Archive

Who’s ‘stupid’? | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Who’s ‘stupid’?

“Stupid is as stupid does”

— Forrest Gump

Unless you regularly follow conservative media, you may not have heard what one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) thinks about you.

Jonathan Gruber is a Massachusetts Institute of Technology health economist who helped craft ObamaCare. In a rare moment of unvarnished candor, Gruber told an audience last year at the University of Pennsylvania that the law passed because of the “stupidity of the American voter.”

In what can only be described as a smoking gun — meaning there is no way to spin his remarks as “out of context” — Gruber told his audience, “The bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK, so it’s written to do that.” Gruber added, “(I)f you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money — it would not have passed.”

Gruber continued digging his hole even deeper: “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

Not surprisingly, the video of Gruber’s comments, which have drawn mainstream media attention 13 months after the comments were made, has been removed from YouTube without explanation. But do we need one? Recently Gruber said he “spoke inappropriately,” which falls short of a genuine apology or explanation.

This is what a lot of politicians think of voters. Citizens are to serve them, not the other way around. Government officials and their big-media toadies can lie, obfuscate and cover up, and if people complain, they are denounced as partisan, bigoted or whatever other label serves to protect the politician from public scrutiny and accountability.

It isn’t that voters are “stupid.” Rather, too many aren’t paying attention, and that’s how politicians are able to pick their pockets.

After the administration argued that ObamaCare was not a tax, the Supreme Court narrowly ruled that it is and that because Congress has a constitutional right to impose taxes, the law is constitutional. The court now has a chance to redeem itself and help people whose insurance is being canceled, or premiums raised, or coverage reduced.

The Supreme Court has accepted a case challenging a provision of the law that prohibits people from receiving federal subsidies to buy insurance unless they live in states that run their own markets and offer coverage. Just 14 states and the District of Columbia handle their own enrollments, with the rest leaving it to consumers to access an exchange run by the federal government. The court will decide whether insurance subsidies can be granted in states that do not have their own markets. If the decision eliminates subsidies in those states, ObamaCare could be gutted. That is, the people now receiving those federal subsidies outside the state exchanges likely would no longer be able to afford health care coverage — the basis of the Affordable Care Act.

This attitude that government is better at making decisions than you are because you are too stupid to know what is good for you is a hallmark of patronizing, arrogant and condescending liberalism.

Cal Thomas is a columnist for USA Today.


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.