Posted by Tina
Gruber is not only a money grubber, he really enjoys insulting people. The thought that he was potentially sticking his big fat foot, not in his own mouth (oops), but into the very heart of the Democrat Party leadership also doesn’t seem to bother him much. With Gruber it’s all me, me me!
Another of his insulting quotes was disclosed today and it targets seniors:
“We have experimented with choice in public insurance: Medicare Part D,” Gruber stated on a presentation slide dated Jan. 22, 2013. “Typical senior has 50 PDPs [Prescription Drug Plans] to choose from.”…”Seniors do a terrible job choosing”
What a guy, pointing his deceitful fingers at seniors!
But is he right? According to Democrat Party strategist and pollster, Doug Shoen, Part D is a very successful program that saves money for seniors and has come in under budget year after year due to market forces written into the law.
Part D is a widely popular, bipartisan program that has been saving Americans money since its inception in 2003, when it was created as part of the Medicare Modernization Act to cover the drug coverage gap that that existed in Medicare’s plan. Under Part D, which is run on a free enterprise model, seniors choose from a wide variety of privately run drug plans that negotiate individually with drug makers.
Part D is the most cost-effective and successful entitlement program the federal government runs. The Part D prescription drug benefit has subsidized costs of prescriptions drugs for millions of seniors and Americans with disabilities. In fact, it was recently announced that more than 6.6 million people with Medicare have saved more than $7 billion on prescription drugs as a result of Part D – or about $1,000 per Medicare recipient.
6.6 million seniors are saving money by choosing a Part D prescription drug plan. Obamacare, the money grubber’s baby, doesn’t have a prayer of being this successful and Mr. Money Grubber thinks it’s seniors that are stupid?
Imagine how much better we would all be off if Obamacare was scrapped and replaced with something that had the same market driven elements. Imagine if Medicare and social Security contained market driven elements. Instead of adding to the debt year after year these programs could save the taxpayer and consumers a lot of money. Of course “folks” like Mr. Money Grubber would have to forgo the millions ripped off for themselves. I’m calling Gruber “Mr. Money Grubber” for good reason. It’s now been reported that he actually gained nearly $6 million, uncovered so far, as a result of his involvement in Obamacare:
So far, the health-care economist has received at least $5,886,150 in taxpayer-funded health-care-consulting fees, mainly from the federal government. This bonanza includes:
$103,500 from the U.S. Department of State
$392,000 from the state of Minnesota
$392,600 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources
$400,000 from the state of Vermont
$400,000 from the state of Wisconsin
$481,050 from the state of Michigan
$1,730,000 from the U.S. Department of Justice (that medical hotbed)
$2,050,000 from the U.S. National Institutes of Health
This money grubbing schlock has inspired a new term, “Gruberish,” describing the blathering lies that exude from his arrogant, scam artist economist mouth.
Even the left-leaning Huffington Post has written an article laying out the timeline exposing Gruber’s involvement in the development of ObamaCare and this administration’s efforts to hide his involvement.
How the White House Used Gruber’s Work to Create Appearance of Broad Consensus:
“Up until this point, most of the attention regarding the failure to disclose the connection between Jonathan Gruber and the White House has fallen on Gruber himself. Far more troubling, however, is the lack of disclosure on the part of the White House, the Senate, the DNC and other Democratic leaders who distributed Gruber’s work and cited it as independent validation of their proposals, orchestrating the appearance of broad consensus when in fact it was all part of the same effort.
The White House is placing a giant collective bet on Gruber’s “assumptions” to justify key portions of the Senate bill such as the “Cadillac tax,” which they allowed people to believe was independent verification. Now that we know that Gruber’s work was not that of an independent analyst but rather work performed as a contractor to the White House and paid for by taxpayers, and economists like Larry Mishel are raising serious questions about its validity, it should be made publicly available so others can judge its merits.”
Continued..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/how-the-white-house-used_b_421549.html
Gruber’s salary looks like he’s mastered the socialist elite’s agenda of making himself very rich at the expense of the poor and taxpayers.
All of that money came out of our pockets and in to his. And this administration knew it and supported it.
We were not only lied to, we were conned. ObamaCare is based on a fraud forced on the people.
Incredibly there are many who will still not see the pattern that this one example exposes. This is exactly the way the fundamental transformers and followers of Alinsky always operate. The Democrat Party, compromised since at least the 1930’s, has become more and more bold each decade. Honesty doesn’t fit in the context.
Grubber (spelling intentional) gives new meaning to “thirty pieces of silver . . . .”
The taxpayers get Grubered at every corner.
It’s pretty disgusting such a leach can become a multi-millionaire at the taxpayer’s expense but I’m sure Chris and Libster and the rest of the progressives who infest this blog will tell us there is nothing to see here and we should just move along.
Here’s a GREAT GruberGate video.
http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/18/jonathan-grubers-controversial-comments-single-two-minute-video/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Megyn Kelley argues with another progressive liberal. Tell me it doesn’t remind you of a similar progressive.
video
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/11/13/video-fox-news-megyn-kelly-absolutely-unloads-on-democrat-liar/
Wait a minute. Weren’t you very dweebs, back in your early Tea Party days, howling, yowling, and defaming The Shrub (and his Congress) for enacting Part D without funding it?
Oh, I distinctly remember that you were.
Such turncoats. It’s embarrassing.
And the mere fact that all them seniors have nosed up to the trough does not constitute “success” … particularly if the program is, in fact, one of those unfunded entitlements you will … in other contexts … howl about.
Such hypocrisy. How am I to bear it?
Not exactly accurate there Libs.
Republicans were upset about another program being added to the already overloaded list of government programs and concerned that it would add to the debt.
I believe I pointed out that it was at least written using market principles and later happily reported that the market principles paid off when it came in under budget (nothing added to the debt, money saved).
I may also have pointed out it was necessary because of the so-called “donut hole” that was making it hard for seniors to pay for their Rx’s…Part D was a positive fix to the Medicare!
The same type of market forces could be applied elsewhere in government if the Democrats would stop running throw-granny-off-the-cliff scare videos and start cooperating with Republicans to write bills that work!
Poor widdle Wibby…up to her ears in progressive hypocrisy, scams, and lies and she can’t bear a little concern about a Republican program that actually came in under budget and rescued America’s seniors from an expensive (to them) glitch in the Medicare law.
I think your girdle may be a hair too tight, Dearie.
Tina: “I believe I pointed out that it was at least written using market principles and later happily reported that the market principles paid off when it came in under budget (nothing added to the debt, money saved)”
If and when the same happens with Obamacare, will you admit it?
Both Obama and Clinton said their health care plans would save everyone over $2,000, but Gruber said otherwise back in 2008.
“Gruber is also skeptical of the claimed “savings.” He praised both candidates for their intentions but believes that “at the end of the day, the only way to control health care costs in America is to deny Americans health care they want. … I think the notion that we’re going to save $2,000 per person in America for most things, I know zero credible evidence to support that conclusion,” he says. “Basically, we just don’t know. We just have no clue what it’s going to do.”
They’ve Got You Covered?:
Obama and Clinton ads both claim all Americans would be covered by their health plans. Clinton’s would come close.:
Posted on February 14, 2008 | Updated on February 15, 2008| Corrected on February 18, 2008
“Clinton says that her plan would save $2,200 for the average family. Obama’s campaign requested an analysis from three Harvard professors, who estimated an average savings of $2,500. Both intend to achieve these savings primarily through increased efficiency – electronic medical records and a focus on preventive care are paramount – and curbing incidental administrative expenditures like underwriting and prescription costs.
But economics experts aren’t buying it. Sheils calls these estimates “nonsense.” “Your average family’s spending,” he tells FactCheck, “should be around $4,500 out of pocket on their premiums and expenditures; $2,500 would be over 50 percent of that. … It’s just outrageous that you could claim you’d knock 50 percent right off the top.” Sheils points out that preventive care and electronic medical records, two sources of such savings, are already major projects: “All you could do is accelerate it, and you can’t credit the presidential candidate for all of the savings that come from something that would’ve happened anyway.” He acknowledges that other proposed efficiency innovations, like improved clinical effectiveness research – determining the relative usefulness of various treatments – could have an impact on costs, but warns that new guidelines would encounter resistance from doctors and require serious policy overhauls.
Gruber is also skeptical of the claimed “savings.” He praised both candidates for their intentions but believes that “at the end of the day, the only way to control health care costs in America is to deny Americans health care they want. … I think the notion that we’re going to save $2,000 per person in America for most things, I know zero credible evidence to support that conclusion,” he says. “Basically, we just don’t know. We just have no clue what it’s going to do.”
To be sure, not all are so skeptical. Kenneth E. Thorpe, professor of health policy at Emory University, says that both candidates’ overall savings estimates are “reasonable.” In addition to the savings for individual premiums, both campaigns estimate that their plans will save $110 billion to $200 billion per year in health care spending. “It sounds like a big number, but they’re really not that big,” Thorpe told us, pointing out that total health care spending in the U.S. is $2.2 trillion a year. Obama’s and Clinton’s estimates are about 5 percent to 10 percent of that.
As for the price tag: Clinton estimates that her plan will cost $110 billion per year, and Obama’s Harvard analysts put the cost for his plan at $50 billion to $65 billion annually. Both candidates propose to defray these costs primarily by rolling back the tax cuts for those in the top income brackets. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that such a rollback, in conjunction with other measures like revising the estate tax, could save roughly $140 billion per year – meaning that if the cost estimates are realistic, the method of paying for them may be realistic as well. But since both plans are lacking details – for instance, neither candidate has said how big the tax credits or subsidies would be, or how many people would qualify – it’s tough to gauge just how feasible the dollar projections are.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/theyve-got-you-covered/
I’m not sure what the point of harping on the $2,500 number. Yes, Obama pulled it out of his ass during his first presidential campaign, but that was long before “Obamacare” was really a thing, back when he was still entertaining single payer. Once the plan that became the ACA started coming together he didn’t repeat that number again, so it wasn’t really a lie about Obamacare, though it was a lie told by Obama about a health insurance plan that didn’t really come to fruition.
Chris: “If and when the same happens with Obamacare, will you admit it?”
It won’t. It hasn’t got a prayer. Especially if you include harm done to the economy and wages, hidden regulatory costs, and the restraints to innovation and technological advance.
“Once the plan that became the ACA started coming together he didn’t repeat that number again”
He repeated it many times over the course of a year. That’s enough to create expectation in the public. It was one of the great deceptions that “sold” the public and caused wide support:
gotta run…
“Both Obama and Clinton said their health care plans would save everyone over $2,000, but Gruber said otherwise back in 2008.”
First of all, Peggy, you are incompetent to calculate these savings, because they were not … never … talking about cash in your pocket.
Second of all, Gruber has never been an advocate of “single payer”, so any abuse he suffers over the promotion of his half-assed policies is all to the good, in my somewhat-less-than-humble opinion.
And what’s any of this to you anyway, Peggy, you retired government employee, you?
Ok … so I get out the calculator, again. I haven’t actually signed up; my income stream is not, these days, what you’d call steady. But I did investigate, and from memory, the cheapest Kaiser offer was $470, maybe $479 a month. Being as I’m impoverished, I was going to be subsidized down to $170.
$300 time 12 is $3600, considerably more than $2500, and I’m not even a family of four.
Now, this next bit of arithmetic I cannot do, but presumably the OA has. If you offset the federal taxes a family of four pays with the premium savings, you probably get around $2,500 a year.
So would you all … just … go away. You don’t even try to know what you’re talking about … most of the time.
And you Miss. Liberal Libby, are incapable of understanding when people are told their premium cost will be cut $2,500 annually from the money THEY were paying they expected that savings to stay in their own pocket.
It’s really very simple for even you to understand, if you put those two brain cells to work. If you bought something for a dollar that was marked 20% off sale everyone would expect to put that 20 cents savings in their own pocket. But, you Libby must think you have to turn around and give it to the person standing in line behind you.
Unless Libs you were referring to that money in my pocket really wasn’t mine because I didn’t earn it. It’s all just a big pot of collective money and whenever you want some you just reach into someone else’s pocket.
Your “somewhat-less-than-humble opinion” really is “half-assed.” Anyone with more than two brain cells understands after watching all of the GruberGate videos has a clear understanding why all of the lies and deception was used. It was a hidden path to create a single payer government controlled health care system.
There is some really good news that just came out Libby I’m sure you won’t be please with.
House Speaker Boehner just hired liberal Constitutional professor Jonathan Turley to represent the House in its lawsuit against ObamaCare. And depending on what Obama says tonight he’ll also be lead council for a suit against Obama on his “amnesty” EO overreach.
Republican House Hires This Liberal Law Professor To Sue Obama…Libs Loudly Cry Foul:
“To many observers of politics or the law, this might seem to be a strange brew indeed — the “odd couple” pairing of Republican Speaker John Boehner with liberal law professor Jonathan Turley in the House’s ObamaCare lawsuit against the president for whom Turley has said he voted.
Confused? Let’s check the facts.
House Speaker John Boehner has hired prominent constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley to lead the legal team in going after President Obama in court on behalf of the House of Representatives.
As the Washington Examiner explains, Turley will represent the House in its lawsuit against Obama’s unilateral, and potentially unconstitutional, move to delay implementation of a key Obamacare provision requiring large firms to offer healthcare coverage to their employees.
“Professor Turley is a renowned legal scholar who agrees that President Obama has clearly overstepped his Constitutional authority. He is a natural choice to handle this lawsuit,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said.
“Boehner…has not ruled out expanding the lawsuit to include a challenge to Obama’s promised executive order to legalize millions of undocumented immigrants. For now, however, the lawsuit remains focused on Obamacare.”
Considering Turley’s recent criticism of what he views as the dangerous overreach of a power-hungry president — criticism expressed in testimony before Congress — his involvement with the House suit against Obama shouldn’t be that much of a surprise.”
Continued..
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/say-what-republican-house-hires-this-liberal-law-professor-to-sue-obama-libs-loudly-cry-foul/#7sPzM1ApgL83BDef.99
That’s right Libs I am a retired government employee from education, just like firefighter and police officers and ALL other public service workers I paid into my retirement PERS plan and forfeited pay raises for the benefits.
You forgot I and my husband also owed our own business and since he died of suddenly of a heart attack I was forced to sell the business.
You see the state doles out the COLA every year and it has to cover the cost of increased benefits like, medical, dental and vision coverage and what is left over is fought over like a bunch of dogs going after a bigger piece of a bone. When you have a bunch of administrators pulling down $100-$200k, faculty getting $50-100k there wasn’t much left for over 300 classified employees like me. So, if we got a 1% pay raise we used to joke we’d treat a coworker to lunch at McDonalds, while those with the $100k salary got a really nice thousand dollar bonus.
The great thing about that gov’t job is it didn’t have a preexisting condition clause for its health care plan so my terminally ill, disabled son was also covered. Yes, Libs there were plans all of the way back in the 1970s that didn’t have a preexisting exclusion. And as far as I know they existed prior to ObamaCare.
Instead of criticizing me for the work I did helping to educate approximately 15,000 students a year for almost 30 years and for police officers like Jack and firefighters like my son, a simple thank you would have been nice.
Oh, but I forgot I’m dealing with Liberal Libby. What have you done to make life better for others or even contribute in some minor way to help those less fortunate. Oh that’s right you work for one of those greedy businesses so you can take home your really big check, while you take childish pot-shots at others.
Another lie about ObamaCare disclosed.
CMS Propped Up Obamacare Enrollment Total With Dental Plans:
“The Obama administration included 400,000 dental plans in its first-year Obamacare enrollment totals without acknowledging that it wasn’t full health insurance, falsely pushing the final number past the administration’s enrollment target.
The actual enrollment total: 6.7 million, not quite meeting the seven million goal provided by the Congressional Budget Office.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services head Marilyn Tavenner announced in September that 7.3 million Americans were still enrolled in health coverage through Obamacare exchanges nationwide. But according to a report from Bloomberg, that data didn’t distinguish between medical and dental insurance plans, which departed from CMS’ usual practice without any acknowledgment.
Had the agency separated out the dental plans as usual, it would have had to admit that Obamacare enrollment has fallen below its target, investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform committee told Bloomberg. The combination hid the fact that over one million health insurance customers had already dropped their coverage.”
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/20/cms-propped-up-obamacare-enrollment-total-with-dental-plans/
“Let’s check the facts.”
Well, I’m waiting.
Wait all night miss subsidy. How many years have you had to get your life on a stable productive track?
What’s the matter, not enough jobs available in this lousy sputtering economy? What party runs the California economy and which party exactly has been in charge of federal economic policy for six looooong years?
Stomp that little foot…put those hands on those hips…you cannot run from the truth!
Saw this one coming. Remember included in the 2500 pages of ObamaCare was a student loan forgiveness program.
Taxpayers are on the hoof for $88 billion now and possible $220 billion soon in defaulted student loans.
A Third of All Federal Student Loans Could Go Bad, Treasury Advisory Committee Warns:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/third-all-federal-student-loans-could-go-bad-treasury-advisory?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=n-student-loans
“hoof” should be hook.
Welcome to the Tea Party Senator Schumer. It’s about time at least one of you Democrats in Congress woke up. Americans really are smarter than you gave us credit for.
Chuck Schumer: We Shouldn’t Have Passed Obamacare In 2010 [VIDEO]:
“Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer threw Obamacare under the bus Tuesday, charging that Democrats should not have passed the law in 2010.
Schumer, the third-ranking Senate Democrat, spoke Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington about the Democrats’ losses in this year’s elections. He encouraged Democrats to embrace government despite their electoral crash but also admitted that the Democratic House and Senate should not have passed Obamacare.
Democrats should have focused on directly helping the middle class, Schumer argued.
“Unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them” by electing President Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress in 2008. “We took their mandate and put all our focus on the wrong problem.”
“The plight of uninsured Americans and the hardships created by unfair insurance company practices certainly needed to be addressed,” Schumer said. “But it wasn’t the change we were hired to make” in the 2008 election. ”Americans were crying out for the end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs — not changes in health care.”
“The Affordable Care Act was aimed at the 36 million Americans who were not covered,” Schumer continued. “It’s been reported that only a third of the uninsured are even registered to vote,” making Obamacare unlikely to win the Democrats any votes at all.”
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/25/chuck-schumer-we-shouldnt-have-passed-obamacare-in-2010-video/