January 16, 2018

FDA colludes with Big Pharma to cover up deaths in psych drug trials 

FDA colludes with Big Pharma to cover up deaths in psych drug trials
Source: FDA colludes with Big Pharma to cover up deaths in psych drug trials – NaturalNews.com


Coca Cola Accepts Challenge to Commit to GMO Education

National Center for Public Policy Research Urges Coca-Cola to Conduct Public Education Campaign About Safety of GMOs

As Celebrities Such as Dr. Oz and Self-Appointed Food Police Such as the “Food Babe” Sow Discord over GMOs, Science Shows GMOs are Safe

Big Business Has Moral Obligation to Take Truth to the Public

Coca-Cola CEO Recognizes and Applauds National Center’s Work to Bring Sound Science to GMO Debate

Washington, DC – At last week’s annual meeting of Coca-Cola shareholders in Atlanta, Georgia, the National Center for Public Policy Research urged the beverage giant’s CEO, Muhtar Kent, to do far more to promote the safety and benefit of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), as the food industry is under near-constant assault from ant-science activists who seek to demonize these ingredients.

A video of the exchange is here.

“The food and beverage industry has a moral obligation and a business incentive to confront anti-GMO activists by promoting the safety and promise of these high-yield foods,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “The attacks on GMO foods often come from elitists such as television personality Dr. Mehmet Oz and the self-appointed Food Babe, Vani Hari , who have used their respective platforms to spread junk science and fear. But their actions have real-world harm and large food and beverage companies such as Coca-Cola have a duty to set the record straight.”

At the meeting, held April 29 in Atlanta, Danhof explained the scientific community agrees GM ingredients are safe and the actions of anti-GMO activists are causing human suffering. He stated:

Despite the fact that GMOs are mainstream agriculture, GMOs feed people more efficiently, GMO crops are more environment-friendly than conventional crops and there is a scientific consensus GMO foods are safe – activists still attack companies such as Coca-Cola for using GMOs in some of its products.

Last year, Scientific American reported that the delayed application of Vitamin A-enhanced Golden Rice thanks to controversies stirred by anti-GMO activists had cost over 1.4 million life years in India alone since 2002. This is real human suffering and death.

Danhof went on to explain that the anti-GMO crowd has tricked much of the public into distrusting these ingredients. This increases the need for strong corporate action:

The anti-GMO attacks come from Americans who have likely never missed a meal in their lives. Their campaign against GMOs is unscientific, fear-based and inhumane, but they are winning. One ABC News poll showed 93 percent of Americans think the federal government should mandate GMO labeling – a tactic they hope will elevate GMOs with taboo products such as tobacco and alcohol.

As perhaps the most recognizable brand in the world, Coca-Cola has an opportunity, and indeed a duty, to do more to bridge the GMO information gap and educate consumers about the safety of GM products.

Danhof asked Mr. Kent to make Coca Cola’s health scientists, nutrition specialists and himself available to the American and international media to combat the unscientific activists and stand up for the promise of GMOs.

To read Danhof’s full statement, as prepared for delivery, click here.

Coca-Cola’s Kent replied:

First, we appreciate your question – question about technology, biotechnology, that you’re presenting, in a way a slightly different perspective than we have heard in the past. And we’ve- all of us at Coca-Cola, we firmly believe that there is – that the only way that we can combat some of these matters that you’ve just talked about is again, that golden triangle of government – not relying solely on government though, business, and civil society organizations like yours, public policy think-tanks like yours, coming together and talking about how we have more sound science, how we can have better science and how we can collaborate more to make sure that consumers are better educated, government officials are better educated and that we can have a consensus of view forward on how to deal with some of these major issues that you have outlined.

And many of our regulatory affairs executives and scientific executives are involved in those discussions and I’m very happy even to even re-commit them a very productive dialogue with organizations like yours. And I’m very happy to be also a part of those where it can serve a purpose.

“It is encouraging to hear an industry leader that is willing to push back against these anti-GMO activists,” said Danhof. “A whole lot of folks have bought into the fear campaign regarding high-yield produce, which is often financed by the organic food lobby. Corporate tepidness has played a part in allowing this misinformation campaign to gain so much momentum. As a perpetual target of these attacks, it is incumbent upon Coca-Cola’s leadership to be pro-active in the GMO debate.”

In 2014, National Center representatives spoke with many major food companies about doing more to engage the public in the debate over GMOs.

On three occasions, the National Center urged investors to reject unscientific shareholder resolutions concerning GMO labeling. After National Center representatives explained the safety and promise of GMOs, shareholders of Safeway, Monsanto and General Mills each rejected proposals regarding mandatory GMO-labeling.

“A little education goes a long way on the GMO issue,” said Danhof. “Since the other side’s arguments lack merit and are based only on fear, the public is quick to take to reasoned explanations that are fact-based and rooted in science. Someone just has to be in the public sphere continually making that case. I hope Coca-Cola and other food and beverage companies start taking that role more seriously.”

To read more of Danhof’s writings on GMOs, click here. You can also watch Danhof debate the GMO issue with liberal talk radio host Thom Hartmann here.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group focusing on shareholder meetings and work with big business. So far in 2014-15, National Center representatives have participated in 66 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter.


This Week Congress May Pass Bill that Pays Medicare Doctors More if They Avoid Sickest Patients

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Are Republicans and Democrats Creating a Mini-Death Panel for Medicare in the “Bipartisan” Doc Fix Bill?

New “Merit-Based Incentive Payment” System is Eerily Similar to Independent Payment Advisory Board

Sickest Medicare Patients Likely to Suffer Under IPAB-Like Payment System

Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACR) Restructures Medicare’s Payments So Doctors Have Incentives to Avoid the Sickest Patients

Washington, DC – Congress is set to establish an IPAB-Like payment system in Medicare, argues a new National Policy Analysis paper from the National Center for Public Policy Research.

“Medicare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board has never gotten off the ground, thanks in part to the work of conservatives and libertarians,” says Dr. David Hogberg, senior fellow at the National Center. “Now a coalition of politicians, including many Republicans, are on the verge of passing a bill that will introduce a payment system that is consistent with IPAB’s mission, incentive structure, and likely outcomes.”

In “Medicare Doc Fix Bill is IPAB-Lite,” Dr. Hogberg points out that the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MARC) re-structures Medicare’s payment system so that physicians will have incentives to avoid treating the sickest patients.

“MACR is supposed to repeal Medicare’s unworkable Sustainable Growth Rate,” says Dr. Hogberg. “Fine. But why use it to do the business of the highly unpopular IPAB?”

Dr. Hogberg points out that the new payment system, the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), grades physicians based on how well physicians’ patients score on quality measures and how many medical resources physicians use to treat patients. Physicians will either receive bonuses or penalties based on how well they score. It is easier for physicians to receive a high grade and, thus, receive a bonus under MIPS with only moderately ill patients since such patients will score well on quality measures and require fewer treatment resources.

By contrast, sicker patients will score poorly on quality measures. Treating them will require more resources. A sicker caseload likely means a physician will fare poorly under MIPS and see his Medicare fees cut.

In short, the sickest Medicare patients will have a harder time finding physicians who will treat them thanks to MIPS.

“MIPS is exactly the sort of proposal you would expect out of IPAB,” said Dr. Hogberg. “Its ostensible purpose is to improve quality and cut costs. Its likely outcome is that it will harm the sickest patients.

“This is what happens when an unaccountable group of people pay no cost if the decisions they make are wrong. That’s the set of incentives that board members of IPAB would face. MIPS is similar. It will be run by unaccountable bureaucrats at the Centers for the Medicare and Medicaid Services with advice from professional medical organizations. Neither will pay a cost – such as a loss of employment – if the decisions they make about MIPS are wrong, harming patients. That’s a recipe for bad outcomes.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research was founded in 1982. Sign up for free issue alerts here and go here to make a tax-deductible contribution to help us fight for liberty.


Chemical Aerosol Spraying to Save the Earth While Sacrificing Billions of People

ChemTrailI doubt that I can convince anybody new of the ideas that: Chemical aerosol spraying is ongoing and has been for some time; Anthropogenic global warming is nothing more than a theory; That to some saving the earth is more important than the inhabitants of the planet.

Look up! For crying out loud LOOK UP! It’s right there in front of you. Learn the truth about how condensation trails are formed and then ask yourself if those trails will last all day long. Also do some research to discover the increase in metals and other chemicals in our plants and soil. I don’t think that stuff came up through the ground from China.

I am sympathetic to you if you actually firmly believe and are not interested in gaining better knowledge about man-caused global warming. To claim the science is settled is really no different than Hillary Clinton deciding which of her emails she considered personal and which ones we should be allowed to see.

Perhaps the toughest pill to swallow would be if I told you that regardless of the truth or fiction of any of this, there are those that are very much willing to kill you to save THEIR planet…ahem, save themselves.

According to quotes gleaned by the website Collective-Evolution, the BBC writes: “Schemes to tackle climate change could prove disastrous for billions of people, but might be required for the good of the planet, scientists say.”

Dr. Matthew Watson, a PhD and researcher in the department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol, says: “We are swimming, growing, in a sea of ignorance. This terrifies me. But doing nothing is not an option. Unless we’re very wrong about climate change or quickly change our ways, at some point we’re going to have to ‘go outside’ with these technologies.”

If nothing else consider this. This Dr. Watson admits that “we are swimming in ignorance” about global warming/climate change. He shows his own skepticism about the theories of man-caused climate change by suggesting that we might be “very wrong” about it. Yet, he eagerly suggests, even from a point of near panic, that we must DO SOMETHING even if it means destroying the atmosphere and killing billions of humans.

Other scientific studies, as linked to above from the BBC, claim that “schemes to tackle climate change could prove disastrous for BILLIONS of people” and Watson says that we can’t do nothing. And consider the last part of the BBC statement that says killing billions of people, “might be required FOR THE GOOD OF THE PLANET.”

There are two issues here that you, if you are capable, should consider. The first is this. You decide whether saving the planet, regardless of the truth or fiction about man-caused climate change is worth the lives of “billions of people.” To do this, you also must consider whether billions of people will die if “WE” do nothing. This, of course, requires honesty in one’s ability to think and reason and to be honest I don’t think it exists at any level where I would have confidence that enough people could do anything about it.

Personally, I don’t care what you think, but the second issue, if it doesn’t hit close enough to home, nothing ever will. If somebody is deciding that billions of people must be sacrificed to save the planet, convince yourself that you are NOT one of those billions of people. Go ahead!

If you cannot see the absurdity and the insanity of all of this, there is little hope that you would recognize anything based upon Truth. Can you? Will you? Do you even want to?

As I believe that I still have time on this planet and while here I need to find ways in which to support myself and my family, for those of you who are willing to “go outside” with this atmospheric chemical spraying to save Gaia, I’m selling aerosol cans filled with the same materials as they are spraying on us now from planes. It’s a home version and you can buy a case or more of it to help out those eager to kill billions of people to save the earth.

Directions are simple: Make sure all doors and windows are shut tight and commence spraying. Breathe deeply.

There’s also an outdoor version. Why wait for the shit to fall out of the sky? You can now get more of it around you more quickly by spraying inside and out.

Spray me! I want to live! Above anything else SAVE THE PLANET.

But I fully understand that, according to most, I have many screws loose. That is because you have been trained to piss on anyone who would disagree with the lies you believe. Conspiracy Theorists are a danger to society! Stamp them out now!


If Plaintiffs Prevail in King v. Burwell, There’s a Dozen Free-Market Alternatives to ObamaCare

Not So Fast, Liberal Media: There are a Dozen Free-Market Alternatives to ObamaCare

If Plaintiffs Prevail in King v. Burwell, Conservatives and Libertarians Have Many Health Care Reform Options from Which Congress Can Choose

All Proposals Would Help People who Lose Subsidies They Improperly Received from Obama Administration Under ObamaCare

Media Claims That Political Right Has Developed No Plans To Replace ObamaCare Are Nonsense

Washington, DC – As the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments March 4 in King v. Burwell, the National Center for Public Policy Research announces the release of a spreadsheet detailing the many health care reform plans that have been developed by conservatives and libertarians as possible alternatives to ObamaCare.

If the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell succeed, millions of people who purchased their health insurance via the federal ObamaCare exchanges will lose their taxpayer-supplied subsidies. Each of these dozen plans offers them a promising alternative.

“The political left is trying to scare people by saying that the political right has no plan to help those people if they lose their subsidies,” says Dr. David Hogberg, health care policy analyst at the National Center. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

A new National Center study by Dr. Hogberg includes an easy-to-access spreadsheet at http://goo.gl/y1ALI2 that summarizes a dozen plans from conservative and libertarian think-tanks and Congressional Republicans offering free-market alternatives to ObamaCare. The spreadsheet explains how each plan treats vital health care policy issues such as tax credits, pre-existing conditions, Medicaid and Health Savings Accounts.

“There are a lot of great ideas out there, from the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute to Rep. Tom Price and the Republican Study Committee,” said Dr. Hogberg. “Unfortunately, most of the media has ignored them, so most Americans are unaware that free-market alternatives to ObamaCare exist.”

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known colloquially as ObamaCare, states that only people enrolled in state-based exchanges are eligible to receive taxpayer-paid subsidies to help them pay for their health insurance premiums. Despite this, the Obama Administration has paid subsidies to people who purchased insurance on the federal exchange as well. King v. Burwell challenges the Obama Administration’s practice of allowing subsidies to flow to federal exchanges.

“King v. Burwell could give Congress a big opportunity to move the nation away from the disaster that is ObamaCare and toward a free-market health care system that would make health care and health insurance more affordable for everyone,” says Dr. Hogberg. “And as the dozen plans show, there are ways to do it that will help people on the federal exchanges who could lose subsidies.”

To review the dozen free-market alternatives to ObamaCare spreadsheet, please visit http://goo.gl/y1ALI2 and for a review of the terms used in the spreadsheet, please visit http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA670.html.

The National Center for Public Policy Research was founded in 1982. Sign up for free issue alerts here and go here to make a tax-deductible contribution to help us fight for liberty.


Chemical Spraying Resumes

Over the past few days, Florida has been treated to crystal clear blue (deep blue) skies, along with very low humidity. Nothing was put into the atmosphere by man. It has been normal.

Early this morning there was a wind shift. Today the wind is out of the East and shifting around to the Southeast and eventually to the South…is the forecast. With that direction of wind, it means increasing humidity – evidently something that is not liked by the aerosol bastards dumping crap on our heads. I suppose it could also be that a certain degree of humidity, and/or dewpoint, is required in order for whatever it is they are trying to do to do it more efficiently and effectively.

By 11:00 this morning, the blue sky is gone, once again, and is replaced with multiple chemical trails now turning the sky milky white. At one point I counted no fewer than 30 distinct trails.

Going outside at daybreak you could see that spraying began well before daylight. If you step outside right now, there are always planes laying down more trails, and more trails.

All of this while brainwashed masses worry about such things as whether lead from ammunition might be making animals sick or us humans, should we eat any game killed by lead bullets.

Look up! Look up! Look up!

You might have fun with this site – http://planefinder.net/ Spot one of those planes laying down a big, white trail behind it and then get on your computer and see if you can find it.


Federal Government’s Dietary Guidelines Should Not Be Distorted By Environmental Activism

Press Release from National Center for Public Policy Research:

Climate Change Activists Have Been Pushing to Influence Report Out Today

Dietary Guidelines Should Promote Health and Disease Risk Reduction, Not Focus on Promoting a Smaller Carbon Footprint in Food Production, Expert Says

New York, NY/Washington DC – The Obama Administration’s Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services joint Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is releasing its report today at 1 PM ET.

National Center Senior Fellow and Risk Analysis Division Director Jeff Stier has warned about the outcome of the report, writing in the Washington Examiner last year, “At a closed-door meeting (in March), administration officials and their advisers will plot to insert the global warming agenda into dietary guidelines mandated by Congress.

Below is a statement from Jeff Stier:

The process leading to today’s report was heavily influenced by activists’ plans to change the nation’s dietary guidelines to promote foods that they believe have “a smaller carbon footprint.”

In the past, as required by Congress, the federal government’s dietary guidelines were intended exclusively to ‘promote health and reduce risk for major chronic diseases.’

This is no longer the case. For the first time in the history of the guidelines, ‘sustainability’ has been a prominent part of the agenda. Actual items on their Dietary Guidelines working group agenda included ‘immigration,’ ‘global climate change’ and ‘agriculture/aquaculture sustainability.’

What’s more, if the Obama administration allows this theme to become part of the new dietary guidelines to be released later this year, it will cost the public money and not make us any healthier.

By favoring foods which activists think have a smaller carbon footprint, the new guidelines will increase the prices you pay for your food. It will also increase the cost to all taxpayers, since the Dietary Guidelines are used to set policy for food stamps (SNAP) and military diets.
New York City-based Jeff Stier is a Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and heads its Risk Analysis Division. Stier is a frequent guest on CNBC, and has addressed health policy on CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC, as well as network newscasts. Stier’s National Center op-eds have been published in top outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, Newsday, Forbes, the Washington Examiner and National Review Online. He also frequently discusses risk issues on Twitter at @JeffaStier.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.


ObamaCare Customers Should Beware of Higher Prices

Some ObamaCare Premium Increases will be Over $1,000 Annually, New Study Says

Washington DC – Consumers who in 2015 kept the same plans they purchased for 2014 on the ObamaCare Exchanges could be in for a big shock, warns Dr. David Hogberg, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

“Because of the way the subsidy mechanism works, some consumers could see an exorbitant increase in premiums,” Hogberg said. “For example, a 27-year-old single person in Denver, Colorado making $25,000 annually who bought the cheapest bronze plan would pay $535 more this year. A 57-year-old couple in Miami, Florida earning $50,000 annually who did the same would pay $1,548 more.

The worst area was Jackson, Mississippi, where a 27-year-old earning $25,000 who kept the cheapest bronze plan would pay $1,168 more and a 57-year-old couple earning $50,000 would pay $3,282 more.

In the study, “Three Ways Consumers Could Pay Exorbitantly Higher Premiums on the ObamaCare Exchanges in 2015,” Hogberg explains how this can happen.

To see how an area in your state fared, see Tables 5 and 6 near the end of the study.

“The subsidy is based, in part, on the second lowest-cost silver plan on the exchange and when the price of that plan drops, so will the subsidy,” Hogberg says. “Consumers in those exchanges are the most at risk, but even consumers on exchanges where the second-lowest cost silver plan increases, thereby increasing the subsidy, are not necessarily safe from substantial premium increases.”

First, consumers who qualified for a subsidy in 2014 will see their subsidy decline in 2015 if they are on an exchange in which the price of the second-lowest cost silver plan declines. If they also have a policy that has increased in price, then they will pay higher premiums. That is what happened in Jackson, Mississippi where, for a 27-year-old, the subsidy dropped by $83 per month and the cheapest bronze plan rose by $14 a per month. That resulted in a monthly premium increase of $97, or about $1,168 annually.

Second, consumers on an exchange in which the price of the second-lowest cost silver plan declined could pay higher premiums if they had a policy that decreased in price but did not decrease as much as the price of the second-lowest cost silver plan. That happened in New Hampshire. For a 57-year-old couple, the subsidy declined $163 per month while the bronze plan dropped $11 per month, resulting in a premium increase of $152 per month or $1,824 annually.

Finally, it is even possible for consumers to pay higher premiums on an exchange in which the subsidies increased. Consumers on those exchanges who own a policy that increases more than the subsidy will pay higher premiums. In Miami, Florida, a 57-year-old couple with the cheapest bronze plan in 2014 saw a monthly premium increase of $129 ($1,548 annually) because the subsidy increased $18 per month but the cheapest bronze plan rose $147 per month.

“Consumers facing such increases will either have to find room in their budgets or deal with the hassle of changing insurance plans,” says Hogberg. “And, as the study also shows, switching plans is no guarantee that a consumer won’t still pay more than he or she did last year.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non- partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.


It Continues: Eating Wolf Scat and Howling at the Moon

WolfScatIn 2010 it was considered by most as absolutely atrocious that wildlife officials would tell citizens that in order to contract Echinococcus granulosis, you had to eat wolf excrement. As ridiculous as that sounds, the same utter nonsense continues to be perpetuated.

“But veterinarians point out that other critters are host to the parasite, too. It’s been around for a long time. A human would essentially have to eat the poop of an infected animal to contract the parasite.”

“If you’re worried about wolf diseases, wear latex gloves while cleaning game, wash your hands – and don’t eat poop.”<<<Read More>>>

One has to wonder that had it been stated that Ebola was transmitted to humans via the wolf, if so many would be as eager to protect the wolf over the human?

It seems that in any discussion about wolves, too much emphasis is placed on either or of both extremes. A reader here at this website pointed out last evening that issues of Echinococcus granulosis isn’t about scare tactics and fear mongering. It’s about gaining the accurate knowledge in order that any person can properly use the best tactics, for their own circumstances, to reduce the risk of contracting the disease. Why is that so difficult to do and met with such resistance?

I think there are many things at play here that drives human actions, non of which are for the benefit of the human being; only the wolf.

For those of us who have spent a considerable amount of time studying this issue, what has changed doesn’t seem to be taken into consideration. It’s easy to fall back on making a statement that E.g. has been around for a long time. And it has, but what has changed is, the United States Lower 48 states now have wolves numbering in the thousands. The human population has grown. There are more domestic canine pets than ever at any time in history and testing and studies are now confirming the existence of the more virulent strains of E.g., previously only found in remote northern climates. How that strain got here is mostly immaterial, except to discover whether or not it did happen through wolf introduction using wolves from Canada, to insure it wouldn’t happen again in a similar instance. Learning of the dangers and how to avoid them is responsible.

It isn’t about scaring people. It’s about discovering truth, not denying or covering it up.


8 Lies Told by ObamaCare Supporters

GrubersBeing Able to Keep Your Insurance to Fabricating Numbers of the Newly Insured

ObamaCare ‘Architect’ Jonathan Gruber Compounded Lies During Senate Testimony Tuesday

Washington, DC – “Jonathan Gruber’s attempt at contrition on Tuesday would be more credible if he hadn’t compounded his lies,” said Dr. David Hogberg, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research. “But using lies to promote ObamaCare has been part and parcel of the strategy of this Administration and its allies.”

In a new National Policy Analysis paper entitled “Eight Lies Told By ObamaCare Supporters,” Dr. Hogberg chronicles the fabrications that the Administration and its supporters have propagated to sell this law.

“There is always some shading of the truth in politics,” says Dr. Hogberg, “but this goes beyond that. Rather, these are examples of President Obama or one of his supporters knowing that the truth was ‘A’ but telling the public it was ‘B’.”

The most notorious lie is, of course, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”

Gruber, one of the architects of ObamaCare, has come under fire for saying that only people who buy insurance through state-based ObamaCare exchanges are eligible for premium subsidies and not people who buy through the federal exchanges. On Tuesday he claimed that people in state exchanges would be the only ones eligible for subsidies if the federal government didn’t establish a federal exchange: “The point I believe I was making was about the possibility that the federal government, for whatever reason, might not create a federal exchange,” Gruber said. “If that were to occur, and only in that context, then the only way that states could guarantee that their citizens would receive tax credits would be to set up their own exchanges.”

“That doesn’t even pass the laugh test,” said Dr. Hogberg. “There was never any legitimate concern that the Federal Government wouldn’t set up exchanges, so why would Gruber worry about that? He wouldn’t. If he was, he would have qualified his remarks by saying that subsidies are limited to state-based exchanges only if the federal government fail to set up exchanges. But, of course, he never did that.”

Grubers: Candy Coating Over a Really Nutty Idea”That claim was no longer plausible after an analysis by the IRS in June 2010 showed that the grandfather regulations would result in millions losing their insurance,” says Dr. Hogberg. “But President Obama repeated that claim at least six times after June 2010.”

Dr. Hogberg’s new paper exposes not only other Gruber lies, but also lies from President Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, and the Department of Health and Human Services.

In “honor” of Jonathan Gruber’s Senate testimony Tuesday, the National Center also released a lighthearted parody meme, “Grubers: Candy Coating Over a Really Nutty Idea,” to draw attention to the fundamental dishonesty with which the Obama White House and its allies sold ObamaCare to the public. As National Center President David Ridenour noted, “Jonathan Gruber put a candy coating around the nutty ObamaCare idea to trick people into accepting it.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.