Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

“Almost awesome in its evilness” – Jonathan Gruber on Obamacare

“Almost awesome in its evilness” – Jonathan Gruber on Obamacare

And yet another video is revealed

Jonathan Gruber, Obamacare architect, has become a national news celebrity, but probably not for the reasons he hoped.

No less than ten videos have surfaced wherein Gruber explains the only reason Obamacare passed was because Americans are “stupid” and also because the administration’s, “lack of transparency was a huge political advantage.” And there seems to be no end in sight.

Noah Rothman at Hotair broke down the sixth unearthed video (if we’re counting correctly). Gruber explained how Democrats intentionally mislead to sell Obamacare and disclosed that despite all the Democratic denials at the time, they were well aware of how economically devastating the ACA would be.

Despite Democratic attempts to distance themselves from these damning revelations, PelosiObama, and Reid have all been exposed for having working knowledge of who Gruber is. Not to mention Gruber’s regular White House visits.

For someone who’s been so outspoken about the awfulness of Obamacare, Gruber had “no comment” when confronted by Sean Hannity’s camera crew. Perhaps he received a cease and desist order from the imperial counsel.

Just this afternoon, Jim Geraghty at National Review reported on what is in my estimation, one of the nastiest Gruber video to date:

On April 9, 2014, Gruber appeared on the  “Curbside Consult” interview series with Harold Pollack, at healthinsurance.org;  the host introduced Gruber as the “architect of Obamacare”, and Gruber made no objection.

Pollack says, “One of the things that’s really striking to me is there’s a politics of impunity towards poor people, particularly non-white poor people that is almost a feature rather than a bug in the internal politics in some of these states, not to cover people under Medicaid, even if it’s financially very advantageous to do so.”

Gruber’s response:

That’s a great way to put it. There’s larger principles at stake here. When these states are turning – not just turning down covering the poor people – but turning down the federal stimulus that would come with that. So the price they are willing … They are not just not interested in covering poor people, they are willing to sacrifice billions of dollars of injections into their economy in order to punish poor people. It really is just almost awesome in its evilness.

But take a deep breath because it gets worse…

Later in the conversation, Gruber attributes the desire to cut Medicaid spending to racism:

I really believe that if we could politically help explain the costs to society of cutting provider rates, of cutting back Medicaid, I think we’d get the majority of people to support strengthening that program. I think it’s just because of racial reasons and other things, we just haven’t managed to get through with that message.

Racism. Because obviously.

Refusing to engage in unsustainable Medicaid expansion is “awesomely evil” and also racist. If only we’d known sooner, we might have capitulated and agreed to pass Obamacare, even it if was built on lies, muddled math, and complete deception of those too “stupid” to understand how the ACA would work.

You can view the interview here:

You’d think a man that was paid $400,000 of our hard earned tax payer money could afford help to tidy up his office, but as long as he keeps on telling the truth about Obamacare, who am I to complain?

Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter 

**Updated**

Exposition added to clarify remarks directed at federal exchanges (or lack their of)

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

I am almost certain you have badly misread this.

Gruber was referring to states that refused expanded Medicaid coverage and its billions of “free” federal dollars as the evildoers. That would be Republicans, not Democrats.

    I’m pretty sure we all got it… he was referring to conservatism as being “evil.” He’s apparently convinced that socialism works, what with all the empirical evidence in support of that position and all.

    Reading comprehension is generally not a weakness for the “folks” that frequent this site.

Sorry, Kemberlee, but you’ve got it backwards.

Although Grubber is STILL lying through his teeth, he’s ascribing all that EEEEEEEeeeeeevile to conservatives who are not eagerly nuzzling up to the Federal trough.

He lays off any reticence to surrender to the Federal dane-geld as “hating the poor”. He’s a lying SOS, but he’s a consistent Collectivist lying SOS.

    Observer in reply to Ragspierre. | November 18, 2014 at 3:25 pm

    It’s not in this video, but there is another one in which Gruber is similarly railing against the “evil” Republican state governors who rejected the Medicaid expansion. And Gruber notes that the “excuse” the governors gave was that they were concerned about the impact on the federal deficit. Then Gruber, this so-called “expert” economist, tells us that that’s a ludicrous reason for turning down “free” federal money, and that state governors have absolutely no business worrying about the federal deficit!

    Because the federal government routinely spending trillions more dollars than it takes in in revenue is never going to be a problem for anybody outside of Washington, D.C., right Gruber?

    Massive federal deficit spending has no effect on the value of the dollar, or interest rates, right Gruber? And of course massive federal deficit spending will never affect the millions of people relying on underfunded and soon-to-be-bankrupt federal entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. And anyway, none of those people who do things like use dollars or invest dollars or save dollars or rely on federal entitlement programs like Social Security live in any of the states — so there is clearly no reason for the state governors to be concerned about the federal government’s insanely irresponsible spending habits, right Gruber?

    What a f**king idiot this Gruber is, in addition to being a smarmy liar.

      In days of yore, scumbags like this lying, elitist prick would be tarred and feathered. If they were lucky it would end there; if not they would then be drawn and quartered.

      Karen Sacandy in reply to Observer. | November 18, 2014 at 9:20 pm

      Some school needs to rescind his degree in economics. What grade inflation is doing to us!

    creeper in reply to Ragspierre. | November 18, 2014 at 7:05 pm

    I assure you, Rags, she gets it. Re-read this, with the appropriate level of snark:

    “Refusing to engage in unsustainable Medicaid expansion is ‘awesomely evil’ and also racist.”

    AFSarge in reply to Ragspierre. | November 18, 2014 at 8:51 pm

    Let’s not forget that those refusing to nuzzle up to the Federal trough were thinking ahead a bit. Doesn’t the federal money get sharply curtailed (or end?) leaving the cost of the program to the state?

    Sarge

This is the same line the NAACP has been using in North Carolina with its “Moral Monday” protests. Refusing federal money (which dries up after 2-3 years) is racism. Voter ID is racism. In fact, anything that isn’t 100% progressive big government giveaway is racism.

Possibly Dr. Gruber has earned so much money promoting this health insurance boondoggle that he now thinks money grows on trees.

2nd Ammendment Mother | November 18, 2014 at 2:26 pm

And yet no one ever gets to the Republican governors position…. the demand was for the states to build up a huge clientele of folks on Medicaid; then the Feds cut off their share and the states taxpayers are stuck with the tab. Conservative states are in better shape because they keep tight controls over entitlement spending.

    And why NY State and Gov. Cuomo was first to sign up, take the money and balance that years budget, (if only on paper) and to enroll the highest number of Medicaid participants in any state sponsored exchange. NY always has paid the highest amount out in entitlements, be it cash, food, housing, or health and has the lowest qualifying thresh holds of eligibility of any of the 50 states. We are the state where workers move out of and non-employed like to move to. Wonder what the state debt will look like after Obamacare bites the dust?

    Their constitutions require balanced budgets!

There are more than a few great legal minds here…

Please explain to me how this is not a conspiracy, and how this is not fraud, and how this is not racketeering?

Should we not be seeking indictments for all involved?

    Ragspierre in reply to turfmann. | November 18, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    According to my only middling legal mind, it IS a conspiracy, it IS fraud, and it IS racketeering, if under the color of legislation.

    The trouble is that you’d need someone to hand down an indictment, and all we have is a racist “activist” as our AG.

      I keep thinking “class action”, but not being legal don’t understand if it applies here. Surely a lot of people have been hurt by this, and hurt under the guise of fraud.

        Ragspierre in reply to gasper. | November 18, 2014 at 3:35 pm

        Class actions are civil actions…which you could have here.

        It would be LOTS of fun to play with, especially with someone like Grubber who holds no “king’s x” because of an official office.

        Trouble would be that it almost certainly would be a Federal case, and there is a bias in Federal courts toward dismissing such actions.

        Still. I WOULD be fun, and it would cost a lot to defend against, even if it was fairly short lived.

        Tar and feathers is the historical specific, I think. The right medicine where the law simply fails.

    Observer in reply to turfmann. | November 18, 2014 at 3:31 pm

    I’m personally more in the mood for tar and feathers than for indictments for this bunch of liars and thieves.

I’m not clear how much, but the expansion of Medicaid costs the states money, even if they get some federal support (some of their own money back, if they obey the coercive feds).

I don’t see how they think it was especially minorities that would have been harmed if expansion did not happen. It seems like there are surely more whites added to the Medicaid roles, as the income level is raised for inclusion in Medicaid. According to Pollack/Gruber above, the blacks are at the lowest levels, so moving up the ladder you’re getting into the whiter demographics.

This link has brief statements from governors on the Medicaid expansion … most that did not expand Medicaid state the cost to their state. None said they don’t mind letting poor whites suffer, because they so hate poor blacks.

* “Oklahoma will not be participating in the Obama Administration’s proposed expansion of Medicaid,” she said in a statement. She noted that the program would cost the state as much as $475 million over the next eight years”

* He noted that the expansion would necessitate “a large tax increase on Pennsylvania families”

http://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2012/11/09/medicaidmap

iirc, the “federal money” (taken from the states’ taxpayers) is temporary. It is also coercive as was the requirement for states to set up the exchanges. Justice Roberts specifically denied the plan to use the exchange requirement for getting Medicaid money, again iirc. But it is still the feds acting coercively in telling states how to run everything.

This whole idea that the feds can force one state to fund another is not constitutional, in my view. And here we have these two collectivists bragging about rewarding the states that obey them, which of course is done by stealing from the states that don’t.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to Midwest Rhino. | November 18, 2014 at 4:28 pm

    OK, I did not remember correctly. Roberts only said they couldn’t force the states to change Medicaid rules. And I don’t know how much fed supports drop off over time.

    Given that increased enrollment in Medicaid accounted for 71 percent of the net growth in health insurance coverage during the first half of 2014, the inescapable conclusion is that, at least when it comes to covering the uninsured, Obamacare so far is mainly a simple expansion of Medicaid.

    But the funding for Fluke’s pills, and other excesses, is via a huge tax on the responsibly insured. And Lord Gruber punishes those that don’t expand Medicaid.

The objective is simple: Legally steal from the makers and give it to the takers in exchange for votes by the takers to keep you in power.
Didn’t work so well in the last election. Perhaps the makers are finally getting wise to the fleecing.

Gruber is a fraud. A lying, thieving fraud. If he was a broker, business person, accountant, etc he would be in prison already.

shoot I had that one downloaded about a week ago and forgot to post it.
had all 3 parts.
will post them tonight.

I’m almost beginning to like this Gruber fella. He seems to be the only one involved in the Obamacare debacle telling it like it is.. raw dog without a bag.

“There’s larger principles at stake here.”

I have a rule of thumb: Beware, always, of people who talk about “larger issues” and “larger principles” because they are willing to destroy individuals to achieve their purpose.

Think it over.

We have 200-300 dead Mexicans in service of the “larger principle” of gun control.

We have a dozen or so kids dead from enterovirus in service of the “larger issue” of immigration reform.

We have had two sick nurses so far, and massive expenditures, in the service of the “larger issue” of avoiding panic and refraining from hurting the feelings of people from 4 countries out of the entire continent of Africa.

all 3 parts of that interview up
http://www.theconservativevoices.com/topic/82321-gruber-videos-self-hosted/#entry100765

while I was grabbing part 2 I could see youtube was messing with it. not sure if up now on youtube but it became unavailable for some time last night. could be coincidence, don’t know and don’t care as I got it self hosted now.

I look at this through a very simple lens: If I had done in my profession what Gruber has done in his, I would have lost my license to practice medicine. It’s called violating the Duty to Obtain Informed Consent. Repeatedly.

I have nothing but contempt for the man.

I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong but…the federal funds (free federal dollars) only comes for three years and then the states are on their own. Take the money now and when the bill comes due in three years you will have moved on to a cushy Senate or House of Representative job where you can hide from the consequences! Brilliant (lie to the stupid democrat voters and the MEDIA)

Remember it’s not republican, conservative, libertarian voters who they think are stupid, that’s right it’s democrats, liberals and the MEDIA that they know are stupid.

We need to keep reminding them that the fools who were fooled (stupid) were the lefties and the MEDIA!

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Merlin01. | November 19, 2014 at 3:42 pm

    Correct, feds pay x 3 yrs, the state takes over the costs for the ensuing eternity. Using taxpayer money to buy policy.

I understand that Gruber testified about the positive attributes of ObamaCare before Congress. Then a year later was telling us about the lies used to pass ObamaCare. Is it possible that he committed perjury and could be thrown in the House jail?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend