Corrupt MIT liar:
"First we lie.
Then we steal their money.
Then we remove their medical care."
Posted on 11/14/2014 5:20:55 AM PST by maggief
A new analysis by a leading MIT economist provides new ammunition for Democrats as the Senate begins formally debating the historic health-reform bill being pushed by President Barack Obama.
The report concludes that under the Senate’s health-reform bill, Americans buying individual coverage will pay less than they do for today's typical individual market coverage, and would be protected from high out-of-pocket costs.
So Democrats will argue that under the Senate bill, Americans would pay less for more.
The new document arms Democrats with a response to the contention of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that the bill would mean “higher premiums, higher taxes, and massive cuts to Medicare.”
The “microsimulation” analysis is by Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Treasury Department official under President Bill Clinton. Gruber used data from the Congressional Budget Office.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
http://www.landrieu.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1630
Landrieu: Now is the Time to Pass Health Care Reform
December 15, 2009
WASHINGTON — Following a meeting with President Obama and fellow Democratic Senators, United States Senator Mary L. Landrieu, D-La., today encouraged the Senate to move health care legislation forward. Sen. Landrieu commented on the improvements made to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and outlined how these changes will positively affect Louisiana families and small businesses.
Sen. Landrieu said:
“While many of us expressed cost and bureaucracy concerns about early drafts of health care reform legislation, it is clear that the product the Senate is debating is a dramatic improvement. Senate Democrats have developed a consensus that combines the best blend of private and public approaches to reduce cost, expand coverage and increase choice and competition for Americans. The Congressional Budget Office and the nation’s premier economists have confirmed that premiums will go down or remain stable, so that wages for millions of Americans can increase.
(snip)
Democratic centrists have informed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) they will accept few changes in the final healthcare bill negotiated between the House and Senate.
Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) have made clear there is little room to deviate from the bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve.
They are the most vocal of nearly two-dozen senators who have indicated they see little wiggle room in the conference talks.
Centrists have said they will not vote for a healthcare reform bill that imposes a tax surcharge on the nation’s highest income earners or reduces the tax burden on so-called Cadillac health insurance plans, which are held by many unionized workers.
They have also threatened to vote against the bill if it includes a government-run health insurance program, a proposal that liberal Democrats in Congress acknowledge has little chance of winning inclusion in the final bill.
Lawmakers in the House will have to accept the Senate legislation with little change if a final bill is to muster 60 votes to overcome procedural hurdles and make it to President Barack Obama’s desk, the centrists say.
“There’s very little room for this bill to change,” said Landrieu. “The framework really has to stay basically in place.
“It’s not just me,” Landrieu added. “There are probably two-dozen Democratic senators who feel very strongly about the framework.”
Landrieu said she would not support the final legislation if negotiators tinkered with the Senate proposal for taxing high-cost insurance plans.
“I can only support a bill if the Cadillac plans are taxed at the level they are in the Senate [bill,]” said Landrieu. “It’s not because I’m thrilled about taxing those plans, which I’m not, but it is the No. 1 cost-containment measure in the bill. It’s what is going to drive costs down over time.”
(snip)
This is a double down strategy if there ever was one.
Trust the guy who proudly trumpets how devious he was to give you the analysis you present to defend him.
This so so baldly obvious. You’d think they’d at least find another politically motivated economist to sign off on the paper they want to use to paper this over.
FYI
Corrupt MIT liar:
"First we lie.
Then we steal their money.
Then we remove their medical care."
It’s more than that. IMO, CBO numbers were/are given to economists to reconfigure favoring the agenda.
In this instance, it appears to be ammo for ‘centrist’ Dems, such as Landrieu.
The ‘stupid’ tag would also work on climate enthusiasts as well. Someone should just take his video clip...like that Hitler movie clip often used of him in the bunker being being labeled to explain all of these fake episodes.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is a $2 billion non-profit corporation. The Institute’s revenue includes tuition and gifts, as well as a significant amount of funding from external research sponsors, including the federal government, industrial sponsors and foundations. .
The research enterprise can be characterized by a “cradle to grave” process. This process begins with a concept or idea that is turned into a proposal, followed by an award, the performance of the project, and several other steps that ultimately lead to the closeout process. Understanding the entire process will help you to become a more effective research administrator.
The Principal Investigator (PI) has overall responsibility for the technical and fiscal management of a sponsored project, including the management of the project within funding limitations, and assuring that the sponsor will be notified when significant conditions related to the project status change. While responsibility for the day to day management of project finances may be delegated to administrative or other staff, accountability for compliance with MIT policy and sponsor requirements ultimately rests with the PI.--snip--
MIT Office of Sponsored Programs
77 Massachusetts Avenue, Bldg. NE18-901
Cambridge, MA 02139
EMAIL osp@mit.e
WEB SITE http://osp.mit.edu/grant-and-contract-administration
So they made up an entire framework of lies in the form of “economist analyses” to get the bill to pass.
That means that they KNEW it would be bad, and would make life worse for most people.
And, I suspect, all for votes and power. Vote for ME! The OTHER guy will take away your health care! Without the health care that The Party provides, what would you do?
Let me see if I understand this. In a nutshell...
Gruber fed bogus information to the CBO to influence how they scored the bill. Then he used data from the CBO to write this paper supporting the ACA, all as part of the work for which he was paid a huge amount of money.
Truly remarkable.
The list:
“Gruber was among the 23 Ph.D. economists who sent a letter to Obama on Nov. 17 endorsing his approach to health-care reform. Read the economists’ four-page letter here.”
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM130_economist_letter_to_the_president.html
November 17, 2009
President Barack Obama The White House Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
As the full Senate prepares to debate comprehensive health reform legislation, we write as economists to stress the potential benefits of health reform for our nation’s fiscal health, and the importance of those features of the bill that can help keep health care costs under control. Four elements of the legislation are critical: (1) deficit neutrality, (2) an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans, (3) an independent Medicare commission, and (4) delivery system reforms.
Including these four elements in the reform legislation – as the Senate Finance Committee bill does and as we hope the bill brought to the Senate floor will do – will reduce long-term deficits, improve the quality of care, and put the nation on a firm fiscal footing. It will help transform the health care system from delivering too much care, to a system that consistently delivers higher-quality, high-value care. The projected increases in federal budget deficits, along with concerns about the value of the health care that Americans receive, make it particularly important to enact fiscally responsible and quality- improving health reform now.
In developing our analysis and recommendation, we received input and suggestions from Administration officials, including the Office of Management and Budget and others, as well as from economists who disagree with the Administration’s views.
The four key measures are:
Deficit neutrality. Fiscally responsible health reform requires budget neutrality or deficit reduction over the coming years. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) must project that the bill be at least deficit neutral over the 10-year budget window, and deficit reducing thereafter. Covering tens of millions of currently uninsured people will increase spending, but the draft health reform legislation contains offsetting savings sufficient to cover those costs and the seeds of further reforms that will lower the growth of spending. Deficit neutrality over the first decade means that, even during the start-up period, the legislation will not add to our deficits. After the first decade, the legislation should reduce deficits.
Excise tax on high-cost insurance plans. The Senate Finance Committee’s bill includes an excise tax on high-cost health insurance plans. Like any tax, the excise tax will raise federal revenues, but it has additional advantages for the health care system that are essential. The excise tax will help curtail the growth of private health insurance premiums by creating incentives to limit the costs of plans to a tax-free amount. In addition, as employers and health plans redesign their benefits to reduce health care premiums, cash wages will increase. Analysis of the Senate Finance Committee’s proposal suggests that the excise tax on high-cost insurance plans would increase workers’ take-home pay by more than $300 billion over the next decade. This provision offers the most promising approach to reducing private-sector health care costs while also giving a much needed raise to the tens of millions of Americans who receive insurance through their employers.
Medicare Commission. Rising Medicare expenditures pose one of the most difficult fiscal challenges facing the federal government. Medicare is technically complex and the benefits it underwrites are of critical importance to tens of millions of seniors and Americans with disabilities. We believe that a commission of medical experts should be empowered to suggest changes in Medicare to improve the quality and value of services. In particular, such a commission should be charged with developing and suggesting to Congress plans to extend the solvency of the Medicare program and improve the quality of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries. Creating such a commission will make sure that reforming the health care system does not end with this legislation, but continues in future decades, with new efforts to improve quality and contain costs.
Delivery system reforms. Successful reform should improve the care that individual patients receive by rewarding health care professionals for providing better care, not just more care.
Studies have shown that hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on care that does nothing to improve health outcomes. This is largely a consequence of the distorted incentives associated with paying for volume rather than quality. Health care reform must take steps to change the way providers care for patients, to reward care that is better coordinated and meets the needs of each patient. In particular, the legislation should include additional funding for research into what tests and treatments work and which ones do not. It must also provide incentives for physicians and hospitals to focus on quality, such as bundled payments and accountable care organizations, as well as penalties for unnecessary re-admissions and health-facility acquired infections. Aggressive pilot projects should be rapidly introduced and evaluated, with the best strategies adopted quickly throughout the health care system.
As economists, we believe that it is important to enact health reform, and it is essential that health reform include these four features that will lower health care costs and help reduce deficits over the long term. Reform legislation that embodies these four elements can go a long way toward delivering better health care, and better value, to Americans.
Sincerely,
Dr. Henry Aaron, The Brookings Institution
Dr. Kenneth Arrow, Stanford University, Nobel Laureate in Economics Dr. Alan Auerbach, University of California, Berkeley
Dr. Katherine Baicker, Harvard University
Dr. Alan Blinder, Princeton University
Dr. David Cutler, Harvard University
Dr. Angus Deaton, Princeton University
Dr. J. Bradford DeLong, University of California, Berkeley
Dr. Peter Diamond, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Victor Fuchs, Stanford University
Dr. Alan Garber, Stanford University
Dr. Jonathan Gruber, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Mark McClellan, The Brookings Institution
Dr. Daniel McFadden, University of California, Berkeley, Nobel Laureate in Economics Dr. David Meltzer, University of Chicago
Dr. Joseph Newhouse, Harvard University
Dr. Uwe Reinhardt, Princeton University
Dr. Robert Reischauer, The Urban Institute
Dr. Alice Rivlin, The Brookings Institution
Dr. Meredith Rosenthal, Harvard University
Dr. John Shoven, Stanford University
Dr. Jonathan Skinner, Dartmouth College
Dr. Laura D’Andrea Tyson, University of California, Berkeley
Who’s stupid now?! Landrieu, for one.
"My healthcare bill insures we have a permanent Democratic majority. All except those Tea
Party types, swallowed hook, line and sinker my promises that those stupid Americans could":
(1) keep their existing health plans,
(2) keep their own doctors that they like,
(3) keep their 25-year-olds on the family health plan,
(4) never be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition,
(5) sign up instantly on my tech-savvy government Web site,
(6) buy insurance only after becoming seriously ill."
(7) save $2,500 in annual premiums in the bargain....
(8) All without any new taxes.
"Them sonovagun Tea Partiers will rue the day they criticized my wonderful bill."
THe full effects of Obamacare have been postponed, right?
“In this instance, it appears to be ammo for ‘centrist’ Dems, such as Landrieu”
Senators have a huge Staff to read / interpret bills then feed the cliff notes and write the speeches for the Boss. If the Pontchartrain Pig didn’t know what was in the bill then it was willful ignorance.
Enemies of the State, they should be ridiculed, loud and often
Sincerely,
Dr. Henry Aaron, The Brookings Institution
Dr. Kenneth Arrow, Stanford University, Nobel Laureate in Economics Dr. Alan Auerbach, University of California, Berkeley
Dr. Katherine Baicker, Harvard University
Dr. Alan Blinder, Princeton University
Dr. David Cutler, Harvard University
Dr. Angus Deaton, Princeton University
Dr. J. Bradford DeLong, University of California, Berkeley
Dr. Peter Diamond, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Victor Fuchs, Stanford University
Dr. Alan Garber, Stanford University
Dr. Jonathan Gruber, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Mark McClellan, The Brookings Institution
Dr. Daniel McFadden, University of California, Berkeley, Nobel Laureate in Economics Dr. David Meltzer, University of Chicago
Dr. Joseph Newhouse, Harvard University
Dr. Uwe Reinhardt, Princeton University
Dr. Robert Reischauer, The Urban Institute
Dr. Alice Rivlin, The Brookings Institution
Dr. Meredith Rosenthal, Harvard University
Dr. John Shoven, Stanford University
Dr. Jonathan Skinner, Dartmouth College
Dr. Laura D’Andrea Tyson, University of California, Berkeley
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.