This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/obamacare-consultant-under-fire-for-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-comment/2014/11/11/03671f27-34b7-4e42-921c-521913ab0509_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Obamacare consultant under fire for ‘stupidity of the American voter’ comment | Obamacare consultant under fire for ‘stupidity of the American voter’ comment |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| Economist Jonathan Gruber, one of the Obama administration's consultants on the Affordable Care Act, is under attack from conservatives for comments he made last year in which he seemingly said the "stupidity of the American voter" was a factor in passing Obamacare in 2010. | Economist Jonathan Gruber, one of the Obama administration's consultants on the Affordable Care Act, is under attack from conservatives for comments he made last year in which he seemingly said the "stupidity of the American voter" was a factor in passing Obamacare in 2010. |
| The comments were made during the panel sessions at the Annual Health Economics Conference last year. A shortened video of the panel began circulating Monday night on conservative media. (Skip to about the 20:25 mark for the relevant comments.) | |
| "This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes," he said during a panel discussion at the University of Pennsylvania in October, 2013. "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the 'stupidity of the American voter' or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.” | "This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes," he said during a panel discussion at the University of Pennsylvania in October, 2013. "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the 'stupidity of the American voter' or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.” |
| Gruber's comments were part of a broader public conversation between Gruber and economist Mark Pauly on the economics of health care reform. Gruber was responding to a remark by Pauly about financing transparency in the law and the politics surrounding the ACA's individual mandate. | Gruber's comments were part of a broader public conversation between Gruber and economist Mark Pauly on the economics of health care reform. Gruber was responding to a remark by Pauly about financing transparency in the law and the politics surrounding the ACA's individual mandate. |
| "In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which explicitly said that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed," he said. "You can't do it politically, you just literally cannot do it. It's not only transparent financing but also transparent spending." | "In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which explicitly said that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed," he said. "You can't do it politically, you just literally cannot do it. It's not only transparent financing but also transparent spending." |
| Gruber's remarks have been greeted by the law's critics as an admission of intentionally deceiving the American public about the law in 2010. But given the context of the remarks, Gruber seems to be speaking specifically about how and why the law's funding mechanisms were framed as they were when the law was being written. | Gruber's remarks have been greeted by the law's critics as an admission of intentionally deceiving the American public about the law in 2010. But given the context of the remarks, Gruber seems to be speaking specifically about how and why the law's funding mechanisms were framed as they were when the law was being written. |
| "I wish Mark was right and we could make it all transparent but I'd rather have this law than not," Gruber said. "That involves trade offs that we don't prefer as economists but are realistic." | "I wish Mark was right and we could make it all transparent but I'd rather have this law than not," Gruber said. "That involves trade offs that we don't prefer as economists but are realistic." |