Jonathan Gruber: One MIT Prof That Obama Didn't Need

MIT, let's make no mistake, has made some major technological contributions to this country, and continues to make educational ones with its open courseware program, e.g.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/audio-video-courses/

The profs giving those (video)courses, such as in math, chemistry and physics, deserve all the props for getting their lectures online so many around the world can benefit from them. (The ones on rocket propulsion engineering are especially good!)

But, on the other hand, some MIT profs have been colossal clowns and goofballs, one of whom is Richard Lindzen, who I already took down in previous blog posts for his climate science stance, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/06/richard-lindzens-fantasies-1.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/06/richard-lindzens-fantasies-2.html

The latest goofball is Economic Prof. Jonathan Gruber, who has now become the Repukes' "star boy" since assorted videos have appeared where he basically disses the American voter for being "stupid" because of the lack of transparency he (and others) applied to the Affordable Care Act. The videos were excavated from online searches by some guy who became convinced that somewhere in the Youtube Archives one miscreant or other  must have discussed pulling the wool over the American people with "Obamacare".

In one video Gruber is seen saying:

"This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) did not score the mandate as taxes. If the CBO scored it as taxes, it dies."

He was referring here to the individual mandate which he also implemented as part of "Romney care" in Massachusetts, thereby mandating individuals pay in for private policies from insurance companies - or face tax penalties if they refused.

In another recovered video seen last night on CBS News we beheld Gruber bragging his sorry ass off how he got "the feds" to pour in money to support Romney's MA plan to the tune of $400 million. He fairly looked like a pig that had overeaten rotten squash and potatoes with his self-satisfied look - which is now playing nonstop on all the right wing channels- especially FOX. And we won't even go into how Limbaugh has bloviated that  "this proves Obamacare was a fraud".

But the worst "revelation" emerged from a particular video where Gruber appeared at some confab and blurted:

"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. Basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass."

Well, I don't know what parallel universe Gruber inhabits, but it surely isn't the one I'm in. In fact, most voters -  left and right -  smelled a "rat" from the instant the Affordable Care Act was trotted out. On the Right, we beheld hundreds appearing at ACA informal events bearing their rifles - many loaded - along with degrading images of Obama (including with a bone through his nose in Witch doctor garb).

On the Left, while we didn't go off the deep end and bring loaded weapons to assorted ACA events, we were deeply suspicious. We simply didn't buy that the insurance companies that had swindled us over the years could possibly be legitimate partners in a health care rollout- whatever its name. And this is exactly why we fought for the public option - though our first choice was "Medicare for all". We felt at least a public option had a chance to pass, but the pussified Dems - though they held a 60-vote Senate majority -  were so desperate to get Reepo cooperation for political cover,  that they allowed 3 Reepos to be on the critical 7-member  finance committee headed by Max Baucus. The rest, as they say is history, and when Baucus aligned himself with the Reepo three we knew it was curtains for the option.

But don't  tell me that we the voters were "stupid", because that was a lie, and shows that Gruber is as dense or deluded as those who believed that the ACA would really cut long term costs without negatively impacting other programs, such as Medicare. (A $500b cut in that program was needed to help fund the ACA, along with reducing the frequency of many preventative tests- hence the new "formal guidelines" for fewer PSA test, mammograms, etc.)

At the end of the day, the wool wasn't pulled so much over the voters as the Congressional Budget Office which was charged with correctly assessing the impact on the long term budget while also discriminating between real taxation and non-taxation in the mandate.

By far the worst blunder of pandering the ACA to the masses was in telling them if they liked their plan they could keep it. This later turned into a fiasco as we saw after the rollout how the insurance companies "never heard of it" and kicked  tens of thousands off plans that were tailored to their needs to obtain general plans that were not (i.e. including pregnancy care, tests etc. even though a couple may be child free). Alternatively, the ones allowed to remain on their plans saw their premiums, their deductibles or both increase brutally.

But again most people were skeptical of the rosy promises from the get go. Most intelligent people also knew that any law requiring thousands of pages was likely laden with bullshit - as much or more so than Vince Buglisoi's 2,500 odd page tract on "Reclaiming History" (to try to show Oswald was the real JFK assassin after all).

Despite its flaws, and there are many (not the least of which is that the ACA was originally conceived by the Republicans in the Nixon era), bear in mind that given the political constraints and an administration not prepared to go full tilt on the public option - it was the only "game" in town.  It meant at least half of the population could finally secure health care as opposed to none, and as we know from provisional ethics, enabling half a loaf is to be preferred over none.

The moral of this story, if there is one, is for future presidents to be very careful about exactly who they select as advisers or as architects of a particular program or  policy.

If they aren't it may come back to bite them.

It's Manifestly Clear Now What Obama & Dems Must Do!

Now that the dust has settled and the media hype died down, somber heads can finally prevail and - based on the Roberts Supreme Court decision yesterday - move forward on a number of fronts, including: (1) selling the benefits of the new health care law, (2) shoring up its funding, including for the critical expansion of Medicaid (to cover 17 million more people) and (3) Using (1) in combination with old Romney speeches on behalf of his "Romney care" in Massachusetts, to do an end run around this asshole's attacks (including reminding the millions of beneficiaries of the new law what they stand to lose if this guy is elected in November and tries to gut the law or repeal it as he vowed yesterday.)

Let's first grasp, as Rachel Maddow observed on her show last night, that the primary reason negative perceptions on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have abounded is because of: 1) the long lead time in getting its provisions implemented, and 2) the lackluster way the Dems have sold it since its passage.

Both of these have forged a vacuum in which the Rightists and their naysayers - whether in the blogosphere or the 24/7 cable media -talk shows, have been able to sow fear and distortions. They have essentially been able to make up virtually anything they want because the other side (that crafted the law) has been so passive in its advocacy.

Meanwhile, in Massachusetts (as Maddow noted) 6 years after 'Romney care' was implemented, 98% are insured in that state, the highest proportion in any! One huge reason it succeeded was an advertising blitz campaign (some examples of which Maddow broadcast on her show) and a short lead-in time to implementation, of barely 1 year. Meanwhile, because of the manipulations of jag-off conservative Dems the provisions in Obama's health reform law had to be delayed for 4 years! (That is four years of the other side being enabled to paint it negatively).

These idiot, jag-off fifth columnists (one reason the Dems didn't REALLY have a filibuster proof supermajority despite the Right's claims to the contrary) demanded an artificial ceiling of no more than a trillion dollars to pay for it, leaving the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to be the ultimate arbiter of its costs. Since the CBO -bases its budget ratings on 10-year cycles it meant the costs could only come in under $1 trillion if 4 years of the 10 were 'subtracted". Thus, instead of starting in 2010 the main provisions had to be delayed to 2014. A terrible mistake, and costly, given how the negative PR has been ramped up against it.

Now, to make up for it, the Dems need to get off their asses and at least repeat the positive aspects of the law until blue in the face. Obama gave the model yesterday in his response speech to the Roberts decision. He for once enumerated and expatiated on the benefits, including vulnerable people not being dinged because of exceeding insurance payout limits, or other sickly people being prevented from access because of "pre-existing conditions" or young adults being prevented frmo being covered under their parents' plans. This is good, now Dems overall need to replay it and emulate it....and Obama needs to keep repeating it.

Then there was the critical Medicaid decision, which many liberals have misinterpreted. Not realizing that it was 6-3 against Medicaid expansion but two of the ones in the '6' group were 'liberals'. (Stephen Breyer and Elaine Kagan). Had those two not defected to the side of the 4 conservatives, the Medicaid expansion would have passed. So one is led to inquire why these two would take that position, and the only logical or acceptable conclusion is because they are sending a message that the tax support needs to be increased for all Americans. (See also my previous blog related to the need for higher taxation, including letting ALL the Bush tax cuts expire.)

Lastly, Dems need to wake up and realize if Romney or his jag-offs corporatists get into office the new health law will likely be pecked to death even if Romney fails to repeal it as he vowed, e.g. proclaiming like the school yard, batshit crazy bully he still is:

"I will act to repeal Obamacare from my first day as president of the United States”

As blogger Robert Scheer noted, this is "a prescription of destructive gridlock for a program already well under way."  In other words, if Mitt Romney is elected Americans now so tired of gridlock won't see less of it but perhaps five times MORE! This is why I still can't believe the polls showing Romney and Obama in a dead heat. How can so many of the putative "99%" be for this corporate job exterminator, who - as reported recently in a TIME special article - dispatched even more American jobs overseas than first believed. How can any self-respecting, white (or black) working class man or woman seriously vote for this guy who will be guaranteed to make their lives a hundred times worse? It boggles the mind!

Anyway, the way to best and beat Romney when he keeps publicly vowing to end Obama's health care law is to keep showing Mitt's own speeches (avaialble via dozens of news clips from 6 years ago) promoting his own Romney care version in Massachusetts. And then also showing how that program, so reviled during the Repug debates, now features the largest percentage of insured citizens in the nation. So why the fuck is Mitt running from his success?  The only answer is that the man has to posture negative reaction to appease the Tea bagger vote! But if he does that, he's not only a liar but a hypocrite! DO people - voters really want such a guy in the White House?

The way forward for Dem success is clear, and the Roberts court decision 'tea leaves' show the way. What remains is for the Dems to have the balls to use it instead of running from their shadows.