6 replies »

  2. WSJ: GRUBER FLAWED, QUESTIONABLE
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704586504574654362679868966.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop#articleTabs%3Dcomments
    “In a December conference call with reporters, Mr. Orszag said that “I agree with Jon Gruber that basically everything that has been put forward in health policy discussions for a decade is in this bill.” He also praised “the folks who have actually done the reporting and read the bill and gone through and done the hard work to actually examine, rather than just going on buzz and sort of loose talk, but actually gone through and looked at the specific details in the bill,” citing Mr. Brownstein in particular. Which is to say, the journalists who had “done the reporting” were those who agreed with the Gruber-White House spin.
    “Mr. Orszag never mentioned Mr. Gruber’s contract. Nor did HHS disclose the contract when Mike Enzi, the ranking Republican on the Senate health committee, asked specifically for a list of all consultants as part of routine oversight in July. His request noted that “Transparency regarding these positions will help ensure that the public has confidence in the qualifications, character and abilities of individuals serving in these positions.”
    “We’re not Marxists who think everyone’s opinion depends entirely on financial circumstances. But if Mr. Gruber qualifies as a health expert despite his self-interest, then the studies of self-interested businesses deserve at least as much media attention. The insurer WellPoint has built a very detailed and rigorous model on the likely impact of ObamaCare, using its own actuarial data in regional markets, and found that insurance costs will spike across the board. The White House trashed it, and the press corps ignored it.
    “This is a double standard that has corroded much of the coverage of ObamaCare, with journalists treating government claims as oracular but business arguments as self-serving. We’ll bet Messrs. Orszag and Brownstein that WellPoint’s analysis will more closely reflect the coming insurance reality than the fruits of Mr. Gruber’s government paycheck.

  3. Why consult an expert? Rather than pay for expertise the administration should have winged it alone and saved the four hundred grand.
    Here’s an idea: maybe sick people should go to the library rather than consult a doctor. Imagine how much they might save by doing a little homework. I’m sure appendectomies aren’t all that tough once you get the hang of it. Or setting broken bones. Think of the savings.
    Just kidding, of course.
    He should have made his services available pro bono. You know, like surgeons.

  4. Forgive me for my slowness, but he is a well sought expert in which the administration paid him ton’s of money for doing small amounts of work?

  5. This conduct is mild considering the other deception by those who satnd to gain from reditribution of health care dollars.
    Take, for instance, the HIT industry with its monstrous trade association known as HIMSS. The benefirs of HIT have been exagerated, and in some cases, made up by the industry. It has also paid Harvard researchers for reports (see Wapo, O’Harrow). Obama is advised by the CEO of Allscripts. He does not have to be paid. His company will run the cash regosters 24/7 with Obama HIT mandates. White collar crime still exists.

  6. That wasn’t a ‘grant.’ It was *taxpayer-funded welfare* for obvious political purposes.
    All he had to do was to have fully disclose it. He didn’t. His fault — no one else’s. And no amount of sarcasm will fix it.
    There has been an enormous amount of *fraud* in “reform.”
    That’s why the majority of Americans do NOT trust Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.
    Blame it on Bush (liberals like that) — that is the reality. Deal with it.