Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He's probably said this stuff privately among fellow liberal elite that to him it was common knowledge and didn't realize he wasn't suppose to reveal secrets publicly. Plus, him being a professor, he's not use to people questioning his words.
Gruber's argument from the video i have seen, was that the word tax being used in anyway is a death nail to a bill.
You do realize at least 4 videos have no surfaces where Gruber gleefully brags about lying to the American public in order to pass Obamacare?
Not all of the lies Gruber enjoys telling centered around the question of whether or not it is a tax and that the increase in costs would be blamed on the companies themselves despite being cause by Obamacare, something that I saw Obots repeating on here a few years ago.
Some of the lies that Gruber was proud to tell was about what constitutes a Cadillac Insurance plan in the future:
What the #ell are you talking about?
Who said anything about premiums?
The 'informed' were outraged about a lot more than paying premiums!
No idea what your point is.
I am talking about Grubers comments (it's the topic), which have been quoted a dozen times on this thread. He said that if American voters had known the healthy have to pay and sick will receive, then the whole thing would never have passed. That just happens to be the basic principle of any insurance, and nothing new. Why Gruber thought people did not know about it is beyond me.
"If you have a law that makes explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it wouldn’t have passed,”
Everyone knows that, regardless of what Gruber thinks.
You and Obama agree in saying the details were discussed. It is Gruber and his followers who say they were not.
PS You being outraged about something means nothing. I do remember people being "ourtaged" about ACA bill which they said was socialist because it includes subsidies etc. You can be outraged about things which others support, but it does not make you right and others wrong. Some people are outraged about drug legalization, but why should that mean they are more right about it than those who support it?
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 11-17-2014 at 05:11 AM..
If someone didn't know this about insurance, then they would indeed be stupid, but I doubt you'll find many who didn't know it. Most Americans have some kind of insurance, like car insurance, and they know there is a premium to pay no matter what.
Speaking of insurance basics and car insurance, I just bought a policy from a new business in town, the ObamaCar Ins. Co.. Despite my having 3 speeding tickets, a DUI, and 2 accidents in the past year, they agreed to ignore all that and set my premium at the same amount paid by drivers with spotless records I love it, though those other drivers may be peeved.
I am talking about Grubers comments (it's the topic), which have been quoted a dozen times on this thread. He said that if stupid American voters had known the healthy have to pay and sick will receive, then the whole thing would never have passed. That just happens to be the basic principle of any insurance, and nothing new.
No, it's not. And you've been told so:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I don't think its ok for my premiums to go up on my auto insurance, because some other fool drinks and drives all the time. That's why they take my driving record into account and not yours to determine my rates.
If the government determined that people were entitled to have their drunk driving records subsidized by those who don't, then of course premiums would increase, but they said they would fall.
My home owner's policy is determined by my house replacement value, and not yours.
If government determined that people who didn't even have homes were to be reimbursed for the homes they were renting, then of course premiums would increase, but they said they would fall.
My life insurance premiums are dictated by my age and health situation, not YOURS..
If people on death row were entitled to life insurance at the others expenses, then clearly premiums would increase for us, but they said they would fall.
And prior to Obamacare, most states had high risk insurance pools for those with pre-existing conditions. They were insured as a separate group so others' insurance premiums weren't adversely affected. States That Have Risk Pools
Josh Earnest said GOP was “less than forthright and transparent” about how GOP-proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act would affect Americans
Why?
Gruber said this about GOP refusing to set up the exchanges:
"if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits...but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country."
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 11-17-2014 at 05:31 AM..
It seems Gruber also said GOP was “less than forthright and transparent” about how GOP-proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act would affect Americans Where is the outrage?
Josh Earnest said it because Gruber said this about GOP refusing to set up the exchanges:
"if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits...but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country."
Josh Earnest said it because Gruber said this about GOP refusing to set up the exchanges:
"if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits...but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country."
That should be enough evidence for SCOTUS to nullify the subsidies those who bought their insurance on the federal exchange get. The ACA was specifically written that way, and Gruber confirmed more than once that was the intent: political blackmail.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where is the outrage?
