"I don't know who he is. He didn't help write our bill," she told reporters at her weekly briefing. (click here)
The Republican cockroaches can take it up with the man who really wrote the bill. My his soul rest in peace.
Gruber is a paranoid right winger. This is the kind of crap he writes. He's a pundit.
“Does Church Attendance Cause People to Vote? Using Blue Laws’ Repeal to Estimate the Effect of Religiosity on Voter Turnout,” British Journal of Political Science, forthcoming (also available as NBER Working Paper #14303, September 2008) (with Alan Gerber and Dan Hungerman).
Hello? A church is suppose to be a non-profit and it cannot mix prayers with politics. Like I said, this Gruber guy is a pundit.
This paper analyzes (click here) Thailand’s 2001 healthcare reform, “30 Baht”. The program increased funding available to hospitals to care for the poor and reduced copays to 30 Baht (~$0.75). Our estimates suggest the supply-side funding of the program increased healthcare utilization, especially amongst the poor. Moreover, we find significant impacts on infant mortality: prior to 30 Baht poorer provinces had significantly higher infant mortality rates than richer provinces. After 30 Baht this correlation evaporates to zero. The results suggest that increased access to healthcare among the poor can significantly reduce their infant mortality rates.
When the health care law was being written it was long before President Obama came into office. The Democratic legislators had the bill ready to go. I remember being surprised at the level of detail of the legislation and realized it wasn't written overnight. There was a lot of thought that went into it and the MODEL for the national law was the Massachusetts law. So there was no economist involved to the point where he wrote the law. He didn't write the law, he was in places like India while the law was being written.
The cockroach with the fancy education was writing about health care reform in journals in 2009 while the debate was taking place. This article he authored talked about the place where funding could be found for the ACA.
...There are a number of possible sources.(click here) One is reductions in existing government spending on health care through cost controls. President Barack Obama proposed more than $300 billion of such cost controls in his budget, but it is not clear that either politicians or providers have the appetite to go further. Another is increased taxation of “sin goods” — cigarettes, alcohol, and high-sugar or high-fat foods that cause obesity — whose use raises the cost of health care for all Americans. These taxes make sense, yet it is difficult to raise sufficient revenues from them. The government can also look outside the health care system to increased revenues from taxes on carbon emissions or on other goods and services. But this approach would involve expanding the fight over health care into other realms, compounding the difficulty of passing any legislation.
There is one final potential source: the elimination or limiting of the income-tax exclusion for expenditures on employer-sponsored insurance. Ending the massive tax subsidy for such insurance would result in both the most natural source of financing for health care reform and one of the few that is clearly large enough to finance the necessary subsidies.
The $250 billion per year in foregone revenues attributable to the tax exclusion of employers' health insurance expenditures represents the federal government's second-largest health insurance expenditure (after Medicare). When my employer pays me in cash wages, I am taxed on those wages. But the roughly $10,000 per year that my employer spends on my health insurance is not taxed, and it translates into a tax break for me of about $4,000. To be clear, this exclusion represents a tax break for individuals, not for firms; firms are largely indifferent about whether they pay employees in wages or in health insurance. But employees are not indifferent: they pay taxes on the former but not on the latter....
So, if cockroach Gruber wants to become a noted expert with the right wing he can find his fame interrupted by THE TRUTH.
This is from January 2011.
...At the beginning of the mandate's phase-in in mid-2007, there was a greater increase in the number of healthy enrollees than in the number of enrollees with chronic illness. When the mandate became fully effective at the end of 2007, there was an enormous increase in the number of healthy enrollees and a far smaller bump in the enrollment of people with chronic illness. The gap then shrank to premandate levels as the remaining uninsured residents complied with the mandate, but clearly the mandate brought many more healthy people than nonhealthy ones into the risk pool. The large jump in healthy enrollees that occurred when the program became fully effective suggests that enrollment by the healthy was not simply slower than enrollment by the unhealthy, but rather that the mandate had a causal role in improving risk selection....
Eat Shit, Boner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! At what point in time are your House Republicans going to become civilized ?
This study of the Massachusetts individual mandate PROVES people come to the new health care law to have health care no matter their physical condition AND they maintain their insurance from then forward. There is EXTREMELY healthy balances of income from subscription rates collected to administer to those that need the coverage and it's use. Everyone in an exchange or private employer receives FREE health care when it comes to physical exams and PREVENTIVE health.
I could do this all day long.
The cockroach Republicans can crawl back into their holes now!
This is from January 2011.
The Importance of the Individual Mandate — Evidence from Massachusetts (click here)
The most contentious aspect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the individual mandate requiring that most documented U.S. residents obtain health insurance or pay a tax penalty. Many experts have long advocated a mandate as a central pillar of private-sector–based health care reform. Others, however, have argued that a mandate is not necessary for successful reform....
...At the beginning of the mandate's phase-in in mid-2007, there was a greater increase in the number of healthy enrollees than in the number of enrollees with chronic illness. When the mandate became fully effective at the end of 2007, there was an enormous increase in the number of healthy enrollees and a far smaller bump in the enrollment of people with chronic illness. The gap then shrank to premandate levels as the remaining uninsured residents complied with the mandate, but clearly the mandate brought many more healthy people than nonhealthy ones into the risk pool. The large jump in healthy enrollees that occurred when the program became fully effective suggests that enrollment by the healthy was not simply slower than enrollment by the unhealthy, but rather that the mandate had a causal role in improving risk selection....
Eat Shit, Boner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! At what point in time are your House Republicans going to become civilized ?
This study of the Massachusetts individual mandate PROVES people come to the new health care law to have health care no matter their physical condition AND they maintain their insurance from then forward. There is EXTREMELY healthy balances of income from subscription rates collected to administer to those that need the coverage and it's use. Everyone in an exchange or private employer receives FREE health care when it comes to physical exams and PREVENTIVE health.
I could do this all day long.
The cockroach Republicans can crawl back into their holes now!
