That's literally the least damning video I've ever seen. Technocrats going to technocrat.
Trey Gowdy seems to be seeing it differently...but I don't see anyone taking this up seriously...although they should.
Granted, the guy has 0 tact, but all he did was articulate the purpose of the individual mandate: young people have to buy in or else the costs spiral out of control. Obviously, insurers aren't going to agree to a system (or be able to survive as companies) where they have to provide a) affordable insurance to b) anybody.
...I had to check the video link...thought I screwed up after your first statement and then the one directly above...
All he did was articulate the purpose of the mandate...sure, yup, you bet. To me it was more an admission to breaking the law...twice. He willfully mislead federal agents charged with budgetary drills (CBO) and half of Congress when he sat with Congress to craft the ACA. Even if EVERYONE now suspects, or knew at some point he was lying...HE BROKE THE LAW by intending to provide false or misleading documents and providing false and misleading testimony...who cares if anyone believed him...its all a matter of record. As well, he should be debarred from Federal work, as he did all of this while contracted to provide support to the Federal Government. Even a pompous asshat like this knows you can't intentionally provide misleading information to the Federal Government, EVEN if your customer asks you to...aren't you at least curious why he thinks he's so legally bullet proof?
Insurance is always a wealth transfer. It was under the old system, and it is under the ACA. The main difference is that under the old system, insurance companies got the profits they needed to operate by dropping coverage of the people who needed insurance the most and thus would be most expensive to cover. Under the ACA, they lose that ability but get to insure more young people who are relatively cheap to cover.
Sounds good when you say it fast...but the additional wealth transfer will largely be for no appreciable benefit when weighed in totality. The law does not result in "affordable" care (seemingly defined by healthcare 2500 bucks cheaper, and real experiences of people seeking insurance on the exchange). The "Care" part is arguable in a quality of care discussion, as well as increasing numbers cared for. I believe it will not end up covering MORE people who wanted coverage, just some who didn't have coverage when all of this started. It will have put at least as many people in the unenviable position of once having been covered, but now not because 1) they can't afford it, and pay a fine...2) access to medical professionals is impacted (your parents tried to use Medicare lately?) such that scarcity of resources = little to no coverage. Now add in the fact that a new government agency was created to oversee this, not to mention the IRS resources in manpower and new software development. Billions of additional recurring costs. However, proponents of ACA get to conveniently ignore those costs...When you take an honest stab at Total lifecycle cost of ACA, it is frightening. So additional cost...its there, its real...and its big. The ACA people see already costs more...not 2500 bucks less, and thats without accounting for the aforementioned federal admin costs. So it really fails to do anything but transfer wealth to create more government, breaks even on covering people (I'm being generous here I think), and hammers the shit out of some people. This leaves the logical question then...why keep doing it this way?
I seriously doubt anybody is actually surprised by the content of what he said. But I fully expect people to play up the arrogant way he said it.
Surprise is simply not the point here. The guy broke the law. I doubt he'll be prosecuted. The thing to ask is, why so arrogant. Just because he is a "technocrat" does not make him so dysfunctional as to be unable to measure risk to himself...even if his being a member of the so called elite has molded him into a raging dickhead (not surprising either). He knows he is legally bullet proof due to the level of people complicit in the illegal activity he engaged in...that does not make him innocent...and his current "yea I did it, fuck you" attitude and conduct actually incenses people... not because they didn't suspect chicanery, but because he won't get nailed for it.
ETA: I guarantee you every single member of both houses understood the logic behind the individual mandate. It wasn't framed the way it was to try to fool them, but to try to give them a fig leaf of political cover. Obviously, that didn't work so well.
