Posted on 11/12/2014 3:54:09 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
In addition to CBO, MIT's Jon Gruber has also done a study on premiums. And what does he conclude? He concludes, using Congressional Budget Office data, the Senate bill could mean people purchasing individual insurance would save every year $200 for single coverage and $500 for family coverage in 2009 dollars. Most people think he is one of the best outside experts. He has big computer models. He takes the CBO data and, in some respects, he has helped CBO by giving some information to CBO that it otherwise does not have.
Mr. Gruber also points out that people with low incomes would receive premium tax credits that will reduce the price they pay for health insurance by as much as $2,500 to $7,500.
The Congressional Budget Office and Professor Gruber are both credible and unbiased sources that are not bought and sold by the insurance industry. The Congressional Budget Office and MIT's Gruber have confirmed what many of us have known: that the bill before us will lower premiums and provide a great many options for more comprehensive coverage.
(Excerpt) Read more at c-span.org ...
http://www.hughhewitt.com/mits-john-gruber-obamacares-meltdown/
MIT’s John Gruber On Obamacare’s Meltdown
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
posted by Hugh Hewitt
EXCERPT
HH: And last question, the real more is thirty to forty percent before subsidy, taxpayer-funded subsidy in an era of massive deficits. Am I clear on that? That’s your estimate, is that the average cost of insurance for an American is going up thirty to forty percent?
JG: By my estimate, it’s thirty percent before tax credits, but that’s not relevant, because the tax credits will lower the cost. On average, it will fall once you factor in taxes.
HH: Did Americans know that when Obamacare was passed?
JG: Did Americans know, yeah, well, did Americans know that? I don’t know, actually, what Americans knew when Obamacare was passed.
HH: Do you think the President ever said your average cost is going up thirty percent, but you’ll get some tax credits?
JG: No, he didn’t say that.
HH: Do you think Democrats anywhere said that? Did you ever say it on the record?
JG: Did I ever say it, yeah, I did reports for a number of states which said exactly that.
HH: But did you ever come on a show like this and say hey, we’ve got to adopt this, your health insurance is going up thirty percent, but there’ll be some tax credits?
JG: I believe I did, but I don’t know for sure.
HH: I’d love for a citation, Professor. Come back. I appreciate the time very, very much. We’ll post the transcript and the audio of my conversation with Jon Gruber later tonight.
End of interview.
As Republicans start the repeal process, they need to finish discrediting ObamaCare by showing the whole enterprise was a Democrat fraud from the start. So next January, gavel down some hearings and let Gruber testify under oath. The guy can choose perjury and obstruction, or spilling the beans on the entire ObamaFraud strategy. Gruber knew there would be no premium reductions. He knew the bill was written to manipulate the CBO and deceive the public. He knows he helped the Demofrauds put out false information so they could vote for ACA. He knows the “stupid voters” they were fooling were Democrats (Republicans rejected the whole thing).
Gruber loves to hear himself talk — so let him. Under oath, on film and with a big microphone.
Hello everybody! Happy to be here for my first live chat by Jonathan Gruber March 28, 2012 at 12:01 PM
EXCERPTS
(snip)
Can you explain what the government health plan will cost the individual if he/she makes $20K, 50K, 100K, 200K, Millionaire?by MaryM March 28, 2012 at 12:06 PM
This is very complicated. But roughly speaking most folks won’t be affected. The winners will be those who are low income or in por health. the losers will be those few indiviiduals who are in excellent health and non-poor, who might see their prices in the non-group market go up, and the very wealthiest, who will pay a new Medicare tax . but for most americans you won’t really see a difference by Jonathan Gruber March 28, 2012 at 12:08 PM
(snip)
What are out of work Americans, who can only (barely) afford rent, food and car payment (of they’re lucky) supposed to do when they are sick and need to see a doctor multiple times? State aid doesn’t help those who “make too much” on unemployment, because $340/week is living in the lap of luxury, according to the income guidelines. That tiny bit of money is eaten up in bills and leaves nothing left for co-pays, Rx costs, and health care costs. Were starving, there are no jobs, and if you’re single with no kids, you’re just out of luck. What is our government doing to help those who aren’t playing the system by having multiple illegitimate children and living off of food stamps, HUD housing, and whatever else they can get, and have no intention of getting back to work? What about those who have been looking for a year but can’t find anything that wouldn’t be a pay cut from unemployment? Is help on the way or not?by Jon Wagner March 28, 2012 at 12:11 PM
Great question. The bottom line is that the ACA approach is one where we redistribute towards those in need, but within a budget conscious approach that makes individuals who can afford care pay for it. BAsically those who are below the average income in the U.S. either get free public insurance (if they are very poor) or get tax credits to offset the cost of private insurance, so that no one has to pay more than 9.5% of income for quality insurance. There is a mandate to buy, but htat mandate has an affordability exemption so that no one is mandated if they have to pay more than 8% of income.by Jonathan Gruber March 28, 2012 at 12:13 PM
(snip)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/does_health-care_reform_do_eno.html
By Ezra Klein
November 12, 2009
Does this bill bend the proverbial cost curve?
One confusion we’ve had is between lowering the level of costs and bending the curve. The difference is the following: Let’s say I had a magic Newt Gingrich pill that got rid of all fraud and waste and abuse in health-care spending tomorrow. Let’s say that dropped health-care costs by 12 percent. With health-care costs going up by 8 percent a year, we’re back where we were in a year and a half. If health-care costs were going to bankrupt us in 100 years, now it’s 101 years.
What we need to do is to have health-care costs stop growing at GDP plus three percentage points and move them to GDP or GDP plus one percent. We don’t need to do it today or tomorrow or even in the next decade. But we need to do it. That doesn’t mean the level stuff isn’t incredibly important. Lowering health-care costs by 7 percent would be $150 billion in consumer’s pockets. But for our ultimate fiscal burden, it’s about getting the growth down.
And does it?
What we know for sure the bill will do is that it will lower the cost of buying non-group health insurance. We know the Senate bill will significantly reduce the amount of money employers spend on health-care insurance for so-called “Cadillac” plans and increase the amount they spend on wages. The Joint Committee on Taxation’s numbers show that workers will make $300 billion more in wages due to the Cadillac Tax. By 2019, it’s $1,000 per household.
If you think of the social cost of this bill it’s well below $900 billion. If we could collect in tax revenues all the dollars in savings and new wages that people will get because of this bill, it would bring the cost well below $900 billion.
(snip)
Maybe, but it was an obvious lie and should have been fought by those representing the people....but instead it was instituted by those that wish to rule the people.
Thanks again John Roberts!
Senator from Montana, not Wyoming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.