Co-author of Obamacare: Law wasn't designed to save money--that was a "misleading motivator." In fact it will *cost* $$

Among the many advantages to Democrats of having the entire mainstream media thoroughly devoted to their side is that Democrats can say two diametrically opposite things a month apart and be confident that no mainstream reporter will ever point that out.

Case in point:  Jonathan Gruber is a pencil-neck from MIT who is often described as one of the two main authors of what became Obamacare.  Back in late October Gruber co-authored an article in a left-wing rag saying that Obamacare was already saving Americans BILLIONS each year. 

The Affordable Care Act is already working: Intense price competition among health plans in the marketplaces for individuals has lowered premiums below projected levels. As a result of these lower premiums, the federal government will save about $190 billion over the next 10 years, according to our estimates.

Well there ya go, citizen!  We tol' ya this was a great idea!  Not only did we give free health care to every poor person in America, we also saved everyone billions in the bargain!  We are SO  BRILLIANT!

But despite the Lying Media trying its best to hide the truth from the public, reality eventually has a way of asserting itself.  In this case it was a study published Thursday in the journal Science that showed that low-income Oregon residents who were randomly given free health insurance ended up using emergency rooms 40 percent more than those who weren't given the free insurance.

Say what?

Washington Post writer Sarah Kliff--lips firmly planted on Obozo's ass, as always--did a magnificent job of finessing what should have been a real bombshell, by writing 

This runs counter to some health-care law supporters' hope that Medicaid coverage would decrease this type of costly medical care, by making it easier for low income adults to see primary care providers.

 "I would view it as part of a broader set of evidence that covering people with health insurance doesn't save money," says Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology... "That was sometimes a misleading motivator for [Obamacare]. The law isn't designed to save money. It's designed to improve health, and that's going to cost money."

Isn't that precious?  "This runs counter to some health-care law supporters' hope that Medicaid coverage would decrease this type of costly medical care."  And to claim that saving money was "sometimes a misleading motivator" for the law, and that the law "isn't designed to save money"--anyone recall the famous line that the average premium would drop by $2500 per family per year?

And does Post author Kliff happen to know any supporter of the law who might have flatly stated that Obamacare would save--indeed is already saving--billions?  Evidently not, even though she's quoting one of those who made such a statement.

Of course Gruber made his "it'll save $190 Billion over ten years" bullshit statement, oh, eons ago.  Like, October 23rd of last year.  Why, that's so long ago that no one could possibly hold him to account for that statement.  I mean, did they even have the Internet that long ago?

Now, before some reader gets all huffy:  I'm not complaining about the fact the Gruber made a statement that turned out to be completely, utterly the reverse of reality.  Hey, we all make mistakes.  I'm not even complaining that when conservatives pointed out, before the bill was passed, the certain consequences of it, the uniform reaction in the Lying Media was a snort of derision and the shrill cry that we were all haters.

No, what I want to point out is that the leftist reporter published Gruber's later statement--totally contradicting his earlier position--without saying a word about the fact that the new Gruber is saying the complete opposite of what he wrote (in an article he authored, so he can't claim he was misquoted) just six weeks earlier.

This is classic goal-post moving.  The Dems and their Mainstream Media wing have always done it, and the only thing that's changed is that thanks to the internet we can catch them at it more quickly.

I would have had a lot of respect for the Dems if when they were debating (!) the ACA, they'd said "This sumbitch is gonna' be *hugely* expensive--probably at least $300 billion a year.  And we propose to increases taxes on you taxpayers $2000 a year or so to pay for it.  But even though that's a big hit on your families, it's the only way we can give health insurance to the poor."

Of course that might have made it just a tiny bit harder to pass the damn thing, eh?

But as the World's Smartest Woman said about some minor dustup overseas somewhere, What difference does it make, citizen?  It's the law now, so you can't repeal it, or change its provisions.

Unless you're a Democratic president and the change will make it easier for Dems to win re-election this November.  In that case you can change whatever you wish.