by ET » Thu Nov 13, 2014 10:17 am
I'd be very much interested if Mr. Gruber would care to provide a broader excerpt of his talks just so we could decide for ourselves whether or not the remarks were out of context. I have no reason to believe they were, especially since there's another clip of him talking about the "Cadillac tax" on company health plans and how Americans were to "stupid" to understand the difference. Taxing the citizens directly wasn't politically workable. Taxing them indirectly through their insurance providers wouldn't be clear to them. Similarly, politicians can get away with taxing Americans by taxing "corporations" because most Americans don't stop to think that when politicians tax a corporation, they are just indirectly taxing individual Americans.
Gruber's comments go right along with Pelosi's statement some years back that "we've got to pass the bill to find out what's in it". Gruber doesn't do himself any favors by trying to spin his comments into saying that the GOP is trying to confuse Americans so they don't realize "so that they don’t understand that the subsidies they’re getting is because of the law". Sorry, Gruber....you're the one trying to confuse things. You got caught in a moment of honesty and now you're trying to weasel out of it.
I'll also point out the part in the clip where he talks about it not being political advantageous to mention that healthy people will be taxed to pay for the insurance of less healthy people. Not sure how one can argue that is "out of context". It's the precise way the thing works. Why else mandate people have insurance, especially the young who often don't buy it? 'cause the young will be buying health insurance that a huge part of them will never use, so they're subsidizing older folks who incur more expenses.
As Mr. Gruber has pointed out, I got "taxed" on Obamacare by having my out-of-pocket deductibles raised more than 100% so that my company didn't get dinged with the "Cadillac tax" due to them being too generous with their health care provisions. Obama also taxed me by limiting the amount of pre-tax money I can put into my HSA - capping it at $2500 a year. So now, if I anticipate a surgery (such as the possible rotator cuff for my wife), I can't jack up my HSA contributions for 2015 and pay for it with pre-tax dollars. Nope, I get to pay for anything above $2500 in medical expenses with "after tax" dollars.
In any insurance scheme, one way to reduce premiums is to increase the out-of-pocket expenses and deductibles. My deductible has more than doubled....thus, the premiums don't need to increase as much. Obamacare means I've got to pay $500-1000 more a year before most coverages kick in at the full amount. Thanks for nothing, Barack. I suggest you troll around for the stories about folks that have Obamacare "insurance", but aren't using it because they've got $5000 deductibles and such.
As for the harm done to the country due to the "relentless attack on Obama", I saw no such concern for the relentless attacks on Bush. Any harm done to the country is due to Obama being a bad leader. Campaigning is his talent, not leading. He might be able to organize a few things in a community and read flowery phrases from a teleprompter, but he can't lead a world power.
Don't have much concern of an "Obama hate machine". There was one for Reagan and one for Bush, so no big deal.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.