assumption that Americans are incompetent is woven into the Left’s worldview. It is reluctant to entrust individuals with free choice for fear they will exercise it poorly and irresponsibly.

So Gruber deserves to be listened to, even if he ultimately got it wrong. The public is smarter than he and other Obamacare supporters give it credit for. It has never believed the magical, deliberately deceptive promises about Obamacare, or supported the law that continues to be a drag on the Democratic party.

posted November 18, 2014 09:31 AM            

O'Bomber says "I heard you too"!

What O'Bomber and his Kool-Aid drinking minions didn't hear and still haven't heard...was America telling O'Bomber and his Socialist comrades in Congress...to stop screwing up America. America voted for a Republican majority in both Houses to STOP O'BOMBER AND HIS SOCIALIST COMRADES IN CONGRESS..

Let me suggest those Republicans who now hold the majorities in the House and Senate better listen.

Let me put it simply. America said:

posted November 18, 2014 10:19 AM            

Damn Americans. They just don’t see the wisdom of surrendering to experts the power they need to remake the country into a progressive paradise.

Sighing with regret, liberals like Jonathan Gruber admit that they’re forced to hoodwink the citizens. For their own good.

Gruber, the MIT economist who (in the words of The New York Times) “put together the basic principles of” ObamaCare and helped Congress “draft the specifics of the legislation” is one of a long line of liberals driven by the belief that the stupidity of the American people is so insurmountable that persuasion is futile.

Liberalism: the place where compassion blurs into condescension.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically, that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass,” Gruber said, in a newly unearthed 2013 video that went viral last week.

Gruber’s jocular tone wasn’t surprising. In explaining why a huge tax increase was disguised to conceal it from the American people, he was admitting what was obvious to close observers: The law is really just a redistribution scheme.

Even the Democrats didn’t think ObamaCare could pass by being so described.

That’s why deception, as Gruber says, was central to its design.

Profiting from deceit

Except Gruber got it wrong: The people weren’t actually fooled. Most Americans are not wonks. They simply suspected that the law was too good to be true.

ObamaCare will cut your premiums? By $2,500 a year? And reduce the deficit? While giving gold-plated coverage to tens of millions more people? Who won’t have to pay much? And none of this will result in anyone losing their current plan?

To the average person, Obama sounded like a used-car dealer shouting, “Free Ferrari. Gets 100 miles to the gallon! Did I mention it runs on rainwater?”

Americans didn’t buy it. Never did. At no time has approval for ObamaCare hit 50% in the Gallup poll.

So the Democrats pushed the program through anyway, without a single Republican vote, via legislative legerdemain.

No program of similar scope had ever been rammed through without bipartisan support. The only thing bipartisan about ObamaCare was the opposition: 34 House Democrats joined all of the Republicans to vote against it.

What’s important about Gruber’s words is that they highlight the fact that ObamaCare isn’t just “controversial” or “divisive” or “hotly debated.” It is fraudulent. Being based on lies, it is illegitimate.

The arguments made in its behalf were tainted. When Democrats including Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and even the elves who run the White House website wanted to push the idea that impartial experts agreed with its sunny projections about ObamaCare, they turned to…Jonathan Gruber.

“Objective Analysis Shows Reform will Help Small Businesses, Lower Premiums for American Families,” said a Nov. 4, 2009 White House blog post that referred to Gruber’s supposedly unbiased opinion.

To the average person, Obama sounded like a used-car dealer.”

Yet Gruber joined the HHS payroll right after Obama took office, in March 2009. He was paid $392,600 to consult on ObamaCare. Some might call this kind of arrangement “corruption.”

It’s like an expert witness appearing in court to swear that BP never spilled any oil while working as BP’s $400,000-a-year publicist.

But that’s not the only way Gruber personally profited from the Affordable Care Act. After he “pretty much wrote ObamaCare” (liberal health-care journalist Sarah Kliff), he hit the road to promote it — and got paid via funding provided by the same law.

Minnesota paid him $400,000 of ObamaCare money to attend one meeting, print a copy of a report and participate in an e-mail list, The Washington Times reported.

Wisconsin and Vermont each paid Gruber $400,000 for similar “work.” West Virginia, Maine, Colorado and Oregon also hired him, though the Times didn’t say how much they paid him. So Gruber has made more than $1.5 million from ObamaCare — that we know of.

But don’t worry, the Government Accountability Office already investigated, and cleared him.

Though it’s against the law for federal agencies to use funds for propaganda, and though Gruber published many op-eds praising ObamaCare without disclosing that he was a paid government contractor, GAO ruled that all of this proselytizing was simply a hobby.

‘Decontextualized bits of fact’

Liberals call President Bush a con artist, or worse, for launching a war because of an active WMD program in Iraq. But Bush genuinely believed Iraq had WMDs.

So did every major foreign intelligence agency on earth, even France’s. So did Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, who voted for the war based on the same intelligence Bush saw.

Bush acted on information he believed to be true. That is not lying.

Telling the American people something you know to be false — if you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what — is lying.

Defenders scrambling to defend the administration’s lies are beclowning themselves.

“‘Stupidity’ is unfair. Ignorance is a more accurate term,” wrote Jonathan Chait in New York magazine.

To the charge that ObamaCare was crafted in a deliberately deceptive way, Chait replies that Gruber is talking about something totally different: “He was trying to explain how the law’s architects had to compromise the simple technocratic purity they might use to design the law in an academic setting to account for an irrational political system in which tiny bits of fact can be decontextualized and manipulated by demagogues.”

Nice one, Jacques Derrida. Fellas, next time you tell your wife you’re going to Phoenix to attend Aunt Sophie’s funeral and evidence emerges that you instead spent the weekend with three hookers in an EconoLodge in Reno, try this one: “I had to compromise my simple technocratic purity to account for an irrational marital-vows system in which tiny bits of fact can be decontextualized, honey!”

I don’t recall anyone saying that Todd Akin’s strange rape remarks were “decontextualized bits of fact.” Then again, let’s keep in mind the relative importance of these gotcha moments.

Akin was idly theorizing off the cuff about a topic that had nothing to do with anything that would ever pass his desk if elected, whereas Gruber was talking about the months of strategic thinking involved in a $2 trillion law he co-wrote that is the single biggest piece of legislation in the last half century.

On MSNBC, contributor Josh Barro essayed a blame-the-victim line of reasoning: It’s “the public,” he said, that “puts politicians in a position where the only thing they can do to make the public happy is lie and so, people lied.”

Wrote Danny Vinik in a “Who cares?” piece in The New Republic, “While it’s nice to imagine a world in which politicians promoting ideas were always forthright, balanced and disinterested, that’s not realistic.”

We’ll see if Vinik shrugs the next time he catches a Republican in a lie.

History of misleading

The brutal effects of the lies are still coming in. More and more Americans will see their premiums rise. More and more Americans will be tossed out of their current insurance.

More and more Americans will become more and more angry about this.

And all of this to solve a problem that was as overhyped as “The Amazing Spider-Man 2.”

In July 2009, six months into the Obama era, a Time magazine poll found that while there was widespread consternation with something called “the system” (i.e., what people were told about others, from news reports), 86% of Americans approved of their own personal health care.

Eighty-six percent! Abraham Lincoln wishes his approval ratings were that high. We’re talking about something that Americans liked at least as much as motherhood, the Grand Canyon and summer.

But it had to be completely redesigned, because there just wasn’t enough for the Jonathan Grubers and Jonathan Chaits of the world to do.

The reason liberals consistently mislead, or try to mislead, the public on their policies is that they don’t pass the common-sense test.

During the stimulus debate, we were told that, because of a magical fairy dust called the “Keynesian multiplier,” a dollar of federal spending would actually pump four or five dollars or six dollars into the economy.

Today, it’s the young and relatively poor who are subsidizing older, richer people.

Worrying about the resulting debt, we were told, betrayed a misunderstanding of economic science, which we all know is completely scientific and not speculative at all.

Unlimited spending, though, sounds frightening to everyone but experts. “Why do we even bother to show fiscal restraint?” pointed out Michael Kinsley in The Atlantic. “Why have taxes at all? Why deny ourselves anything money can buy? If $15 trillion in debt can be a freebie, why not $30 trillion or $60 trillion?”

Liberal “caring” and liberal lying were partners even in Social Security. In order to win Supreme Court approval of the program, the FDR administration had to argue (truthfully) that it was a tax-and-welfare scheme — not an insurance plan.

Problem: Americans, even in the 1930s, weren’t fond of a dole.

As William Cohen, one of the architects of the program, explained at the time, “The American public was and still is insurance-minded and opposed to welfare, the ‘dole’ and ‘handouts.’”

Yet after the Supreme Court OK’d Social Security, the people were told in a pamphlet, “Your [Social Security] card shows that you have an insurance account with the US government — federal old age and survivors insurance. This is a national insurance plan for all workers.”

It was the opposite of what the New Dealers told the Supreme Court.

The Social Security tax taken out of your paycheck was designed as an illusion — to make you think the government is just banking the money for you instead of conducting a massive intergenerational transfer of wealth.

Today, it’s the young and relatively poor who are subsidizing older, richer people.

Undermining government

Conservatives are skeptical about government claims in the first place. Gazing at a pothole that’s sat untouched for two years, we tend to doubt that a single law is going to fix health care nationwide for everybody.

It’s supporters of the party of government who should be most upset by government deception. As Fournier put it in National Journal, “[Gruber] called you stupid. He admitted that the White House lied to you. Its officials lied to all of us — Republicans, Democrats, and independents; rich and poor; white and brown; men and women.

“Liberals should be the angriest. Not only were they personally deceived, but the administration’s dishonest approach to health care reform has helped make ObamaCare unpopular while undermining the public’s faith in an activist government. A double blow to progressives.”

posted November 30, 2014 01:29 PM            

Now that Gruber has exposed their lies about O'BomberCare and admits demoscats played on the "stupidity of Americans" to pass the pile of trash known as O'BomberCare, they claim to not know who Gruber is!!

Well, it's understandable demoscats don't want to be associated with Gruber. It's also understandable demoscats don't want to be associated with O'Bomber or O'BomberCare. So far, 28 demoscat US Senators who voted for O'BomberCare are gone from the US Senate and more than 80 demoscat US House members are gone...gone...gone!

Couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch of Socialist jerks.

Democrats willfully, repeatedly lied to sell Obamacare: Kevin O'Brien
November 18, 2014

Democrats are sprinting, but they can't outrun Jonathan Gruber. He's a loud, scary tin can tied to their tails.

President Barack Obama dismissed him over the weekend as "some adviser who never worked on our staff." Gruber met face-to-face with Obama at the White House in 2009 and has worn a path to the executive mansion's door since then — the expected level of dedication for someone paid close to $400,000 for his legislation-writing and propagandizing services.

Democrats who, until two weeks ago, never missed an opportunity to remind Obamacare's critics that the federal program's prototype was Romneycare in Massachusetts — primary architect, Jonathan Gruber — are now looking for a new way of inviting Republicans to shut up.

Nancy Pelosi, who was speaker of the House when the laughably misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was written behind closed doors and rammed through Congress, at first told reporters, "I don't know who he is." After numerous instances resurfaced in which Pelosi had praised Gruber by name for his help and expertise, an aide amended her denial: "She said she doesn't know who he is, not that she's never heard of him."

Oh, she's heard of him, all right.

Worse yet, she and the rest of Obamacare's backers, boosters and bullies spent all of last week hearing from him.

In video after smugly boastful video posted on the Internet from interviews, panel discussions and meetings with state officials, Gruber laid bare the Obamacare sales strategy: Lie to everyone in sight and keep the truth as far out of sight as possible.

The first video in the chain shows Gruber explaining that the bill was written in a "tortured" way to make sure the Congressional Budget Office wouldn't realize that the individual mandate — the federal edict that every member of the public will buy health insurance or pay a fee — is a tax. He speaks glowingly of the "huge political advantage" conferred by "lack of transparency," and notes that "the stupidity of the American voter" was critical to the bill's passage.

Things he didn't mention, but could have, include the breathtaking cynicism of a presidential administration that would make lying to Americans the basis of its strategy, and the dishonor of every Democrat in Congress who put party loyalty above the good of constituents to vote unquestioningly for a lie.

Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber is a tin can tied to Washington Democrats' tail, Kevin O'Brien writes.

As for gaming the CBO, no one should be surprised at that tactic. It was clear at the time that the agency was being fed garbage numbers that would produce garbage scoring. The costs were hidden but not invisible. Congressional Democrats chose to play along with the charade.

In rapid succession, more videos followed in which Gruber reprised the voter-stupidity remark and bragged about demonizing "evil insurance companies," and relying on Americans' "lack of economic understanding" to keep them from looking deeper.

Democrats made the most of that idea. Insurance companies were the "villains" — Pelosi's exact word — back in 2009, right up to the moment they made a deal to guarantee their future by signing on to Obamacare. Now, they rake in money from states' Medicaid expansions, enjoy regulations that freeze out competition and await a taxpayer-financed bailout when — not if — Obamacare hurts their balance sheets.

In another video, Gruber says the public sales pitch for Obamacare was all about saving consumers money, even though the bill was "90 percent health insurance coverage and 10 percent cost control." It also contains this admission: "The only way we're going to stop our country from being a latter-day Roman Empire and falling under its own weight is getting control of the growth rate of health care costs. The problem is we don't know how."

Remember how Obama and his surrogates yammered on and on about "bending the cost curve"? Remember all that talk about the typical family's premium dropping by $2,500? People who believed that nonsense may be forgiven for not knowing better. Now we find out that the people who peddled that nonsense knew better all along.

In a clip from a 2011 speech at the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research, Gruber confesses that Obamacare's tax on employer-provided "Cadillac" insurance plans is a calculated deception designed to kill all employer-provided plans. The tax, which employers must pay, is capped so that when it takes effect in 2018, it will apply only to plans that cost more than $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family. But that cap changes with the consumer price index — a benchmark that increases much more slowly than the rate of inflation for medical goods and services.

"What that means," Gruber says, "is the tax which starts by only taxing about the top 8 percent of health insurance plans essentially amounts over the next 20 years to basically getting rid of the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance" by making it financially impossible for employers to offer it. Their employees would end up on the government health insurance exchanges. Single-payer, here we come.

In a 2012 PBS Frontline interview, Gruber says Obama himself helped to cook up the Cadillac tax deception: "Now, the problem is, it's a political nightmare ... and people say, 'No, you can't tax my benefits.' So what we did a lot in that room was talk about, well, how could we make this work? And Obama was like, 'Well, you know' — I mean, he is really a realistic guy — he is like, 'Look, I can't just do this.' He said: 'It is just not going to happen, politically. The bill will not pass. How do we manage to get there through phases and other things?' And we talked about it. And he was just very interested in that topic. Once again, that ultimately became the genesis of what is called the Cadillac tax in the health care bill, which I think is one of the most important and bravest parts of the health care law and doesn't get nearly enough credit."

posted December 04, 2014 11:53 PM            

28 US Senators and about 80 US House member have bitten the dust because they voted for O'BomberCare. More to follow!

Sebelius: Who’s Jonathan Gruber?
December 04 2014
Doug Brady

It’s amazing how nobody involved with the ObamaCare debacle remembers meeting the guy they hired to serve as its primary architect.

WASHINGTON — Former Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius, disputing the description of MIT professor Jonathan Gruber as an architect of the Affordable Care Act, says she had never met with him and minimized the significance of his controversial comments describing passage of the law.

Gruber, a prominent health economist and federal consultant, is scheduled to testify before a House committee next week about his remarks that the 2010 law deliberately was drafted "in a tortured way" to obscure the reality that it created a system in which "healthy people pay in and sick people get money."

In a 2013 video that recently emerged, he said the law passed in part because of "the stupidity of the American voter." Republican critics of the health care law have seized on the comments as exposing deception by the administration from the law’s beginnings.
http://conservatives4palin.com/2014/12/susan-page-sebelius-jonathan-gruber.html

posted December 05, 2014 03:35 PM            

Only 36 percent of Americans expressed approval of Democrats in a Gallup poll Nov. 12, the lowest in the 22 years Gallup has been asking that question. Republicans were approved of by 42 percent. In Gallup’s poll 13 months ago, 43 percent had approved of Democrats, just 28 percent of the GOP.

To understand how Democrats could fall so far so fast, consider MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, to whom the Obama administration paid $400,000 to help design Obamacare.

Prof. Gruber thinks he’s very smart, and you aren’t.

“[Obamacare] was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies,” he said during a health care conference at the University of Pennsylvania in October of last year.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Mr. Gruber said. “Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass.”

Since it was comprised of fellow liberal elitists, Mr. Gruber assumed, correctly, that his audience would chuckle appreciatively at his smackdown of the Great Unwashed. But if he were as smart as he thinks he is, he’d have remembered that most cell phones are also recording devices.

He “spoke inappropriately” and regrets having made those comments, Mr. Gruber said after video of him making them was posted on the Internet.

Obamacare “is a very clever basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter,” he said at the University of Rhode Island in November 2012.

The Obamacare tax on high end health plans passed because “the American people are too stupid to understand the difference,” Mr. Gruber said at Washington University in St. Louis in October, 2013.

If the Supreme Court administers the coup de grace to Obamacare by ruling the language in the statute that says subsidies may be paid only to those who buy insurance on “exchanges established by the State” means subsidies may be paid only to those who buy insurance on state exchanges, Mr. Gruber’s loose lips will be chiefly responsible.

That provision was put in the law because Obamacare’s authors wanted to bully states to set up exchanges, Mr. Gruber said in a speech in San Francisco in January 2012.

“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,” he said. “I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together.”

That statement undermines the administration argument that Congress intended eligible purchasers on the federal exchange to get subsidies too.

It was a “speak-o,” Mr. Gruber said after video of those remarks surfaced. Which was a stupid lie, because shortly after he made it, videos emerged of him saying the same thing on two other occasions.

Mr. Gruber’s contempt is misplaced. Americans were suspicious of Obamacare from the get go. That’s why Democrats had to use a parliamentary maneuver in the middle of the night to pass it.

I used to think most Democrats in Congress who voted for it really believed they were doing something good for the poor and the middle class. Now I wonder. It’s crystal clear that just about everything President Barack Obama promised about his health plan was false, his deception deliberate. If Democrats really cared for the people harmed by the law, you’d think they’d admit their mistake, try to fix it. They haven’t.

Perhaps they put party loyalty ahead of the welfare of their constituents, are afraid of crossing the president or are as stupid as Mr. Gruber thinks the American people are.

I suspect it’s because Truman Democrats have been replaced by Gruber Democrats — self-styled elitists who feed lavishly at the public trough and think government should serve them, not the hoi polloi they disdain and deceive.

posted March 16, 2015 10:55 AM            

Further, state after state have rescinded his very lucrative contracts in attempts to put as much distance from their governors and legislatures and Gruber as possible.

Americans despise O'BomberCare as much as they did before O'Bomber and his Socialist comrades in Congress lied it into existence on a Christmas Eve vote without a single Republican vote.

Americans have been paying these lying Socialist demoscat House and Senate congressional members back by involuntarily retiring them from their cushy jobs in Washington.

March 16, 2015
Gruber's Grasp
Jerome J. Schmitt

“Oregon abolishes its hopelessly bungled health insurance exchange” reported the LA Times on March 7. This $250 million disaster -- a total loss -- is the latest in a series of spectacular failures surrounding the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. These failures began to be revealed, of course, with the inept, incompetent and failed rollout of “Heathcare.gov” website -- which still has no functioning “back end.” Americans are probably wondering whether there will ever be a post-disaster investigation or “after-action report” similar to what might transpire if a helicopter crashes or a bridge collapses. Fortunately, Breitbart News has already unearthed some telling clues. Let’s begin at the beginning:

Remember President Obama’s 2009 remarks dripping with sanctimony concerning greedy doctors?

“You come in and you’ve got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats,” President Obama explained at Wednesday’s press conference. “The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out.’

In other words, those who undertake the Hippocratic Oath can no longer be trusted. Here we see the Democratic Party’s overt contempt for medical professionals; M.D.s cannot be trusted with their patients’ well being unless they are closely supervised by their moral superiors, namely leading Democratic politicians, lawyers and health-care economists.

Let’s update this script to 2015 to place in context Breitbart News’s revelations of built-in contract fraud at the heart of the Affordable Care Act. If we were to restate it: The doctor (Prof. Gruber) may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself ‘You know what? I make a lot more money (compared to my MIT salary) if I take this kid’s tonsils out award myself lucrative no-bid personal federal and state consulting contracts as direct statutory requirement of the Affordable Care Act -- of which I am the architect.”

These outrageous fees ($500/hour) to Prof. Gruber are required by federal law because his software econometrics model of healthcare exchanges is specifically required for implementation -- not only for the Federal Government but also all the states attempting to set up their own “exchanges.” Prof. Gruber has circumvented competitive bidding and resultant cost-containment by claiming unique proprietary capabilities available nowhere else in the market. This law constituted carte-blanche for Prof. Gruber to write his own highly lucrative consulting contracts with the States. As Breitbart’s Michael Patrick Leahy reports:

‘Gruber’s Obamacare-related financial bonanza is based, in part, on the ubiquitous use of his proprietary Gruber Microsimulation Model in virtually every executive and legislative entity involved in the design and implementation of Obamacare: the White House, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Congressional Budget Office (which is charged with providing Congress “independent” analysis of the impact of proposed legislation), and most state governments.

Gruber has essentially enjoyed a monopoly on economic analysis of Obamacare since February 25, 2009, barely a month after President Obama’s inauguration. On that date, the federal government issued a public notice that “[t]he Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), intends to negotiate with Jonathan Gruber, Ph.D. on a sole sources basis for technical assistance in evaluating options for national healthcare reform.”

According to Solicitation Number AES2009 for Technical Assistance in Evaluating Options for Health Reform, “The basis for restricting competition is the authority 13.106-1(b) because only one source is reasonably available to satisfy agency requirements. The anticipated contract period will be for one year.”

In essence, someone in the Obama administration wanted to make Gruber’s proprietary Gruber Microsimulation Model the “must have” analytic tool not only for the federal government, but also for every state government that would subsequently implement Obamacare after it became law, something that would not become reality until a year later, in March 2010.’

Prof. Gruber, the Architect, used these legal provisions as pretext to arrange lucrative, no-bid, sole-source personal consulting contracts not only from the Federal Government, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), but also many states attempting to set up “exchanges.” These contracts resulted in $500 per hour fees to Prof. Gruber personally -- not including separate contracts to pay for his expenses -- resulting in million-dollar-a-year personal compensation (nice work if you can get it!) Americans instinctively know that this arrangement is rotten to the core, but let us examine the implications. It is corrupt on many levels, as is beginning to be revealed by Breitbart and auditors in State Governments.

Federal Acquisition Regulation

As a customer with unique needs, the Federal Government is what economists term a “monopsony,” a marketplace where market-forces are severely curtailed by the fact that there is only one buyer. Procurement opportunities therefore can easily be abused by the politically-connected. In response to war profiteering and other past procurement scandals, Congress has legislated a dense body of law known as the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). There is no doubt that the special arrangement with Prof. Gruber is inconsistent with the FAR on many points. The fifty states have similar procurement laws.

First, the award of no-bid contracts by the federal government to “sole source” contractors is extremely rare and generally illegal; open bidding against a “request for proposal” published in the Federal Register is usually the only legal way to award a contract. Federal employees who arrange the procurement -- led by a federal “contract officer” -- are proscribed by law from favoring or assisting one bidder to the detriment of others. Second, the award of long term contracts to persons is extremely rare as well, not least because it may circumvent GS schedules that impose legal limits on compensation to Federal Employees. Federal contracts are nearly always awarded to business corporations or partnerships that are expected to keep an accurate and auditable set of books, maintained according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

Conflict-of-Interest

Imagine if the FDA hired a medical panel to weigh the efficacy and cost-benefits of a new cancer drug, and they included on this august panel a member who owned the commercial rights to one of the drugs under consideration. One could not help but assume that the panel’s deliberations would be biased toward the panelist’s own submission. For this laudable reason, the DHHS has strict regulations against conflict of interest. When did it become clear that Dr. Gruber was not only ruling on the technical efficacy of health care reform, but with such rulings also forcing the states to make him a very rich man? Did he properly disclose to DHHS his financial stake? Not being a permanent employee, Prof. Gruber’s DHHS contract probably falls generally under the rules applied by NIH’s Office of Extramural Research, whose definition of Conflict of Interest can be found on here:

“A Financial conflict of Interest (FCOI) exists when the Institution’s designated official(s) reasonably determines that a Significant Financial Interest (defined below) could directly and significantly affect the design, conduct, or reporting of NIH-funded research.”

“Significant Financial Interest is defined by the regulation as anything of monetary value, including but not limited to:

•salary or other payment for services (e.g. consulting fees or honoraria).

•equity interests (e.g. stocks, stock options, or other ownership interests)

•intellectual property rights (e.g. patents, copyrights, and royalties from such rights).

Is it not clear that at some point Prof. Gruber’s estimated $5.3 million on consulting fees for his “intellectual property” constitutes a Conflict of Interest that disqualifies him from dispassionate weighing of health care options? He also claims 100% ownership in his namesake software model. Creators in the private sector generally owe commercial rights to their work-product to their employers, clients or companies. Prof. Gruber’s IP obligations are doubtless recorded in the MIT faculty employment manual. If Prof. Guber’s conduct is any guide, MIT is quite generous with its IP.

Timesheets

In satisfying the aforementioned bonanza in the demand for the statutory mandated purchase of Prof. Gruber’s consulting time, it appears he may have also double- or triple-billed his time. Almost all financial fraud arises from falsifying -- in some manner or another -- one of three types of primary commercial documents: 1) forged bank documents; 2) false invoices submitted for payment or reimbursement; or 3) falsified timesheets submitted for compensation for employment or consulting hours. Instances of the latter fraud would include “ghost” or “no show” employees[1]. This is noted to explain why the rules for time sheets are so strict, especially as they pertain to government-funded cost-reimbursement type contracts (i.e. nearly all federal contracts) which are particularly vulnerable to abuses such as shifting costs to the federal contract (where they are duly reimbursed) from the private sector work, making the latter effectively more profitable.

Breitbart reports that Prof. Gruber’s contract with the State of Vermont has become subject to a state audit complete with referral to the Vermont Attorney General. What is remarkable is the additional detailed reported by Breitbart concerning his most recent invoice to the State of Vermont, submitted for payment in late December after the audit had commenced. To one familiar with government contracts administration, it’s astonishing to see Prof. Gruber record 80 hours (in other words, about 1/2 full time) of personal time billed at $500 / hour This would indicate a rate of roughly a $1 million annual salary for the period October 15 through November 15 2014 -- the height of the first semester at MIT, yielding a total monthly bill of $40,000. While it is true that such high or higher billing rates are often seen on the open market for legal, technical and financial experts, these are usually for shorter term engagements. It appears by the sums involved, that Prof. Gruber was being retained for months or perhaps years at a time for substantial part-time engagements away from MIT. Indeed, Prof. Gruber’s public sector funded personal compensation appears to be higher than that afforded to both the President of the United States and the Governor of Vermont.

It is notable how generous is his primary employer, who lent out Prof. Gruber’s million-dollar talent to their neighbors across state lines, while no doubt retaining 100% obligation for his full-time benefits as a tenured faculty member at MIT. In this, the MIT administration foregoes any teaching of students that would otherwise be handled by Prof. Gruber. While his biographical sketch on the MIT website records a formal leave of absence in 1997-1998 it appears that he is full-time at MIT today, yet the only link to any class teaching dates from 2010. As can be shown further below, this hourly time commitment to Vermont alone is approaching or in excess of ½ time for Prof. Gruber’s direct billable hours. It appears that Prof. Gruber is free to apportion however much of his time wherever he chooses.

Yet at the same time, Breitbart reports that Prof. had many other clients during the roughly same time periods.

Breitbart’s estimate of $5.2 million is based on publicly available reports on the amounts of Gruber’s Obamacare design and implementation contracts with the federal government ($392,600) and four states: Michigan ($481,050), Minnesota ($329,000), Vermont ($400,000), and Wisconsin ($400,000), as well as assumptions about contract sizes with eight additional states with which Gruber has contracts: West Virginia, Maine, Colorado, Oregon, Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas, and California. The amount of those contracts has not been publicly reported:

As The Washington Post reported on Friday, “It’s safe to say that about $400,000 appears to be the standard rate for gaining access to the Gruber Microsimulation Model.”

Prof. Gruber seems to have an extremely elastic sense of the number of personal consulting hours he has available to bill these many other clients. Have we reached “Peak Gruber” yet?

This over-commitment of his personal billable time is particularly egregious insult to all those “29ers,” Americans who find despite their bests efforts that they cannot gain jobs offering more than 29 hours which is deemed “part time” only, not subject to employer-provided health-care benefits under Prof. Gruber’s Affordable Care Act.

Romneycare and MIT’s Intellectual Property

In fairness to his colleagues in government, it is probably safe to say that when Prof. Gruber spoke of basing Obamacare, in part, on his “Microsimulation Model,” fellow Democrats and civil servants probably assumed he was, at that moment, wearing his “MIT Professor Hat.” It makes some sense that the State of Massachusetts, having years of experience with Romneycare, would be enlisted to instruct the other states in the implementation of Obamacare. But that’s not what happened. Professor Gruber took personal control of the aforementioned model, retailing it as “proprietary,” owned solely by consultant Gruber personally. This is corrupt for a number of reasons:
1.To be effective, any such model should be based on Romneycare data (at a minimum), i.e. the healthcare data collected by the State of Massachusetts on behalf of its citizens who are also the patients. While it is easy to see how MIT ended up having this data, how did Prof. Gruber attain sole personal rights to that data?
2.The Microsimulation model was surely developed while Prof. Gruber was full time employee at MIT, an educational institution which not only paid his salary but also provided office and classroom space, colleagues, computer resources, students, travel expenses, etc. etc. Again, how did Prof. Gruber attain this model as his sole property?
3.Prof. Gruber claims the model is his proprietary “trade secret.” This is anathema to the university’s mission to discover and disseminate new information. For context, note that students are paying tuition to be at a university; they cannot be asked at the same time to keep secret the knowledge they learn. Trade secrets are never recognized by universities[2] who are known to rigorously (and correctly) guard their right to publish, even when the research is defense-related and supported by the Pentagon. While it is true that universities seek patents, contrary to popular belief, patent filings are publications. The confusion may arise because inventions must be kept secret temporarily while a patent application is prepared; this is because the patent application by law must be the first publication describing the new invention; otherwise it cannot be patented. As far as we know, Prof. Gruber has never published the details of his model.

A key consequence of Point 3 is that Prof. Gruber’s model, being a proprietary trade secret, has never been subject to peer review. The Obama administration therefore accepted this model as accurate and effective just based on Prof. Gruber’s self-serving say-so.

Universities have well developed systems to manage federally funded research projects. Most graduate students are supported by grants that pay their tuition and stipend. Universities compete to hire top scholars -- academic superstars -- in order to a) burnish their reputations, b) attract talented junior faculty and students, and c) win grant funding to support the entire enterprise (“rainmakers”). Prof. Gruber seems to have bypassed his employer, pocketing the federal and state funding directly, without regard to any professional obligations to his colleagues and students.

Phantom Employees

Vastly compounding his problem with overbilling his own time is the suspicion also reported by Breitbart that he has submitted $80,000 billings to the State of Vermont alone for phantom employees (research assistants). The suspicion is that he pocketed the money himself and never actually employed anyone[3]. It is inconceivable that this severe accusation has not circulated in Cambridge and environs. Yet in the weeks since this accusation was first published -- in the sense of the “dog that didn’t bark” -- no one has come forward to say: “It’s all a misunderstanding! I am Prof. Gruber’s former student and it was me! I was the one who did the work and billed the time to the Vermont project!” This accusation, if true, clearly could lead to potential criminal charge of contract fraud. While maintaining silence, his colleagues, perhaps resentful and disgusted by his blatant “cashing in,” have not rallied to his defense.

Where was the work of these research assistants conducted? Is there and off-campus office somewhere nearby where they report to work? Running a private enterprise on-campus usually is strictly forbidden. Do they work from home? Do they work at his home? In a tight-knit community of scholars such as Cambridge, especially within a specialized field, there is general awareness among aspiring students and freelance specialists of which employers are hiring, firing, etc. Such scuttlebutt cannot be kept secret for long.

posted March 16, 2015 12:14 PM            

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Mr. Gruber said. “Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass.”

posted March 17, 2015 02:33 AM            

Hint: don't bother relying on all the usual info outlets (MSM) for the TRUTH.
You just get caught up in myriads of irrelevant details..which keep you from understanding the Bigger Picture..

posted March 17, 2015 08:22 AM            

IF he said that?? IF,IF,IF he said that??

Hello, earth to the delusional leftist world of unreality:

He was quoted in most major newspapers and news networks as saying THAT.

He was also quoted by these same news sources apologizing for saying THAT.

Hahaha And now, you come along and say...IF he said THAT????

I understand the desire of O'Bomber's marching Kool-Aid drinkers to protect their little Marxist Messiah from the consequences of lying straight through his teeth to America.

posted March 17, 2015 08:35 AM            

Finally an all seeing, all knowing seer appears among us.

What must we stupid Americans do to escape the tangled web of conspiracy entangling us?

325 million Americans want to know and I want to know too.

Some of us have already made a start. We ignore the so called Main Stream Media..MSM as sources of blither, blather, bloviation and babbling.

posted March 17, 2015 02:05 PM            

As to "now you are beginning to see the light" Swanny, I have lived abroad and in the States and while seeing America from the outside broadens ones perspective, It also teaches one that other countries somehow ALSO think "that doesnt happen here" and judge America from a slanted angle too. I don't know where you are but its likely your govt is no cleaner than ours and your People no more autonomous/enlightened

posted March 18, 2015 08:33 AM            

Your analysis is faulty. The word IF...as you used it is a condition precedent. It therefore becomes the most important word in what you said.

"IF he said that he is an arse blowing hot air".

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Trying to cast doubt on Grubers utterances though it was widely reported by the media that he did actually say THAT.

Your point that the people didn't vote for O'BomberCare is valid.

The people's so called representatives DID vote for O'BomberCare and the "people" are so pi$$ed at demoscats and O'Bomber that they involuntarily retired hoards of demoscats for doing so and gave republicans control of both the House of Representatives and US Senate.

posted March 18, 2015 02:16 PM            

As for Gruber, okay. He is an arse and trying to make himself look more savvy than he ever will be. His contempt for Americans is his own issue and those politicians who knew the People weren't going to vote on the actual text did not write it to deceive those people.