Nancy Pelosi Claims She Does Not Know Who Jonathan Gruber Is … FLASHBACK to 2009, Pelosi Touted Gruber’s Work
GRUBER-GATE CONTINUES: NANCY PELOSI, A SENIOR MOMENT? HARDLY, JUST MORE LIES FROM DEMOCRATS …
Embarrassed Democrats try to distance themselves from Jonathon Gruber … House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Thursday that, not only did Jonathan Gruber not play a significant role in drafting Obamacare, but that she doesn’t even “know who he is.” Really San Fran Nan, is that your final answer? I feel like I am watching the game show ‘Who Wants to be a
Millionaire, LYING DEMOCRAT.’ But of course it would appear that Peosi is trying to “gruber” the American people as she thinks we are stupid too. Has she learned nothing about this invention called video tape and the Internet? In 2009 at the height of the Obamacare debate, Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House, touted Gruber’s work with Obamacare. Which begs the question, does Pelosi need to pass Gruber in order to find out who he is?
Is anyone capable of telling the truth in the Democrat party?
But wait Nancy, there is VIDEO of you to commenting on Gruber’s work. Note to Nancy, when one is the architect of Obamacare and is paid nearly $400,000 as a consultant, they did write the bill. In the wake of Gruber-gate, Democrats are proving Jonathon Gruber correct that they think that Americans are stupid. Pelosi would give such a ridiculous, flipped remark that she does not know who he is when she obviously did. It gets better America, Pelosi’s office came back to correct her misspeak by saying … the minority leader meant that she didn’t know Gruber personally. Too bad that is not what she said, Pelosi said, “She said she doesn’t ‘know who he is,’ not that she’s never heard of him. But what else would you expect from Democrats who think you are stupid.
Q: As you know, the Republicans released their health- care bill this week. And I wanted to get your comment on the bill, and specifically on the CBO analysis that it would cost significantly less than the Democratic plan and that it would lower premiums.
PELOSI: Let me just say this. Anything you need to know about the difference between the Democratic bill and the Republican bill is that the Republicans do not end the health insurance companies’ discrimination against people with preexisting conditions. They let that stand. That’s scandalous, the fact that it exists. I don’t understand why they have not heard the American people, who have said preexisting conditions should not be a source of discrimination.
And secondly, the Republican plan ensures about 3 million more people than now, and ours does 36 million people. So that’s a very big difference in that.
We’re not finished getting all of our reports back from CBO, but we’ll have a side by side to compare. But our bill brings down rates. I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange. And our bill takes down those costs, even some now, and much less preventing the upward spiral.
So again, we’re confident about what we set out to do in the bill: middle class affordability, security for our seniors, and accountability to our children.
Health Insurance Reform Mythbuster – ‘Health Reform And Insurance Premiums’
Opponents of health insurance reform continue to spread myths about the recently-passed Affordable Health Care for America Act. For example, they are claiming that health reform would increase premiums for most of America’s families. But the facts continue to knock these myths down—including a brand-new report from the independent Congressional Budget Office.
MYTH: The House health insurance reform bill would result in higher premiums.
FACT: An analysis of the House bill by noted MIT health care economist Jonathan Gruber concludes that the bill would result in lower premiums than under current law for the millions of Americans using the newly-established Health Insurance Exchange – including those who are not receiving affordability credits to help them purchase coverage. (The Health Insurance Exchange is for those without access to affordable employer-sponsored coverage.) As Gruber states: “the premiums that individuals will face in the new exchanges established by this legislation are … considerably lower than what they would face in the non-group insurance market [under current law], due to the market reforms put in place by the House plan, the mandate on individuals to participate regardless of health, and the market economies of new exchanges.”
- The Gruber analysis shows that, on the Exchange, a family at 425 percent of poverty (whose income of $93,710 means that they would receive no affordability credits) would see their premiums reduced by $1,260 or 12 percent compared to current law. Similarly, the Gruber analysis shows that, on the Exchange, an individual at 425 percent of poverty (whose income of $46,030 means that they would receive no affordability credits) would see their premiums reduced by $470 or 12 percent.
- The annual savings are much larger for lower income populations that receive affordability credits. Under the House bill, when the bill’s affordability credits are taken into account, a family at 275% of poverty (income of $60,640) would save $5,030, or 47 percent in premiums compared to current law and a family at 175 percent of poverty (income of $38,590) would save $9,050 or 84 percent in premiums compared to current law.
- Gruber also points out that, even as individuals and families on the Exchange are paying less, they will be getting more:
- The coverage those on the Exchange get under the House plan would be better than today’s typical coverage in the non-group market.
- For example, it would protect individuals and families from high out-of-pocket costs.
- That’s in addition to other consumer protections in the bill – like ending discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and guaranteeing that your coverage won’t be dropped or watered down when you get sick or need it most.