One of the favorite left-wing memes whenever Obama-administration deceit vidoes are discovered (as with the November 2014 series of a half-dozen Gruberisms) is that President Obama's lies are no different than George Bush "lying about Medicare Part D." What might be useful is for the the left to tell us what it is even talking about by "Bush lying about Part D" 10 years ago.
Presumably the looney left is referring to a Democratic-activist/civil-servant at the time who was going around the country prior to the Part D vote in Congress telling everyone that Part D would "cost" $120B over 10 years. At the time (2003), it was the position of the Bush administration, for which that Democratic-activist/civil-servant worked, that Part D would only "cost" $75B over the suceeding 10 years. The looney left's definition of a lie is when the Democratic actvist is told by his Republican bosses -- who ran the government -- to stop lying about the $120B or lose his job.
Now the better news is that not only was the Bush administration's estimate closer to right about Part D's "cost" than the Democratic-activitist civil-servant's but in fact Bush overestimated the "cost." Part D only "cost" about $45B in the comparable period, not even the $75B it initially estimated.
And "cost" is in quotes because -- whatever the number and as everyone knew but the lefty mainstream press would not report -- Part D was never really "costing" anywhere near that amount in the first place because the government was already spending much of that money in federal and state shares of Medicaid, state pharmaceutical assistance programs, and in Medicare Part B fees for people not taking their meds. The real cost of Part D over its first 10 years, netting out the cost sharing and savings in other Part B expense is probably about $15B.
It is this type of deceit for Obamacare by the Democrats and its consultants like Gruber that Gruber has unwittingly exposed relative to Obamacare
Comments