Another moment of truth has surfaced for Obamacare, casting even more doubt and disdain on the President’s signature piece of legislation.

In a candid admission at last year’s Annual Health Economists’ Conference, Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist and chief architect of the healthcare law, revealed how the Affordable Care Act’s nebulous wording was intentional. The purpose: to nefariously mask the mandate as a non-tax and downplay its redistribution mechanism, so “stupid” voters wouldn’t oppose the Administration’s healthcare power grab.

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money – it would not have passed,” stated Gruber.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass… Look, I wish Mark was right [that] we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.” [1]

This eye-opening comment gives a whole new meaning to Nancy Pelosi’s infamous line in 2010, “We have to pass the bill, so that you can find out what is in it.” It is no wonder why Americans have lost faith in government. Political agendas now trump transparency, truth and even common respect for voters.

How damaging is this video admission? Bad enough to prompt an attempted cover-up. As The Daily Caller reports,

“But for unexplained reasons, the University of Pennsylvania has pulled its video of the event, which took place in October of 2013. ”This video has been removed by the user,” a message now reads. “Sorry about that.” The video is still embedded on the conference page, but playing the video gives a similar error message.” [2]

This isn’t the first time Gruber has taken a potshot at those who oppose Obamacare. Reacting to the argument that Obamacare subsidies are only intended for those participating in state-based exchanges, Gruber called the assertion “nutty,” and a “desperate” attempt by Republicans.

“Jonathan Gruber, who helped write former presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care law as well as the Affordable Care Act, calls this theory a “screwy interpretation” of the law. “It’s nutty. It’s stupid,” he says. And beyond that, “it’s essentially unprecedented in our democracy. This law was democratically enacted, challenged in the Supreme Court, and passed the test, and now [Republicans] are trying again. They’re desperate.” [3]

Hmmm, desperate like misleading an entire nation to get a bill passed and then insulting them?

Of course, Gruber’s defense was before “speak-o”gate broke, where not one but two different videos were discovered, which showed the touted economist explaining how tax credits – subsidies – were only meant for state exchanges.

“What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits — but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.” [4]

Trying to salvage his credibility, Gruber brushed it off as a simple mistake, which he seemed to make repeatedly.

“I honestly don’t remember why I said that,” he said. “I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake. People make mistakes. Congress made a mistake drafting the law and I made a mistake talking about it.” He added, that his statement “was just a speak-o — you know, like a typo.” [5]

How Gruber or the Administration will backpedal on this recent gaffe remains to be seen. One thing is for sure, this was no “speak-o.” It was an honest, transparent glimpse of what we already knew – the utter disregard the President and his advisors have for Americans.