ObamaCare architect: “Genetic lottery winners” have been paying an artificially low price
GRUBER: Exactly. It’s 12 million people, about a third of which will end up paying more under this law. And that as you said in the introductions sort of the idea. We currently have a highly discriminatory system where if you’re sick, if you’ve been sick or [if] you’re going to get sick, you cannot get health insurance.
The only way to end that discriminatory system is to bring everyone into the system and pay one fair price. That means that the genetic winners, the lottery winners who’ve been paying an artificially low price because of this discrimination now will have to pay more in return. And that, by my estimate, is about four million people. In return, we’ll have a fixed system where over 30 million people will now for the first time be able to access fairly price and guaranteed health insurance.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
I realize that not every person born with disability/disease/condition comes from a poor/welfare type family. But, I’d be interested to see the numbers. I am willing to bet that the rate of people born with disabilities/diseases is much higher among the poor on various gov’t programs.
Meaning, we create a sick underclass by virtue of a welfare state and then use the existence of that sick underclass to claim that it is only “genetic lottery” that some are paying lower insurance rates.
What about the genetic lottery for women drivers over men drivers? Why should I have to pay more for my car insurance than a woman?
How about genetic lottery re warfare? If there is a war and a draft, why should I be drafted and not some disabled person?
Monkeytoe on November 14, 2013 at 1:07 PM
In other words, just as Obama said to an SEIU gathering back in the mid 2000s: Everybody in, nobody out!
And if you want to be out? Tough. You have no choice. Pro-choice only applies if you want to terminate your pregnancy
djm1992 on November 14, 2013 at 1:08 PM
A pair of his kick ass running shoes.
Ward Cleaver on November 14, 2013 at 1:12 PM
A NAZI dream.
kcewa on November 14, 2013 at 1:25 PM
By “genetic winners,” what he means is “people whose genetics disgust me.”
He hates people who have been, up until now, assumed to be “genetically superior,” since he thinks this gives them an “unfair advantage” over others. They must be punished for their genetic haughtiness.
Needless to say, this is EXACTLY the original basis of Nazi ideology. it started out not as a declaration of the superiority of “Aryan” stock, but instead as jealousy over the brains and inexplicable success of Jews in central and eastern Europe, despite (even prior to the Nazi era) suffering discrimination.
The simmering resentment, which percolated amongst the German chattering classes from about 1880-1920, was essentially this: “These oh-so-special people with their genetically superior brains — who the hell do they think they are? They need to be taken down a notch or two.”
This is exactly what this ObamaCare architect is saying. And he is setting the stage for institutionalized discrimination against healthy/successful/”beautiful” people. As punishment for their hubris for being superior.
Zombie on November 14, 2013 at 1:53 PM
Agreed. It also has almost nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with income. The website doesn’t ask you if you’re a life’s lottery winner or loser, it asks what your income is and that decides whether you get a subsidy or not. So the two PHD couple from AZ or wherever that was, who are basically healthy but like to dabble in hobbies and their income is $24k, basically get a free ride on the backs of everyone else. Meanwhile those who work hard to pay their own way in society despite any infirmities and are prospering as a result have to carry the extra baggage for loaf-abouts, alcoholics, drug addicts, etc, not to mention people who take advantage of the system.
The problem with these evil lunatics pushing grandiose schemes like Obamacare is that it’s nothing more than a power grab for self-enrichment. You see this when you look at the socialistic aspect that informs their ideology. It’s not socialism, it’s half-socialism. The half they concentrate on is finding the base of voters large enough to give them the power and profit they seek using the argument that these voters have a claim on society, while totally ignoring commensurate claim that society would have on them in return.
They want to hand out the bennies because people will support them for those, but they don’t want to ‘hand out’ the obligations because that support would disappear.
The government is not competent in this sphere of social relations. It should be left to the private sphere of social relations to take care of these problems. Social justice demands it.
Dusty on November 14, 2013 at 1:54 PM
To all those who are asking variations of this question, the answer is, YES.
I’ve talked to honest liberals (I know, it’s rare.) They believe that EVERYTHING you have, are, or do that is “better” than someone else is the result of “luck”. You, therefore, don’t deserve it and it ought to be taken from you and given to those who weren’t “lucky”.
Harrison Bergeron is frightening because there are people who actually desire that… and they currently have far too much power.
makattak on November 14, 2013 at 2:12 PM
Of course there’s something you can do about that.
You can vote for socialism.
Socratease on November 14, 2013 at 2:12 PM
In one of his rare unguarded and truthful moments, Obama let this attitude slip with his “you didn’t build that… someone else… made that happen.”
makattak on November 14, 2013 at 2:14 PM
Everybody “pays a fair price”. Assuming he means “equal”, exactly how will 4 million people foot the bill for over 30 million?
Going dollar by dollar, $4,000,000 was not equal to $30,000,000, the last time I looked.
The only way this works is if he’s going to charge those “genetic lottery winners” about seven and a half times as much apiece as he’s going to charge the 30 million poor schlubs who got “second-rate” genes from Mummy & Daddums. Which sort of calls the whole “fairness” thing into question.
One thing is not in doubt, however. It is clear that math is now an elective at MIT, and you don’t actually need it to get a degree from said institution.
I’d love to see this guy trying to make change at a fast-food joint. But I suspect he would have trouble meeting the minimum requirements for flipping burgers, let alone working the register.
clear ether
eon
eon on November 14, 2013 at 2:45 PM
Only a liberal would (a) call actuarial pricing discriminatory and (b) proclaim that there is ONLY one way to end that, with everyone paying the same price.
Stupidity compounded with hubris.
rockmom on November 14, 2013 at 3:03 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2