A couple days ago I wrote about MIT professor Jonathan Gruber’s arrogant comments about how he helped construct and pass Obamacare, noting that he and others “in the know” deliberately muddled the language of the law to help it pass. The most infamous part of his comments was his putdown of American voters as stupid.
Gruber then went on MSNBC (where he was assured of a friendly hearing) to say he was speaking “off the cuff,” so we shouldn’t take his words seriously. However, shortly after that, because someone was doing some actual investigative reporting, two more videos of Gruber saying nearly identical things surfaced.
If you haven’t heard much about any of this, it’s because you watch network news, which has ignored the story entirely. Yet this is major. It strips away all the pretense about Obamacare and reveals the underhanded way in which it was developed and promoted. In short, it’s all a pack of lies.
This revelation, of course, is hardly a revelation to those of us who have perceived its faulty foundation from the start, and have warned that it’s a huge Ponzi scheme dedicated to the ultimate goal of placing all healthcare in the hands of the government.
The Obama administration has said virtually nothing about this. I imagine the president, if pressed on his need to respond, might have this attitude:
The sad thing is that he’s probably correct, at least in the case of a certain segment of voters:
Gruber’s attempt to obfuscate in the language of the law helped win the day—along with the usual political shenanigans at the time that assured its passage. Anyone remember the Louisiana Purchase of Sen. Mary Landrieu?
Ironically, the law is heading back to the Supreme Court, with a case that focuses on some of its wording about how only the state exchanges can receive federal subsidies, not the exchanges set up by the federal government. Fewer than twenty states set up exchanges (some of which were complete fiascoes), so all those subsidies being handed out to the other states should be ruled illegal by the Court, if it follows the wording of the law itself.
Figuring out the precise wording, though, may be tricky, thanks to Prof. Gruber.