Nancy Pelosi on O-Care Architect Jonathan Gruber: “I Don’t Know Who He Is. He Didn’t Help Write

The Gateway Pundit ^ | 11/13/14 | Jim Hoft

[QualityMan]

doh....mentions him by name.....

I love the smell of cornered RATS in the morning..

[Mastador1]

Hell, I doubt that Pelosi can remember what she had for breakfast in the morning unless one of her assistants tells her!

[LostInBayport]

I found it in a quick search.

[saywhatagain]

Excellent. Nancy please demand Gruber return the money back to the American people.

Uhmmm,, when caught in the act, rule number 1, lie. When caught in the act, rule number 2 lie some more. When caught in the act, rule number 3, blame the person catching you in the act.

[The Cajun]

Why I'm starting to think she's lying again, hell she even knew Gruber was at MIT during that press conference.

MSM would have a field day if she was a Republican on that alone.

[Third Person]

She must be talking about the other Jonathan Gruber at MIT.

[sport]

Anytime Nancy opens her mouth she is lying. The truth is not in her.

[stylin19a]

Cripes...the next question should have been...”Ok, so who DID help write it ?”

[Ray76]

Pelosi lies.

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20100304070108/http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/factcheck?id=0142

Health Insurance Reform Mythbuster - ‘Health Reform And Insurance Premiums’

12/01/2009

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.

New CBO Analysis

• Furthermore, for the vast majority of Americans who get their health insurance in the employer-sponsored group market, the Congressional Budget Office has just released an estimate that, under the quite similar Senate bill, premiums would either be reduced or stay the same.  Specifically, for the millions in the employer-sponsored large group market, premiums would be reduced by up to 3 percent or stay the same.  And for all Americans, copays would be eliminated for preventive care and out-of-pocket expenses would be capped.
• Like Gruber, CBO found that for Americans using the non-group market, their coverage would significantly improve under the Senate bill.  The CBO data indicate that the Senate bill would reduce premiums by 14 to 20 percent for people in the non-group market when comparing plans that provide equivalent coverage.

For the Gruber analysis, please click here.

For the CBO analysis, please click here.

[ExTexasRedhead]

Liberalism is a mental disease proof positive.

[Liberty Valance]

lol - her first response is to lie, cover-up and obfuscate.
It’s OK Nancy. We expect that from all dems.

[TexasCajun]

Scoreboard!!

That didn't take long, I'm sure we'll find many more examples.

[The Cajun]

Those clips need to go viral along with her denying she knows the bastard.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Please forward to Drudge, etc. Great find!

[maggief]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/13/nancy-pelosi-says-she-doesnt-know-who-jonathan-gruber-is-she-touted-his-work-in-2009/

But then there’s this: Pelosi herself has also mentioned Gruber and his work — back in November 2009, at the height of the Obamacare debate.

Here’s the transcript, via Nexis:

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.

[tumblindice]

I can't stand a liar. "I only saw Rod Blagojevich one time ... And that was in the stands and from a distance at a Chicago Bears Football Game" Barry Obama

[refermech]

She reminds me of an old girlfriend. Hot in bed but otherwise a complete nutcase.

[TexasCajun]

I sent your found C-Span video to Mark Finkelstein @ Newsbusters.

He has the contacts to get this out and show Nancy Pelosi to be damn liar!

[maggief]

HEALTH AFFAIRS 30,
NO. 1 (2011): 63–70
©2011 Project HOPE—
The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.

http://economics.mit.edu/files/6404

By Peter Long and Jonathan Gruber
Projecting The Impact
Of The Affordable Care Act On California

ABSTRACT The Affordable Care Act is the most fundamental legislative transformation of the US health care system in forty years. This analysis estimates that the act will provide health insurance for an additional 3.4 million people in California in 2016. This will mean that nearly
96 percent of documented residents of California under age sixty-five will be insured. Enrollment in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, is expected to increase by 1.7 million people, while 4.0 million people are expected to enroll in the state’s planned new health insurance exchange. Employer-sponsored insurance and spending on health insurance will decline slightly. Low-income households will experience substantial financial benefits, but families at the highest income levels will pay more.

(snip)

See also bios at end.

[Dick Bachert]

This post made pursuant to the authority granted me by RULE #5 of “RULES FOR RADICALS” by that darling of the loopy left and obozo's and hillary's mentor, Saul Alinsky!