Prof Gruber in one interview talks about the ‘genetic lottery’ that people who have been healthy, have benefited from ‘the system’ (health insurance, not paying their fair share). These quotes go way back.
This one from the pbs Frontline (about his meeting in 2009 with Barry re: Cadillac tax on employee insurance)
- it was very exciting, once again, because the economists in the room all said the number one thing you need to do is you need to take on the tax subsidy to employer-sponsored insurance. We need one minute of background on this. The way employer-sponsored insurance works is, if you get paid in wages, you get taxed. If you get paid in health insurance, you do not. ...
So this tax subsidy economists have been railing against for decades, it’s super-expensive. We forego about $250 billion per year in tax revenues. It’s regressive — the richer you are, the bigger tax break you get. And it’s inefficient because it causes people to buy excessive health insurance. So everyone in the room said, “You want something that is real cost control that we know it will work, go after this.”
Now, the problem is, it’s a political nightmare, ... and people say, “No, you can’t tax my benefits.” So what we did a lot in that room was talk about, well, how could we make this work? And Obama was like, “Well, you know” — I mean, he is really a realistic guy. He is like, “Look, I can’t just do this.” He said: “It is just not going to happen politically. The bill will not pass. How do we manage to get there through phases and other things?” And we talked about it. And he was just very interested in that topic.
Once again, that ultimately became the genesis of what is called the Cadillac tax in the health care bill, which I think is one of the most important and bravest parts of the health care law and doesn’t get nearly enough credit. I mean, this is the first time after years and years of urging — and the entire health policy, there was not one single health expert in America who is setting up a system from scratch, would have this employer subsidy in place. Not one.
So after years and years of us wanting to get rid of this, to finally go after it was just such a huge victory for health policy. And I’m just incredibly proud that he and the others who supported this law were willing to do it. ...
I imagine his study on smokers was reflected in the ACA penalty for smoking.
This is what he said in his paper about the smoking tax. Good grief, the Nanny State.
(1) smokers that smoked early wished they hadn’t
(2) smokers have a self control problem
okay, but this is his response as what to do.
Given this evidence, policymakers should not be applying the standard economics model [in which people are presumed to act rationally] to smoking policy, which would imply relatively little merit for features such as warning labels. Rather, it is important to consider alternative models that incorporate the type of evidence cited above. For example, my own research shows that if you treat all smokers as standard, rational, patient, forward-looking consumers, then we should probably tax cigarettes at below $1 per pack. But if you incorporate the self-control problems noted above — not even including the failures of teens to anticipate the future — the appropriate tax rises to $5 to $10 per pack.
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/3-questions-jonathan-gruber-cost-smoking-1013