Jonathan Gruber says he has “no idea” how the Supreme Court will rule on the Obamacare case that landed him in hot water.
Gruber, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and vocal supporter of the healthcare law, became a political liability for the Obama administration last summer when past comments were widely circulated in which he appeared to side with Obamacare challengers.
Since then Gruber has stayed out of the spotlight. But on Wednesday he broke his silence, appearing at a healthcare summit hosted by Sun Life Financial.
Asked to predict the outcome of the case King v. Burwell — and how the White House might respond to it — Gruber declined to speculate.
“I’m not a political scientist and I’ve gotten in trouble for pretending I’m one,” Gruber said.
But he did predict what would happen if the Supreme Court blocks insurance subsidies to the majority of states relying on healthcare.gov — the issue in question before the court.
“In the states with federally-run exchanges, I think you’ll see an enormous collapse in this market,” Gruber said. “It’s going to be a great upheaval.”
Gruber has long been a vocal proponent of the healthcare law and even consulted for the White House as it was passed in 2010. He was widely quoted in the news media and took credit for influencing the law as it was being written.
But last summer some of his past comments about the health care law surfaced — including one having to do with the issue before the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell.
That case says the law’s federal subsidies for health insurance can’t legally be delivered to people living in the states relying on healthcare.gov. The plaintiffs argue that Congress intended to condition the subsidies on states running their own insurance marketplaces, while the Obama administration disagrees.
Gruber appeared to support that claim at a conference 2012, where he said citizens in states that don’t set up an exchange “don’t get their tax credits.”
But on Wednesday, he said that statement was “taken out of context” by critics who blasted him for appearing to hypocritically support a lawsuit he now opposes.
In one other instance, he suggested the healthcare law wouldn’t have passed if not for the “stupidity” of voters. Another time, he said Americans were too stupid to understand one of the law’s taxes.
This story originally published at 3:10 p.m. and has been updated since then.
