>> i thank the gentlelady. we now go to the gentlemen from arizona, dr. gozar. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. gruber n your testimony you stated, i'm not a political adviser nor a politician. i like that statement. i'm a dentist by trade, impersonating a politician, so i want to commend you on that. but there's something very similar about you and me. as you're very astute to detail like me, right? >> i like to think i pay attention to detail, yes. >> because the beauty is in the detail, right? >> often that is the case. >> yeah. so, did you lie about any of your comments when you publicly were -- some of the aspects we saw on television? were those outright lies or were they just not politically pleasant? >> they were not lies. >> they were not lies.

so they were truthful in regards to stalwart evaluation. >> it was my process -- >> i want to go back. you weren't lying. you were very truthful about the process. >> i was, once again, trying -- >> it may not be politically savvy or, you know, like as we say red meat, but what you were doing is you were very honest in regards to the process. >> once again, i was making statements about which i really didn't have the expertise to make. >> oh, i don't know about expertise. let's go down that. we just talked about beauty is in the detail. you're very astute about the economic aspects. had you your inclinations and models with romney care, you had these models with obamacare. you're very astute. being from m.i.t., that's one of

the most prestigious, acclaimed environments in the world, right? >> i believe so, yes. >> and when you're proud of a product, you're really vested in that product, so you're going to be very watchful as it takes place, as it changes, morphs and maybe as it has contradictions, right? >> i was very proud vested in the modeling and numbers i produced, yes. >> so, i'm going to go back to it. you were very honest your evaluation of transpired. we saw the real jonathan grooup gruber in there. i watched you last night for almost four hours. read body language extremely well. so, you were in your element when you were talking about the critiques of this health care law. so, let me ask you something. so, who helped you with your testimony today and who signed off on your testimony today? >> no one signed off on my testimony. it's my own testimony. i did receive assistance from my counsel. >> did you also have assistance

from hhs, the administration minority staff committee? >> no, i did not. >> okay. now, were you coached in any way, what to say? >> the words that are written, i said, are my own. as i said, i did work with my counsel in preparing them. >> so when we -- numbers of my colleagues asking you in regards to numbers, you're pretty astute with numbers, right? you know those numbers. >> once again, the numbers that i produced in terms of my microsimulation modeling i'm very confident in. >> ms. tavenner, you're also pretty good with numbers, aren't you? i've been watching the bantering back and forth. and when the other side asks you a question, you're very prepared with numbers. but when we ask you a question, you're very inappropriate responsible to numbers. you're very good with numbers because you hear them all day long, don't you? >> i do hear numbers.

>> you do. i agree, i agree. so this preponderance of looking at the following rate of dollars spent on health care, i'm going back to the microcosm called dentistry. did anybody think about this? what kind of access, the gentlelady from new mexico talked about access. did that ever come into your aspect that the deductibles are so high in the dental aspect that no one's using them? did that ever occur to you? >> if you look at what we did around the dental proposed and final rule last year, we actually tried to make some accommodation there to handle the deductible to prove it, if you will. >> well, that's nice. you know, changing around some of those aspects, but from my standpoint, when people don't actually get care, you're actually creating a bigger problem. you know, the gentleman from maryland is aware of the de monty driver access. children go walking aren't without getting health care and

all of a sudden we have a child that dies. you're aware of that situation? >> yes, i'm aware of the situation that occurred. >> once again, it becomes that fluff part. i heard people on the other side over here saying this was the most transparent process. really? it didn't involve anybody on this side. i'm well aware of having, you know, a bipartisan type of application to health care because health care is a personal sport. the patient has to be involved. it's not a republican or democratic issue. but it became a very democratic issue. they used reconciliation and a lot of gimmicks to pass it. we were deceitful in everything we've done. i mean, everything. instead of acknowledging the problem and being truthful on it, we here tortured language from the gentleman on your left. this was outright the wrong way to go. from that standpoint, it sickens me to actually hear what i heard today from both you and mr. gruber.

it's sad that we're playing with people's helts care when they deserve something better. and, frankly, not having the facts is disdainful. congress has a right to those facts. we've seen this perpetually from this administration. equal branches of government should have that opportunity and the american people deserve better from both of you. thank you. >> thank you. was there an answer? okay. we now go to the gentleman in pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i want to express my prooesht appreciation to you and the ranking member for your leadership of this committee over the course of the years. i want to thank the folks for being here today. there's a lot of characterizations of testimony and what things have gone on. we go back and forth on this committee.

i mean, in the end, and i think you would agree, in the end our -- the people we represent, the american consumers aren't -- i find to be actually quite intelligent with their efforts to try to be good consumers of health care information. and these aren't got ya questions but we don't have a chance to have you before us much, ms. tavenner. and what i'm seeing out there right now is patients who are -- they are the holders of their electronic health records but they're bouncing around from system to system. they are frustrated. their costs are rising. they aren't getting access to the doctors they had before. they're paying more out of costs which is one of the factors that's driving some of the containment of health care, but at the same time, what's happening is, i think people aren't getting health care. we're going to be paying for more down the road. but my problem is, how are we

working on assuring these systems of electronic health records can communicate through the larger structure? it seems if you're in a health system, can you do okay. they'll send records down to your doc and with this whole idea of the medical home, but if you have a surgeon outside of another network, it doesn't seem the systems are communicating with each other. everybody's saying, use my system. what are we doing? how are you working to try to break through those adhesions so we can get to a point where we can allow consumers to be much better in helping them guide their health care and negotiate through the systems whomever the health care provider is? >> i think what you're talking about with the issue of interoperability is one of our premaining challenges. you're right, we have strong systems within a system, physicians and hospitals tend to work together well, but when we are moving across systems, that's still a challenge.

and that's part of, as we look at stage three of meaningful use, one of the big pieces that we are going to stress is this whole issue of interoperability. we have some pilots now, we have some examples. the question s how do we get that to the mainstream. >> can you give me some sense right now? that does appear to be, and i think it's going to continue to be, if we don't find a way. look, people move. they're here today. my elderly will be down -- they may go away for two or three months in the wintertime now to different physicians. >> i see it happening in two ways. one, obviously s with payment strategy because that tends to work. the second is with our certification requirements. so we'll be working with the department, with hhs and cms because this is kind of a two-group effort to make sure that we put in our certifications and other requirements. those measures that will push interoperability because i agree with you, it's critical. >> and from that the perspective of the pashs, then, are we doing

more to be able -- or how are you helping us to be able to understand what they're going to face in premiums or out-of-pocket costs or provider quality, in particular, how are you moving to be allowing the patient to be a better consumer? >> that is -- again, we spend a lot of 2014 just helping people sign up. and now the second part is, how do you educate those individuals who have signed up. so we have started work we're doing. it started within cms. we're putting it more broadly out to the consumer. it's called from coverage to care, so helping people understand what deductibles are, what co-payments are. how they -- one thing that's greatly misunderstood is that individuals don't pay co-pays and deductibles for preventive care and other types of procedures that -- >> certain kinds but there's a lot vt care they do. unfortunately, that's often when they're going to see the physician. >> so, that's thousand we'll start. we'll work with issuers, work with advocates to get the education out there, to help

people understand it. it's pretty complicated. >> well, it is complicated, and particularly for the consumers themselves. there's a lot more. i don't agree with the way the system's set up, but that is fundamentally for working where we have to make significant, significant improvements. i hope you continue to focus on that -- >> i agree with you. >> thank you. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> i'm going to ask unanimous consent that the -- that the publication data mind numbers you can use be placed in the record without objection. ms. tavenner, i want to make sure i get it this right. according to this article, health care costs are up, as you said, a little under 4%, but in order to get that figure, utilization is down. so, the total amount of services dropped off and the cost per services went up. meaning, if you need services, they went up a lot more than 3%.

the cost of service of total expenditure didn't go up as much because people are essentially not buying as much. isn't that true? >> i don't believe that's true. >> do you know that it's not true or are you just saying that you -- you just don't want to believe that? maybe your staff can tell you, in fact, this is pretty well authenticated. >> well, i'd have to see the article. i haven't seen the article. >> so, you don't know if in fact health care costs are up and utilization of services are down particularly because people have higher out of pocket expendit e expenditur expenditures. you don't know that, do you? >> if you would let me finish my sentence. what we're seeing on the inpatient side is that inpatient admissions are down which may mean more appropriate use of services, not necessarily that it's bad. >> so you know services are -- quantity of services are down and your conjecture is that it might be a good thing. >> i think it can be a good thing, yes. >> thank you. i'll accept that that's your conjecture. we now go to mr. goudy.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'm sorry, is the gentleman -- he yielded to me. okay, mr. goudy. oh, mr. maush has returned. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. goudy. i have a question for dr. gruber concerning tax credits. dr. gruber, at a conference in 2012 you said, quote f you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits, end quote. that seemed it was consistent with other public statements you made, all of which expressed your belief that if a state refused to set up an obamacare exchange, the citizens of that state could not qualify for obamacare tax credits. yet, the administration has ordered the distribution of billions of dollars to persons who live in states that don't have state-run obamacare exchanges. this executive action seems to conflict with your numerous past

statements about how obamacare works. there's a lawsuit before the supreme court on this issue. in your testimony this morning, you claimed that you misspoke repeatedly in your prior public statements. you say that, quote, the point i believe i was making was about the possibility that the federal government, for whatever reerngs might not create a federal exchange, end quote. you further explained this morning in response to mr. conley's question you think the administration can choose whether or not to create federal exchanges in states that refuse to set up those exchanges. so if a state refuses to set up an obamacare exchange and the federal government refuses to set up an obamacare exchange, then citizens of that state can't receive obamacare tax credits. dr. gruber, your new explanation of your previous public statements makes little sense. the law requires the federal government to create obamacare

exchanges in states that refuse to create exchanges for themselves. therefore, every state must have an obamacare exchange, either set up by the state or the federal government. if that's the case that every state must have an obamacare exchange, what did you mean when you repeatedly said that the citizens of some states may not qualify for obamacare tax credits? isn't it the case, as you said previously, that people who live in states without a state-run exchange cannot receive obamacare tax credits? >> once again, when i made those comments, i believe what i was saying was reflecting on certainty about the implementation of a federal exchange by january 1, 2014. >> are you suggesting the law doesn't require the federal government to set up an exchange in states that don't have exchanges? >> i don't recall exactly what the law says. what i'm saying is there are -- >> i'm sorry up. ran the economic model on obamacare and you don't know what the law says? >> in every single economic model i ran, i always assumed that exchanges would -- credits

would be available regardless of whether this exchange is run by state or federal government. my comments in january 2012 were reflecting the uncertainty about whether those federal exchanges might be ready by -- >> you were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to run an economic model on obamacare, and yet you were making statements that didn't reflect the actual language of obama care? >> i made a series of statements which were really just inexcusable. >> thank you. >> woot gentlemen -- >> i yield back. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> i just want to make sure i understand. we famously heard that you have to pass it to find out what's in it. so, following up on mr. maush, at the time of its passage, were you aware that the language would have allowed your model not to actually be executed? in other words, that states were not going -- if they chose not to, if even one state chose not to provide the language explicitly was preventing that

reimbursement and, thus, you'd have a different result, were you ever given that information so you could run a revised model? >> i was always modeling the tax credits under the assumption they would be available under-n all states. >> you always modeled something that was different than the law. and -- but let me go and do one quick thing while i've got the time. you're an author. and i've purchased one of your books. in that book, it's dr. jonathan gruber is professor of economics at the massachusetts institute of technology and director of the health care program at the national bureau of economic research. he was a key architect of massachusetts's ambitious health care reform effort and consulted extensively with obama administration and congress during the development affordable care act. "the washington post" called him possibly the democratic, in

parenthesis, party's most influential health care expert. do you recognize that as being in your book? >> yes, i do. >> and then it -- so f you're an author, you put it in your book and you recognize it, do you stand by it? >> absolutely. >> so you are, in fact, a key architect of the act in massachusetts under governor romney and that you did contribute extensively to the administration and to congress. >> i contributed an enormous amount of modeling and economic support to the administration and congress, yes. >> it says and consulted extensively with the obama administration and congress during the development of the affordable care act. and you quoted "the washington post." and you stand by all of that. >> i cannot stand by "the washington post's" opinion of my role in the democratic party but i -- >> well, you put it in your

book, did you not? >> i was quoting -- it was a flalterring quote to me and i put it in my book. but it's their definition, not mine. >> so, you want to stand by something you put in a book, including the consulted extensively with obamaadministration and congress but now you want to distance yourself from "the washington post"? >> i'm just saying it wasn't my words. i put them in quotes because they're washington post's words. >> oh, okay. we'll let "the washington post's" credibility speak for itself. i thank you. we now go to mr. goudy. >> professor gruber, what did you mean when you said, they proposed it and that passed because the american people are too stupid to understand the difference? >> when i said that, i was at an economic conference being glib and, quite frankly, trying to make myself seem smart by offending others. >> are you offering a defense for saying it or for meaning it? >> i'm offering it as a defense for using inappropriate and

hurtful, inexcusable language to -- >> well, what did you mean by too stupid to understand the difference? >> congressman, i didn't mean anything by it. >> well, you said it. had you to have meant it. >> i was once again trying to be glib and trying to make myself seem smarter by reflecting -- >> what did you mean when you said it was a very basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the american voter? what did you mean by that? >> once again, it's another example of my inexcusable arrogance in trying to insult others to make myself seem smarter. >> well, what did you mean when you said the american people don't care about the uninsured? >> once again, that was an overstatement of trying to conjecture on political topics on which i'm not an expert. >> you know what, professor gruber, i have listened to you all morning talk about your lack of political acumen and you're not a politician, so, therefore, you don't know not to call people stupid. most of the people watching this

morning aren't politicians and they don't call people stupid. and i can't help but note, professor grooup gruber, another one of your quotes which i'll read to you, that was politicallile infeasible. do you remember saying that? >> yes. >> so, you do like to factor in the politics from time to time, don't you? and also happen to note, professor gruber, that usually i insult the american voter, not the american public. so you do factor in politics, don't you? >> i have tried on a number of occasions pretended i know more about politics -- >> do you think not being a politician is a defense? is that your defense this morning? i know initially you said you offered these comments at a conference. i think you meant conferences, plural, but you said conference when you went on a very obscure television show and initially apologized for what you said

were inappropriate comments. today your defense is that you're not a politician. is that the best can you come up with? >> the best i can come up with is just to apologize for an inexcusable -- >> i mean, the pervasiveness of your quotes is so much, that it has to be more than that. it has to be more than just an episodic mistake that you made. let me keep going. see if this helps you any. what did you mean when you said you wish had you been able to be transparent but you'd rather have the law than not? >> once again, it was my trying to conjecture about a political process in which i'm not an exper expert. >> what did you mean when you said it was written in a tortured way to make sure the cbo didn't score the mandates as attacked? >> again, it was using inappropriate language to sound impressive to my colleagues. >> you see a trend developing

here, professor gruber? >> i don't understand the question. >> it's a lot of stupid quotes you've made. that's the trend. >> a lot of inexcusable quotes. >> right. and, again, your defense is that you're not a politician. the lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. well, what does a nonpolitician doing talking about political advantages? >> a nonpolitician is talking about political advantages to make himself seem smarter -- >> you're a professor at m.i.t. and you're worried about not looking smart enough? >> yes. >> okay. well, you succeeded, if that was your goal. now, i want to ask you, are you sorry -- when did you realize these comments were inappropriate? because it took you about a year to apologize, so i'm wondering if you realized sooner they were inappropriate or was it just the morning before you went on msnbc

that they were inappropriate? when did you realize they were indefensible and inappropriate? >> i honestly didn't remember making them. >> you didn't recall calling your fellow citizens stupid and you didn't remember saying that you're the only person who cares about the uninsured and that the rest of your fellow citizens don't give a damn about the uninsured? you don't remember saying that. >> i don't because they were really glib and thoughtless comments i made. >> well, professor gruber, let me tell you what it looks like from this vantage point. you thought they were pithy and funny until the video showed up. and even then it took you a little while to apologize. what i'm struggling with is whether your apology is because you said it or because you meant it. what are you apologizing for? because you said it or because you meant it? >> i didn't mean it. i'm apologizing --

>> all these quotes i just read to you, you didn't mean a single one of them? not a one? >> what i said, congressman, is that i was using glib, thoughtless and really inexcusable language. >> well, you you used them a lot. you used them a lot, professor gruber, which tends to undercut the notion that you were sorry for an episodic misstatement. i just read to you about ten. you see why people might think the apology is a little disingenuous? maybe? i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yield necessity ten seconds. when you made these repeated comments, these glib, inappropriate comments in an inintek actual community with lots of other like-minded people, did anybody come up to you and tell you that what you were saying was inappropriate? >> not that i can recall, no. >> i guess what you said was popular in that community.

we now go to the gentleman from texas. >> thank you very much. dr. gruber you have the dubious distinction of having generated more buzz in the district i represent than anybody but eric holder when coming up before this committee. and so i apologize if some of my questions are disjointed. some are from twitter from folks who he want me to answer some questions. one is, why won't he answer the question? i'm translate that, put my lawyer hat on and reask that. with respect to the money you made consulting on obamacare from the both federal and state government, you've constantly lawyered up or not answered the questions or not recalled. i want to be perfectly clear. this committee has governmentwide jurisdiction. we're the taxpayer watch dogs. i am asking you right now, flat out, to provide a detailed list of every penny of taxpayer money that you have made from the government consulting on obamacare, be it from the

federal government, be it from the state on a federally funded grant or from a state. i am asking you to provide that within 30 days. and i would look forward to you providing it to the committee and will work with mr. chaffetz, the incoming chairman, to subpoena that if it's not supplied voluntarily. let me go on to some -- a couple questions. do you feel bad about taking all this money from obamacare from people you call stupid? >> the money i received from my economic consulting work was xhengs for the quality work i did in economics and modeling, and so i think it was appropriate. >> okay. >> you worked 21 meetings at the white house. you met once in the president's office. you talked to him. based on the information you provided, things you heard in this meeting and your general understanding, do you believe the administration was truthful and transparent in the things they said working up to the

passage of obamacare, like if you like your health care, you could keep it? >> i believe the discussion in the affordable care act was fully transparent and all of the aspects of the law. >> do you feel like -- well, you testified earlier you knew there was going to be some churn. do you feel like you were complacent in presenting the affordable care act in a dishonest or untruthful matter? is that something you would like to apologize for as well? >> the numbers that i presented as part of my economic model to the administration and congress were all to the best of my economic model. >> but you knew some of the things that the administration were saying, some of the things in the debate were not true. why didn't you raise a red flag? wouldn't that make you complacent? >> i'm not a political adviser. it's not my job to discuss what the president's saying or not saying. >> another question from

twitter. did your insurance get more expensive, are you paying more for it? did your deductible go up? >> health insurance costs in america have gone up every year for the past 50 years. >> did yours go up substantially more when you fell under the affordable health care act than in past years? >>, no it did not. >> mine sure did. where else do i want to go? when you were talking to mr. mchenry, you said that the affordable care act did not solve the problem of rising health insurance costs. you went on to say that it was a first step. what are the next steps? >> the next step really in my view is to learn from the first steps that are implemented by at fordable care act, to learn what's working and what's not and try to build on that toward stronger cost controls. >> if you were to sit down and write a new affordable care act 2.0, what would be the top two

or three things you would want to include in it? >> right now the number one thing i would say is that we need some time to see what is happening with what we did in affordable care act 1.0, to learn from that. and not be in a rush, but sit down, learning from that and take the necessary steps. >> would you consider the ultimate solution to rising health care costs to be a single payer or government-run system, completely government-run system? >> i don't think there's a single ultimate system to rising health care costs. >> you've also been thrown under the bus by the president as just another adviser. i think i would be insulted by that based on the -- certainly by the washington post article that said how key you were to that. you want to come clean and just tell us if you told them any of

the things they were saying were untrue and who you told and tried to stop them? i guess that kind of loops back into my, you know, complacency question. could you have stopped some of those untruthful statements and why didn't you? and would you like to apologize for not doing that? >> i'm not a political adviser. >> all right. well, i'll yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. we now go to the gentleman from the massachusetts institute of technology. mr. massey. and kentucky for that, too. >> yes, ken. thank you. it's been a bad few couple of months to be from m.i.t. thanks to one of our witnesses. i've reviewed your extensive and impressive curriculum vitae. it's 17 pages long. and would it be accurate to say that you chose economics particularly the field of economic models, to inform

public policy as part of your career? >> certainly one of the things i find appealing about economics is how it can help make informed public policy. >> you're in a position of trust. you've been to the white house many times. you've met with the president. could you tell us again what you met with the president about? >> i had one meeting with the president. there were six experts and about 15 members of the administration -- >> you were an expert on how to control the costs? >> yeah. >> was the -- >> and also discuss health care reform in massachusetts. >> was independent payment advisory board part of that discussion or said something you would be an expert on? >> i don't believe it existed at that meeting. >> okay. but you're very well aware of it and advised politicians on that? >> i am -- i'm aware of the board, yes given this position of trust and the fact you take taxpayer money, have i a

question for you. have you had any ethics training at m.i.t. or harvard? >> as a condition for receiving federal grants, we have to take a human subjects test on a number of ethical issue. >> and m.i.t. has an ethical policy, correct? >> yes. so, this is a little philosophical, what i'm going to ask you now, but you're a dock rat of philosophy, so on to speak. under what circumstances is it elticcal to deceive someone for their own benefit? >> i'm not aware of circumstances in which -- >> could you imagine maybe an adult could withhold information from children for their own benefit? >> yes. >> would there be ethical -- so, now, if you understand that, you understand why my constituents are so offended by your proposition that it's okay to

deceive or object few skate for someone's benefit, compound the insult is the fact they pay your salary. so, do you understand fully why it was so insulting? you patronized them. you were condescending. >> i was. i agree. >> my colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle are upset with you simply because you committed candor. you said what you thought. you said what they were all thinking when they wrote obamacare, that they knew what was best for my constituents. i submit to you my constituents are not your children. and they have the right of self-determination. so, this gets me to another instance where you committed candor. in 1997 you co-authored a paper entitled "abortion legalization and child living circumstances. who is the marginal child."

you conclude legal abortion -- and birth outcomes among a birth cohort. and on page 26, you state that your research indicates that the legalization of abortion saved the government $14 billion in welfare payments through 1994. is providing more access to aborti abortion, is that a worthy social outcome to achieve cost savings for the government? >> that is not what my paper was about. it wasn't a philosophical paper. it was about empirical facts. >> by 1993 all cohorts under the age 19 were born under legalized abortion and we estimate steady state savings of $1.6 billion per year from positive selection. what did you mean by positive selection? because in this paper you're talking about providing more access to abortions to a

socioeconomic strata of our constituents. >> what the paper did was look at -- >> what did you mean by positive selection in abortion? >> in that paper we were studying the characteristics of children who were born before and after abortion was legalized. you can infer the characteristics -- >> what you infer i find chilling. what you inferred is if we reduce the number of people -- or children born, life will be better for the rest of us still living, specifically you seem to suggest that if we eliminate or reduce the number of poor people that are born, this will make life better for all americans. and this gets me to my final point. which is the independent payment advisory board. my constituents fear that this is, in fact, a method by which obamacare will rationalize for elderly and implement cost savings. my question to you is, does your philosophy on abortion, that it can save money and improve

outcomes have any implications in the realm of end of life care? you argue that aboerss of poor children raise the average living circumstances in your paper for the rest of us and save the government money. so, dr. gruber, if there are fewer elderly people, particularly poor elderly people, wouldn't that save a ton of money, too, as an economist? wouldn't you think that would save money, too? do you understand the dangerous implications of going down this path? >> i have to philosophy of abortion. i have no philosophy of end of life care. my job as an exist is to deliver the empirical facts so that you all can make the necessary decision. >> what would your facts be on the elderly? >> i don't understand the question. >> the end of life care. do you advocate the federal government should ration that? >> no. >> as an economist would it save money? >> i do not advocate end of life care. >> i yield back.

>> i thank the gentleman. we now go to the very patient mr. meadows. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and it has been a privilege to serve under your leadership, truly an honor. dr. gruber, i'm going to come to you because you have made over 20 statements this morning that you are not political and yet i think the american people are viewing this this morning, they would see your testimony is political. it is contrived. it is orchestrated. and, honestly, not transparent. you have prepared for this testimony this morning with your counsel, is that correct? >> yes. >> how many hours does it take to be transparent and honest in preparation? how many hours of preparation does it take to be honest and transparent with the american people? >> i don't understand the question. >> why would you have to practice your testimony in order to give an honest, transparent answer to the questions proposed

to you today? you had to practice because have you said the exact same thing, glib, those words, you know, they're not heartfelt. you've practiced that, haven't you? >> i have practiced but i disagree they're not heartfelt. >> so, let me ask you about your economic model. because you said it was accurate. so, how many, in your economic model, how many americans would lose their health care, could not keep their plan as the president promised, under your economic model? >> i don't recall the exact number. >> you can recall all these other figures but you can't recall that one? >> no, i can't. >> can you get that to us? >> once again -- >> or you don't want to get that to us. >> once again, that depends on -- >> can you get us the number in your economic model of those that were not going to be able to keep their health care? simple yes or no. >> i don't know. >> you don't have it in your

model? >> don't know whether i can or not. you'll have to take that up with my counsel. >> mr. chairman, i see this witness as being very reluctant to give honest answers. and it is very troubling. not just to me but to the american people. ms. tavenner, i'm going to go to you because the administration didn't want you to sit beside mr. gruber because they were afraid that his lack of transparency would be contagious, i guess, or you would be viewed in a different model. i'm troubled because i asked you some questions at the last time you appeared before this committee. and i ask you at that particular time about a rollout. we went back and forth and why did you not delay it. and your response to me, it says, well, i didn't think it was possible the way the ffm was configured to do that, nor did i think it was necessary. do you stand by that today?

>> i stand by the fact that i felt we were in good position to roll out last october. >> okay. i'm in -- i'd ask you if you could put up the slide, if the staff could put up the slide. but i'm in possession of an e-mail stream from your second in command and mr. todd parks that goes back and forth. this e-mail stream was less than 48 hours before rollout. it was on september the 29th. and in that, it says, just so we're clear, ms. tavenner decided in january that we were going to go no matter what. it goes on, even further and says that, hence, the really cruel, uncaring martha has occurred since january when she threatened me with demotion or forced retirement if i didn't take it on. are you familiar with this e-mail? >> i was not copied on that e-mail. i have since seen that e-mail. >> all right. so, your number two person,

because in the e-mail stream, if you've read all the stream, it was indicating that you weren't ready and, yet, it didn't really matter. >> i don't happen to agree with that. >> so, it does matter. in that same e-mail stream, we were putting together hardware, we were installing hardware less than 48 hours before a rollout so that we wouldn't have a crash on the rollout day. did you not see that as troubling? that we were installing with less than 48 hours to go, we were installing hardware? that wouldn't be tested. >> we were installing hardware to increase capacity. >> right. i got the numbers. and so -- but you don't see that that's troubling when you're rolling something out, that you wouldn't be ready when you're going to put in a piece of hardware just less than 48 hours? >> we had tested and we were

increasing our capacity to handle more volume. >> and so this ms. snyder, is she with you today or she was forced to retire? >> she was not forced to retire. in fact, i -- during the -- >> is she retired? >> she is retired. her choice. >> she just wasn't forced to retire. >> she was not forced to retire. >> all right. let met close by this. i sent your staff the information with regards to almost 4 million people that if they do not re-enroll, will get hit with a tax bill some 10 to 12 months from now f they do not -- because their benchmark plan has changed. are you notifying those almost 4 million people that they may get a tax bill if they do not re-enroll, individually? >> we are individually notifying folks about -- >> that's funny because i have 17 counties i represent and not

a single one of them have gotten individually notified that they are going to get a tax bill. >> so they are individually notified. i did not get a chance to finish my sentence. they have been individually notified to come back into the marketplace, to update their information and make sure that, a, their information is current and, b, that they're selecting the -- >> that's a general marketing thing. you already responded -- >> no it's not a general marketing -- >> yes, it is. >> it's an individual letter and phone calls -- >> but individually, you know who is not -- who is going to get a tax bill. you know that today. if they do not re-enroll. why do we not identify them that if they do not automatically renew, they will get a tax bill? >> first of all, i don't know that that's necessarily true. >> well, talk to dr. gruber because it is a part of the plan. that your premium, the rebate you get, whether your income changes or not, is based on selecting the benchmark silver

plan, if the benchmark plan changes, and i would think you would know that, you're over this, if the benchmark plan changes, then indeed the amount of money you get back will be incorrect. >> so, the benchmark is just one thing that changes, right? there's lots of other things that can change that would change your tax liability or your tax -- >> i understand that. but who i'm saying is someone who makes the same amount of money, stays on the same plan, got a rebate this last 11 or 12 months, they will get a tax bill unbeknownst to them by doing nothing. >> i think that you're assuming -- i assume you're talking about 2016, not 2015. >> no, this open enrollment period right now. >> that's not true. >> and why is it? because i'm all ears. i want to tell the folks. >> first of all, the individuals who signed up in 2014 f they have a tax liability or tax credit, that will be in april of

2015. >> i understand that. >> individuals you're talking about now who are signing up for 2015, if they were to have a tax liability at all, it would be in april of 2016. >> that's correct. but that's what i'm saying. they're going to get a tax bill, if they do automatically renew by february, if they don't -- >> not necessarily. it depends on what's going on with the individual -- >> so you change your plan after february? >> they cannot change their plan after february. but whether or not they have a tax liability is going to depend on each individual, which is why what you are trying to say is part of what we're stressing to individuals. come back, update your information, look at a plan, shop, select. when they did the original plan, they also understood that they are to update income, changes in family circumstance. there's lots of things it can affect. >> i understand that. but what i'm saying is the benchmark plan in the counties i represent will change because it's a different carrier. if they do not go in and select

the new plan, their -- >> first of all, if they don't select a new plan, we don't move them to a new carrier. >> right. they'll be automatically renewed. >> i appreciate the patience of the chair. >> and i appreciate the gentleman from north carolina. i think the gentleman made the every american has to -- independent, because he or she is not getting this information from cms, they have to independently ask if they're getting into a tax booby trap, into a tax land mine by just automatically renewing. and i think the gentleman's point is good. i'm afraid ms. tavenner doesn't want to admit that some people are simply not going to know. and she said, rightfully so, well, it's their responsibility. well -- >> mr. chairman -- >> -- it was never anybody's responsibility to know they might be getting into a tax consequence before at fordable care act. they now need to know that. we now go to the gentleman from

michigan. >> may i answer that? >> no, you may not. there was no question there -- >> but there's a piece of it missing. >> i was talking to the gentleman -- we'll give you plenty of time. we're not going to end this thing until you've had all your say, ma'am. the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. gruber, ph.d. from m.i.t., correct? >> no. my ph.d. is from harvard university. >> harvard, another prestigious school as well. and you teach at m.i.t.? >> yes, i do. >> very prestigious school. myself, i graduated from a small college. my dad was a factory worker. i had to work my way through college. but i understand, very prestigious. congratulations. i want to go back. earlier there were some people on the -- you as well as members of congress stating that this was very transparent, this bill. and yet from the very beginning, if i remember correctly, a lady got up in front of the floor of congress and she said, you got

to pass it before you can see what's in it. do you remember who that was? >> i believe that's a quote attributed to nancy pelosi. >> correct. thank you. and yet it was 2700 pages, the original act. if you read that 2700 pages, you'll see a lot that says, to be determined in that bill. so, the bill wasn't really complete. so, how can you have a bill, pass a bill, before you can see what's in it, and call that transparent? because i didn't get to see it. well, i wasn't here. but other members of congress couldn't see it. we're told you can keep your insurance, you like it, and we know that's a lie. you can keep your doctor and we know that's a lie. and you can keep your hospital and that's a lie. lies on top of lies. and it's not really about health care either. it's a tax. premiums will be lower and yet they're higher. another lie.

so, let's backtrack. apologized today for some comments you made in the video, correct? >> yes. >> and it says several times here you said you apologized to yourself look smarter or better than others. that's paraphrasing, but that's pretty much what you said. is that correct? >> yes. >> you want to repeat what you said? >> no. what you said is a good paraphrase. >> let's be clear. you did not apologize for helping the administration deceive the american people on this healthcare act or for telling america the truth in your video comments about how it was a fraud upon the american people? is that correct, sir? >> i think the affordable care act was passed in a highly transparent fashion. >> but every thing they promised was a lie. how can you call that transparent? you didn't say, what we're about to do for you is not going to really do you any good? you're not going to keep your

doctor. you're not going to keep your hospital. your premiums will go up. why didn't you say that? you were the architect -- one of the architects. you created the model. is that model tlflawed? >> i did simulation modelling. >> you created a model to justify their conclusions? seems about what you did. i mean, you're a lot smarter than i am. here is an opportunity for you to come clean. lies on top of lies. this is what you have done. you have been a co-conspirator in defrauding the american people, and you admitted it in two videos in comments that i saw on tv. and i saw some here today. in helping this administration deceive our citizens, you received grants and contracts from the government for either the federal government or the states. was it closer to $2.5 million or

$2.8 million you received over the course of implementing this obamacare? >> i don't recall the exact figure. >> you're an economist. you know the quotes you said in the book you wrote. you know how to balance a checkbook. you know how to read a balance sheet. was it 2.5 or 2.8 million or more? plus or minus $100,000? >> once again, i don't recall the exact amount. >> you know what? it's about lies and distortions. why are you continuing to help this administration deceive the american public? with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> if i could have the time for just these 40 seconds. i thank the gentleman. you keep saying you don't recall. do you not recall any numbers at all? i haven't seen a number you can recall since you gave us that approximately $400,000 in your opening statement. you're an economist. you work with numbers. why is it that every question that comes from this side, we

get a don't recall, mr. gruber? >> the $400,000 is the number i recall very well because it's been made very public. the other contracts and other things i received from states and the federal government are numbers that i don't have at any fingertips but numbers that the committee can discuss about what's appropriate to reveal. >> you know, you're making it very obvious that we're not only going to have to discuss with your council, we're going to have to serve a subpoena. we're going to have to demand numbers because you're not giving us a fair estimate of the approximately $4 million that you said in your earlier statement, this is excess and it didn't all come to me. you haven't answered one question about grants and contracts. i never knew anyone in business who got even a small amount of something that didn't know about the grant or the contract gross value and then what they got from it. it's amazing that you haven't given us one number since that

chosen amount. that is a little disturbing. i will caution you one last time is these individuals ask their questions that the goal was to get completed here today with sworn statements about numbers to the best of your recollection, approximate watt was good enough. but the fact that every answer is, well, discuss with my lawyer, puts this committee in a position where it's very clear we're going to have to do more discovery and likely you're going to be back here again under the new chairmanship. did you have one last question? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. one last question. i understand, according to supreme court, this is a tax. correct? it's a tax? >> as i said earlier, i don't believe the individual mandate -- >> it's a tax for failing to engage in commerce. if i don't engage in obamacare, i'm going to be taxed or fined, correct?

>> the individual mandate assesses a penalty on you. >> i would like to find other examples of somebody being taxed for failing to engage in commerce. it's like me going to my local grocery store, walking around and not buying anything and a federal agent is outside the grocery store saying, we're going to tax you because you didn't buy anything in that store. thank you very much. >> i thank the gentleman. we go to the gentleman from florida. >> professor gruber, do you deny -- it has been reported that you received three, four, five million dollars with your contracts from the various state governments, many of them $400,000 or $500,000 a pop. are you saying you have no recollection of that? do you deny those reports? >> what i'm stating, the amounts that have been reported are greatly in excess of what i received, in particular through federal grants. i don't know the exact -- >> is it inle millions? >> once again, i don't know the exact amounts. >> i mean, look, you really

further undermine your credibility. i would think you would be able to give us a ballpark. it's going to be subpoenaed. we will go through the exercise. the american people will get the truth. this idea of you denying that you are the architect of obamacare, i'm just wondering -- you've been lauded in the press in the past as the architect. there was an article in "the new york times" dubbed you mr. mandate. there's a question that said after mr. gruber helped put together the basic principals, they lent him to capitol hill to help them draft the specifics of the legislation. that's more than just providing some numbers. so the question is, if what you are saying is true today that you are not the architect of the law in any real sense, did you tell any of those reporters that they were inflating your role back in 2009, 2010, '11 and '12? >> yes, i did tell the reporters they were. >> were there any corrections made to the record?

>> i don't know. >> okay. because this is pretty consistent media treatment. you testified that the comments about eligibility for tax credits, if the state didn't create an exchange, that you made that comment because you weren't sure the federal government would actually set up an exchange. that was in virginia, january 2012. that's your explanation for that, correct? >> as i said at the time, i don't recall exactly what i meant when i made that statement. looking back at the video, i believe that's what i had in mind. >> if you go further on in your comments, you say the federal government has been slow in putting out its backstop, i think, meaning you think, partly because they want to squeeze the states to do it. so that's the comment that you made. so even under that construction, you are saying that the federal government is deliberately slowing the creation of the exchange so that more states will do it.

there must be a consequence for the states if they do not do that. i don't think your explanation here today really resolves that. i think you still have made comments from your perspective in terms of what you want to do politically are still problematic. with some of the other comments you were mayking with the lack f transparency, what you were trying to say is that the bill is convoluteconvoluted. you agree it's complicated? >> it's very complicated. >> the reason it had to be written that way is if you were straightforward on imposing costs and giving benefits to others, that would have run into political difficulty. the costs are being shifted to other americans, but they are being shifted under obamacare indirectly in a way that essentially masks what's happening. is that basically the deal? >> that's a very broad statement. i generally don't agree with what you said. >> you don't believe obamacare's

convoluted nature masks true cost costs? >> no. >> you did a report in 2011, you estimated even though you had said in 2009 that premiums would go down across the board, your report to wisconsin in 2011 said, actually, individual market premiums will go up on average 30% relative to what they would have been had obamacare not been passed. >> the report i did for congress for interpreting cbo numbers, not my own, which discuss the fact that premiums would rise. >> the report said they would raise. >> they fell on average. >> you said the average premium -- most americans don't get tax credits. the average premium increase in wisconsin? >> that was referring to individual market in which most will get tax credits. >> but many of them won't. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you.

we go to mr. collins for his round of questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the time and the opportunity to be here. mr. gruber, words cannot express today basically -- i frankly didn't think it could get worse. congratulati congratulations, you got worse. coming in here with the attitude you have -- did you file a tax return last year? did you qualify your income? frankly, i and the american people -- by implication, voters who did not like the obamacare plan did not vote for it or probably not the stupid ones. my district which voted against the president almost 80% is full of what you would consider non-stupid people. i'm done with you. a couple of questions. i'm going to go quickly here. let's run through these. how much money was paid to insurers under the affordable care act in fiscal year 2014? >> i don't have that

information. >> were you not briefed? >> on the cost share and payment? >> how much money was paid in 2014? >> i have not been briefed on that. >> you do not have reports that could give you that information? >> i can get you that information. >> are you in charge of the program? >> i am in charge of this program. >> you don't know how much is paid out? >> i do not have that with me today. >> do you have someone that can find that information while they are handing you notes from behind? it's amazing to me you run a program this large that you can't answer questions. you and mr. gruber don't need to sit beside each other because it is wearing off. how much money is paid to insurers under this program in fiscal year 2015 to date? >> i don't have that information. >> are you not briefed with this? did you not get a spreadsheet, a monthly spreadsheet? >> i will be glad to get you that information. >> not my question. answer my question. do you get a briefing on this? >> do i get a briefing? >> do you get awe briefing th i

they are asking for it on a regular basis? >> i do get briefed. >> do you listen? >> i try to listen. i have a lot of information to listen to. >> so do i. but when you are also brought here to a hearing -- >> i was not subpoenaed. >> you came voluntarily for that. >> thank you. >> but the problem is there seems to be with we get here we only want to answer the questions we want to answer, not questions that are part of your regular job. let's continue on. "the wall street journal" reported insurers insisted their contracts contain a clause terminate i terminating -- is this report accurate? >> there is information in the contract. i will get you that. >> that would be yes? >> i believe i said yes. >> no, you didn't. who negotiated the contracts with the insurers?

i didn't hear your mike? >> it's done by staff and attorneys. >> do you approve those? >> i do not approve individual contracts, no. >> will you provide for this committee the names of those who negotiated the contracts with the attorneys? >> i would be glad to get you information. >> and i'm going to ask the question not to be funny, but given the glacier pace of response and when you testified before energy and commerce, they are waiting for numbers from you, do we need to subpoena this information now? >> i believe i've gotten you information as you have requested it. >> you never -- i've never requested information. i'm listening. >> this committee. >> so let me ask the question. will you get it in a timely manner, not gla shacial? >> i will get them. >> we have to wait forever.

when were these contracts negotiated? >> these contracts were negotiated over the summer. i will get you the specific dates. >> poliinclude that in your information. >> did every insurer receive such a clause in their con drakt? >> i believe the contracts were consistent. i will get you that information. >> will you provide a copy of all the contracts? >> i will work with you. i will have to talk with our counsel. >> without being editorialize, why would there not be a reason to provide the contract snz. >> i don't know there is. i said i would work with you. >> again, we're having this -- maybe it's a disconnect here and there. honestly, i'm not trying to be argumentative. but you work for the government. you do work for an agency that is under jurisdiction of this committee under this oversight provision. why would you even have to hesitate on providing contracts that are public monies are spent

on to this committee in. >> i don't think i would. i just asked that i would be able to ask that question. >> to who? you run the department. >> i'm not an attorney. >> that's not a bad or good thing. my question is, you run the department. >> i run cms, yes. >> how many attorneys do you have working for you? besides the ones that came with you? >> i don't have any attorneys here with me. >> okay. maybe there is our problem. again, i'm not sure why we can't answer that question. let me reverse back. we know when we determined that you get briefings. cms asked insurers to submit prepopulated spreadsheets that contain the information? >> correct. >> the amount asked them to pay them. i believe that is correct. >> thank you. i had one question here. there is an issue here -- i want

to go to the question, who made -- i want to know who made the decision not to to request appropriation for cost sharing production program for 2015. >> that is not within my purview. i can't answer that question. >> do you not have to adjust and spend the money that was appropriated for this program? >> i do not -- that is done through our financial department. i will be -- >> can you provide -- would your financial department have participated in a decision not to ask for appropriations in 2015? >> will be glad to get you that information. >> under your leadership, this is the department that is going rogue and doing their contracts that don't report back to you? >> i will be happy to get you that information. >> that must be hard to say every time. when i know you understand this. it must be that difficult. who did participate? will you provide those names? >> i have told you, i will get you that information.

>> is there anyone outside that we need to ask? was this omb, treasury, whitehouse, anyone else that would have determined not to ask for approachation atippropriat? >> once again, i will go back and try to get you the information. >> you have no idea when the meetings took place? would that be a fair statement. >> i cannot answer your question. i will try to get you that information. >> the time has expired. we go to the gentle lady from wyoming. >> thank you for your leadership these past couple of years. appreciate your hard work on this committee. dr. gruber, did you participate in the scoring aspect of the affordable care act? >> i provided economic microsimulation results to the administration and congress to help understand the costs and coverage affects of the law, but i did not provide any official

scoring. >> you have stated that the aca was written in a way -- a tortured way so cbo would not score it as a tax. now, how did the administration use your information to write the aca in a tortured way so cbo would not score it as a tax? >> once again, i apologize for my inopportune -- inappropriate terminology. >> but they scored -- they didn't score it as a tax, right? >> the administration -- i did not -- >> how did you get cbo to not score it as a tax knowing that at some point you might have to get u.s. supreme court to say it was a tax? how did you do it? >> i don't run cbo. i didn't draft the legislation. >> what does cbo stand for?

>> congressional budget office. >> what is scoring? >> scoring is the method by which the congressional budget office estimates the effects of legislation on things like the federal budget. >> you have said in 2012 remarks that you wrote part of obamacare yourself. what parts did you write yourself? >> if i said that, that was once again an effort to seem more important than i was. >> why would you say you wrote part of obamacare yourself and you are the numbers guy. they used your modelling. they knew they might have to convince the u.s. supreme court that it was a tax and convince the congressional budget office for scoring purposes that it was not a tax. how did you do that? >> ma'am, once again, i did not write any part of the affordable care act. >> why did you say in 2012 explicitly that you wrote part of obamacare yourself? >> i was speaking glibly. >> how many non-politicians know

what cbo is? how many non-politicians know what scoring is? how many non-politicians would know that you have to get by cbo scoring in order to get the affordable care act to say that it's going to lower costs? you are a politician. everything that has led up to your testimony today is inconsistent with your testimony today, which is to say all of your prior statements were a lie. is that true? were all of your prior statements a lie? or were they just glib? >> they were not a lie. >> i want to change subjects and visit with ms. tavenner about

something that you began to discuss. that is, is there a decline in participation? is that what has yielded smaller increases in the cost of healthcare? >> i don't have even answer to that. and i think we would have to wait for -- it's too early to know. >> is there a way to analyze the information to get that fact? to determine it. >> i think if you look at the medicare trustees report, the national health expenditure, it will show you trends. >> i'm hopeful to get those trends. i will give you a little story. i'm on obamacare. my husband was on obamacare with me. we were told that we were enrolled in obamacare. and then when we filed claims, we were told we were no enrolled in obamacare. then we got it straightened out.

he filed claims and we were told once again that we were not on obamacare. well, come to find out, my husband was having chest pains at the time that he was told we were not enrolled in obamacare, and come to find out, he didn't have all of the tests that he was advised by his physician to have. so on october 24, a week before election, my husband went to sleep and never woke up. he had a massive heart attack in his sleep at age 65, a perfectly, by all appearances, healthy man. come to find out, in a conversation with his physician after he died, he chose not to have one of the tests, the last test, his doctor told him to have. this happened to coincide with the time that we were told that we were not covered by

obamacare. i'm not telling you that my husband died because of obamacare. he died because he had a massive heart attack in his sleep. but i am telling you that during the course of time that he was having tests by a physician and was told we were not covered by obamacare that he then decided not to have the last test the doctor asked him to have. let me suggest that there may be a decline in participation and that it may not be to the benefit of the american people. i want to suggest that regardless of what happened to me personally that there have been so many glitches in the passage and implementation of obamacare that have real-life consequences on people's lives. and the so-called glibness that

has been referenced today have direct consequences for real american people. so get over your damn glibness. >> first of all -- >> i thank the gentle lady. >> could i answer? >> i don't think she had a question for you. do you have a pending question? >> mr. chairman, i really do yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. gruber, i wanted to talk to you a little bit in my time here today about your understanding of the state and federal exchange premium assistance as we talked about that today, and you've referenced it several times. let me first just make sure i understood what you told us a second ago about your comments. you have been very humble. you have been eating crow. you don't like the way you said things. but she asked if all the statements were a lie.

you just said they were not lies. is that what you said? >> they were glib and thoughtless and really inexcusable. >> there terms of content, you weren't lying? you don't like the way you said it, but what you said, you had some basis for? >> the comments that i made were just my conjecturing outside my area of expertise. >> you did that a lot. i don't think you were necessarily out of your area of expertise. in fact, i think you nailed most of what you said. just politically, maybe you weren't being a good politician. you weren't good in the way you said them. i just sffor one applaud you fo telling people that this was a difficult law to pass, want it, when you were up here advising people, trying to get the healthcare law passed? it was a difficult sell, wasn't it? >> it was a very challenging political fight. >> one, because the american people were very afraid of a government takeover of healthcare. they didn't want socialized medicine.

now some people did want that. they wanted a single payer system, didn't they? >> i believe some americans do support a single payer system. >> but optically, that was tough for a lot of people up here to sell to the american people, because people were opposed to the healthcare law. that's why there was not a single republican vote -- they had to wrangle a lot of democrats to get the vote. there was deals that basically put a lot of democrats out of office. that's beside the point. what i want to get to was your understanding of the statement and federal exchanges, because when they started talking federal exchanges, that sounded to the people like a federal takeover of healthcare. state-run exchanges was more pal atable. it was a lot better optically. that's what was pushed. that's what was win in the law, that the states would set up exchanges and offer premium subsidies? >> i don't have the exact wording in front of me. i said that the state should set up exchanges. if not, there would be a federal

backstop. >> you realize then that a federal backstop was always in play? the states had the option. if not the feds had to set up an exchange. >> that's the way the law was written. >> your comment, you said, if you are a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits. >> once again, that was my trying to be glib and trying to summarize a subtle -- >> why were you being glib? you were concerned about the federal exchanges. why? >> i was concerned about the federal exchanges because it was a very complicated task to get them set up. we weren't sure who would be president when the time came to stand them up. >> who wouldn't be president? it was a tough sell once again. people didn't want it, but there was a lot of smoke and mirrors and there was a lack of transparency and you said that in one of your glib statements. you said that the point you were trying to make about the federal government was whatever reason

they might not set up a federal exchange, you said that they had to set up a federal exchange. you just testified to that, right? >> the law said that there should be a federal backstop. >> but it didn't say the federal exchange would subsidize people. and that's why you made the comment in 2012? >> it's a very clear reading of the law that tax credit sure be available to citizens in all states regardless of who runs the exchange. >> it's not clear. that's why there's a supreme court case. that's why we hear this. but you knew in january of 2012 that there was a concern. the president knew there was aa states were going to set up exchanges. he thought they would have the optic. only 16 did. then there was a problem. so that's why you were concerned in 2012, correct? >> my comments in 2012, as i said, were my effort to try to seem like i knew -- >> you belittle yourself. you know a lot. you were the guy that turned to.

you were the one they were going to to get advise. you had models for state and federal exchanges. did you not have a model in the event this happened, what's happening now, 16 states and the rest are federal? was there not a model that shows that was unworkable? >> i am an experts in the modelling. >> so you knew that. but they didn't write that in the law. who did? it wasn't congress. four months after you made your comment in 2012, the irs listened to you, because they did an end around congress and they rewrote and promulgated a rule that said federal exchanges had to offer subsidies. the irs listened to you. they took an eraser to the bill and tried to change it for congress. because they knew we wouldn't change it for them. >> is there a question? >> you can comment on that. am i wrong? >> i can't conjecture on what the -- why the irs did what they -- >> you conjectured in 2012, in your opening statement that you

assumed that. you ran models and the legislators didn't listen because in a hurry they passed this bill to try to sell it to the people of state-run exchanges. they didn't have language saying they would subsidize the people. >> i think a clear reading of the law makes it clear the tax is available to citizens in all states. >> again, that's why we're in the supreme court. that's why it's going to the supreme court, because it wasn't clear. >> quickly, if i may, do you know -- you are the numbers person. you said there were 6.8 million people that sighed up for obamacare, is that right? >> 6.8 million people as of october 15 had paid their premiums. >> i don't know. i'm hoping you know this. you may have to get it to me. how many of these people who signed up are federal workers? >> are federal worker snz. >> people who are on federal healthcare and then they switched over to obamacare.

>> well, i don't know that number. i would assume the only individuals would be the members of congress who were -- like her husband -- >> there's staff and federal employees all over the country. two to four million federal employees. how many of those signed up for obamacare? >> i don't know. >> i would like to know. i'm wondering how many actually helped the private citizens of this country and how many of those are federal workers that shifted over to the healthcare. >> i think that number -- those numbers may be available in the d.c. exchange. >> thank you. thank all the witnesses. >> we now go to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. rice. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for allowing me to speak as a guest today. this has been a truly fascinating hearing. professor gruber, when you spoke in your videos, which i watched with great interest, you said that the administration used a lack of transparency to its advantage in getting these -- the affordable care act passed. but i think you spoke with a great understatement. it's more and more clear the

more we speak here today that the affordable care act was passed as a pack of lies on a foundation of deception. it continues here today. going back to what they were asking about your assessment in 2012 that if a state didn't set up an exchange that its citizens would pay the tax and benefit the citizens of other states. now say that's incorrect? >> what i said -- as i said, what i said in january 2012 was that if a federal exchange was not established and only in that circumstance, then states that -- >> you didn't say that in january of 2012. you are saying that today. what you said in january of 2012 was that if the states recognizing their citizens would pay the tax but not get the benefit, that that would be a sufficient economic incentive for them to set up exchange.

that's what you said in 2012. you didn't say anything about a federal exchange. >> as i've said, i was conjecturing in areas beyond my expertise, trying to seem smarter than i was. i just shouldn't have done that. >> when you say conjecture, do you mean lie? is that what you mean? >> no. i mean conjecture. >> you were telling the truth back in 2012? >> i was conjecturing. >> you also said in 2012 that the taxes under the affordable care act were put on the insurance companies and not on individuals knowing full well that the insurance companies would pass them on down to individuals as additional premium. and that was disguised tax. do you still believe that? >> i do believe as many economists do that in a competitive insurance market, it will be passed forward to

premiums. >> and it was a way of hiding the tax on the individual? that's the way you described it in 2012. you still believe that? >> once again, that was me conjecturing about political areas that i shouldn't have. what i believe is the economics that i just stated to you. >> you also said if the people had known if the taxpayers, the stupid american taxpayers had recognized that we were shifting costs from healthy people to unhealthy people, you said that the law wouldn't have passed. do you still believe that? >> that was once again my trying to pretend i'm something i'm not which is a political expert. >> you're saying that was a lie then or a lie today? >> it was a conjecture and my trying to be something i'm not. >> all right. then you said that the affordable care act was written in a tortured way to avoid the mandates being scored by cbo as a tax. because you knew if it was scored as a tax, it wouldn't pass. you still believe that today? >> once again, that was my

trying to act like i was a political expert that i'm not. >> what you're saying then is you were lying then? >> what i'm saying is i was conjecturing in an area which i shouldn't have. >> you weren't lying then. okay, so you still believe that i suppose. all right. do you still believe that this deception was necessary to get the law passed? >> the statements to which we have been referring today were once again conjectures by me in an area in which i'm not an expert. >> you served as an adviser to cbo from 2008 until when? >> i joined -- i don't recall exactly. i believe someone said i joined the council cbo in 2007. and i went to a few meetings. those meetings ended -- the last meeting was maybe end of 2008 or

very early 2009. >> so at that time, this law was being drafted, wasn't it in. >> no. >> you're not sure about the -- you're not sure about when you got off of the cbo advisory group? >> i'm not sure either about when i got off or the last meeting i was at. >> that would seem to be -- somebody who is detail oriented as you testified you are, that's important. cbo is supposed to be a non-partisan independent advisory group. if you are being paid by the administration to advise them on tortured language to avoid these things being scored as a tax, isn't that kind of a conflict of interest? >> i am certain -- actually, i am pretty sure that i did not attend any meetings of -- >> i don't care if you attended meetings or not. were you on the panel or weren't you? >> i don't know the official date at which they took me off the panel. >> not very detail oriented for somebody who is supposed to be

detail oriented. do you believe the administration used lack of transparency to its advantage in passing the affordable care act as you said in 2012? >> what i said in 2012 was just trying to speak about an area in which i'm not an expert. >> let me ask you this. forget about 2012. do you believe today the administration used a lack of transparency to its advantage in passing the affordable care act? >> i believe the affordable care act was debated. >> you were lying in 2012? >> i was conjecturing about -- >> what you said just now is in direct opposition to exactly what you said in 2012. so it was a lie today or it was a lie in 2012. which one is a lie? >> i believe that the affordable care act was passed in trans -- >> you were lying in 2012 is what you are saying? >> 2012 i was trying to play amateur politician and i shouldn't have done that.

>> i thank the gentleman. i gather the gentleman is really saying amateur politician in which as a politician you are allowed to say things that aren't true out on the stump. then when you are under oath you say the truth, right? >> yes, sir. >> i gather. i thank the gentleman for your participation. >> thank you very much. >> i'm going to try to get this done so we can recess. we have a vote on the floor. miss tavenner, can we get the payment figures requested in the next ten days? this is fiscal year '14 plus '15 payments to insurers? can we get it in the next ten days? >> the '14 payments. >> right. >> yes. >> good. can we get copies of the revised insurer contracts with which include the opt out clause within the next ten days? >> yes. >> thank you. can any -- has any insurer

participating in the 2015 affordable care act exchanges expressed any concern at any time to anyone to your knowledge in the executive branch of the federal government regarding the lack of an appropriation of funds to make cost sharing reduction payments to insurers? >> not to me. i'm not aware of anyone else. but definitely not to me. >> but you know of of no question from any insurers? you haven't heard through staff or -- >> no. >> okay. mr. gruber, i will be quick. you are familiar with cbo. you sat on the advisory board. you made this comment about t tortured scoring. i know the tortured scoring. let's go through it quickly. isn't it true that the affordable care act received revenue in years in which it was paying nothing out which allowed in the ten-year window for it to

have revenue that on a long-term basis would not fail to have a deficit? in other words, by collecting a tax before they began paying out, that shifting in the ten-year window causes the ten-year window to show a balance that disappeared later, but a balance that in the next ten-year window wouldn't exist? >> the affordable care act did have revenue racing provisions which started before 2014. but it lowered the deficit in the first decade and by -- >> we're not worried about the deficit. that's the tortured stuff you were talking about is that because they were able to not score certain things as expenditures, make certain assumptions in there and most importantly collect revenue which was during a period in which they were paying nothing out, that gave them a score of revenue that, in fact, on an ongoing basis -- in other words,

if they started on the day that the affordable care act began providing services and took the revenue during that period, they would have had a deficit? isn't that true? >> they started the day the affordable care act began and they went for the next decade, they would have showed a massive surplus. >> you are saying that in fact -- are you sure you want to say that as your knowledge, that in fact today, for example, with the payout and the end, you want to say that the medicaid payments and so on that were caused as a result of the affordable care act would, in fact, have had a surplus not a deficit in revenue? >> my recollection of the numbers -- i haven't looked at them in a while. my recollection of the numbers was that by the end of the decade, that on a year to year basis, the affordable care act significantly lowered the deficit such that if you add up the ten years after 2014, if you go by the numbers, that would have -- >> you are aware cbo revised their numbers and they show a

deficit in the affordable care act and have since really shortly after the parties changed here in the house and they redid their numbers? are you aware that they show a deficit? that cbo revised their numbers? they no longer stand behind the numbers during passage? >> i'm not aware. >> i sure wish you had been aware of it. mr. cummings. >> you had not heard that? i hadn't heard it either. >> i don't think so. >> we will check on that. let me just say this. one of the things that i think about and talk about the older i get is that we have a limited amount of time to be in these offices. and i'm so sorry, mr. gruber that you said. i'm sorry the mistake was made. i believe it was a mistake. but what it does it distracts. it distracts from all the good things that are being done with

regard to this law. that is the most painful part of all of this. you know? i talked to a lady the other day who had to wait for the affordable care act to go into affect to get breast cancer treatment. i mean, i can -- story after story after story. now we have to spend this time dealing with something, mr. gruber, that you were conjecturing about. i just told my staff, i said, we ought to learn from this. watch what you said. it can lead to significant consequences. i was sorry to hear about mrs. loomis' husband. i was curious, what did you want to say? >> first of all, i wanted to express my sorrow at her loss and that we would follow up with the d.c. exchange to see what had happened. that's cold comfort now. >> it's a painful story. >> yes. >> anyway, again, i hope you

will go out there and you will continue to work hard to make this work, no matter what happens in these hearings. we have to protect people. we have to try to keep people well and help families stay strong, because i think when we have an unhealthy population, we have an unhealthy country. mr. gruber, you call it amateur politics, whatever you want to call it, like i he had said, the post -- i try to keep sight of the big picture. my mother has a saying. big can't get you if small has got you. i think sometimes we can get so caught up in distracting things that we don't deal with the bigger picture, the life and death situations. thank you all for your testimony. >> i'm going to close the hearing. mr. goldman, thank you for your participation. i suspect that this is an

unusual event for you. you carried yourself off well, even though there weren't as many questions. perhaps if you will post a few videos, you will get an opportunity. mr. gruber, i think you saw here that on both sides of the aisle, at least a number of members don't buy that you were saying one thing there that you didn't believe. i think most of us believe you believed a lot of what you said. in the case of the tortured accounting that cbo used with ten years' worth of revenue and a fraction -- only six years worth of payout, it's tortured. american people in the long run are going to realize there's no free lunch. and paying 1100% and 09 -- 90% f the medicaid has a cost. the taxpayers are who we

represent. the only reason you are back leer today is that you came with figures that were deceptive. needlessly deceptive. we can take bad news here. we have overseen a lot of agencies, problems at the department of transportation, problems at the secret service and others. mr. cummings and i have been able to work without endlessly bringing people back when there's open and transparent delivering of information. you made specific promises of delivering information today. i trust you will keep those. no matter who sits in this chair -- i have sat here under four chairmen. i can tell you, mr. waxman would have been just as animated as we are here today that give us the bad news, give us what you have, even give us bad information in the early days of the stimulus package, we were told there were congressional districts in numbers greater than existed, and we laugh aid little bit and

we had hearings. at the end of the day, working with people, we accepted that they were giving us the best information. you have that opportunity. i won't be in this next congress. somebody else will. when they call you back, tell us what you don't know early on, not when we ask for facts later on. that will be helpful. i said all along that the problem in this administration is that they didn't live up to their promise of being the most transparent administration in history. the standard, the bar was low. all administrations have atendency to deliver good news in press conferences and bad news at latest possible date. so i want to thank my ranking member. he said earlier that he -- i made him better. will tell you, mr. cummings has worked very hard to make me have to be better in trying to get to the truth. i've learned a great deal.

i will just say one thing in closing to my friend. i would do things differently with what i now know. but i would hope that anyone who sits in this chair would never do less than i have done, because it is our watch, it is our time. and i think you and i have worked hard to try to make sure this committee did as much as it could. my only regret is that we couldn't do more. i want to thank you. we stand adjourned. >> wrapping up the house oversight committee meeting. we heard from jonathan gruber as well as marilyn tavenner and also a local d.c. resident who has used some of the d.c. healthcare exchange, looking at the transparency of the obama

administration in regards to the affordable care act and how the healthcare exchanges were rolled out. we will take your calls. numbers are on the screen. 202-748-8921 for republicans. 202-748-8820 for democrats. want to let you know about one other hearing and other events today. a rollout of the cia report that happened earlier on the senate floor by dianne feinstein. we have that on our website. look there. we will hear from john kerry, who asked that that report be delayed because of concerns about relations with the middle east and some of the negotiations he is working on with people there. we will hear from secretary kerry. he will talk about isis at 2:00 right here on c-span3. until then, taking your phone calls. we will get right to our first caller.

that's robert in new hampshire on the democrats line. what do you think about what you heard here and the issue of transparency? >> caller: as a democrat my whole life, it has been humiliating to watch every scandal. i think as a democrat and other democrats have gotten sick of it. to watch these people lie time and time again, you know, what do we hire these -- what are we voting these people into office for? all they do is lie, whether it's congress or people they hire. >> what about what you heard from jonathan gruber? marilyn tavenner? >> caller: wow. all i got to say is if we spend our money, millions of dollars on people like that and we wonder why our country is so messed up. the reason why the democrats are getting blown out for congress is because people are fed up. i'm fed up. we're democrats.

we're trying to help people out. we believe in welfare and helping the country. you have people like this that is defying everything we have worked for. >> what do you wish you had heard from the testimony today? >> caller: well, i think when they asked the question and when someone who is a graduate of m.i.t. can't come up with a number, i think that that is obviously a lie. i would have liked -- why don't people be indicted or why don't they be held in contempt? we don't hold anybody in contempt. we just let them go by. we let time go by. then nobody does anything about it. >> robert in new hampshire. going t ining on to virginia. april, what are your thoughts? >> caller: i tell you what, robert may be a democrat but what he said is how i feel. conjecture -- we teach our kids

not to lie. not to run around the truth. what was seen here was grown adults sitting before the congress rshgs i was glib, i was conjectu conjecturing. the man was stating the truth. but because he has been caught, because it's now put forth, the american people, the white house looks bad, the healthcare law looks bad, everything looks bad. i agree with the democrats, the fellow american. be honest. tavenner comes before congress and she does not have basic information to give them? these are supposed to be our elite people, the intelligent people, the educated to come forth and present their knowledge and their gifts and their abilities. and for some reason, people come before congress and they turn

totally dumb and forgetful. >> back to the democrats line. joe is on the line from nebraska. you are on the floor. go ahead. >> caller: yes. i'm a registered democrat, but i've always voted the perch not the party. the debalkle i saw here today is the fact that people can sit here on few skate the answers that were -- they should have given. they're supposedly ph.d.s. you are sitting here and trying to make the common stupid american public believe that you don't have any answers. that's the problem that we have in this country. everybody can hide and the thing that we're having to do right now is to try to uncover these lies and to get the truth out and this transparency. i want to know what the word conjecture means to this mr. gruber. is it a lie or is it the truth? conjecture is another word i just -- it doesn't fit.

the thing of of it is is that i just wish the federal government would start working for the people, be transparent for the people and be honest with the people. that last administration -- this administration in there is the most non-transparent administration in the history of this country. >> taking your calls. jonathan gruber and marilyn tavenner both testifying before the house oversight committee. look at tweets here. on now to san diego, california, on the independence line. lewis is waiting to weigh in. go ahead. >> caller: hi. how are you doing? i'm sitting here in awe at the

lies, that every time this administration has come before us or congress or anybody, it's all a bunch of lies. oh, my gosh. how about accountability for these people? >> what do you mean specifically in terms of lies? what did you hear that were lies on the floor -- on the house company here? >> caller: early avoiding. i mean the lies that the president told us about being able to keep your doctor. all this. i won't go after your guns. one lie after another. at what point is this going to stop? >> caller: maria in california on the republican line. go ahead. >> caller: hello. >> you are on the air. >> caller: i am in absolute shock to listen to this gruber fellow and this wonderful blonde lady sitting there, no numbers, no nothing, i will get it to

you. as pompous as they come. what are they doing? what does it mean to work for the administration? is your prerequisite to know how to lie? for what? we're people. i'm even shocked talking to you. but i tell you, it's just -- i'm in absolute shock. i'm so glad we have those people on the dias, the congressmen who dare ask those questions. but then when they answer -- when gruber answers and when the blonde lady answered, i will get back to you. will let you know. that's bull puckey. it is. >> that's right. she was testifying here. she's the administrator for medicare/medicaid services. mary is on the line. what are your thoughts?

>> caller: i was appalled at the republicans. i was simply horrified by the mccarthy-like -- they ask a question that basically says, when did you stop beating your wife. i thought that most of them asked idiotic, simple-minded, twisted -- twisted any word. when the people testifying, gruber and ms. tavenner were testifying and when they said i will get back to you, no one would risk putting out a figure that they did not have absolutely solid evidence for in front of those bozos. you would find yourself in jail. i just really -- i thought they were awful. i can't imagine what the next two years are going to be like. >> on to new jersey. larry is on the line for independe independents. >> caller: if i was a graduate

or attended m.i.t., at this point i would be totally embarrassed to be associated with the university. also to have not necessarily a graduate, as professor gruber is, but to be a professor of economics there is quite astounding for some at m.i.t. miss tavenner, i'm sure she attended some university to get to the position she's in. the biggest question of all, whether it's a republican or a democratic situation and the questions i thought were very pointed, very good, the question at this particular point is, where does it go? here say hering where you are listening to questions. you are not getting much in the way of answers. where does it go from here? what happens to the process at this particular point? or is it just a couple of sound bites and it doesn't go anywhere? these were serious issues that were brought up, serious

questions and didn't get answers. i think as a member of the american public, we deserve answers. it was absolutely as previous callers have said, absolutely astounding that a member of the administration, such as miss tavenner and a consultant, whatever he claims to be, consultant, adviser or architect or whatever he -- he doesn't know what he is himself. to represent a plan of the aca of this magnitude is totally astounding. >> as you mentioned, where does this go from here? this is probably one of the last hearings that's going to be chaired by the oversight chairman within the 114th congress. it will be taken over. let's look back at some of what we did hear during the testimony. this is jonathan gruber just a few moments ago. >> i'd like to begin by apologizing for the offending comments i have made.

in some cases i made uninformed and glib comments about the political process behind healthcare reform. i'm not an expert on politics. in other cases, i cases i made insulting comments which are uncalled for. i apologize for conjecturing. it's never appropriate to make one's self seemer more important by demeaning others. i know better. i'm embarrassed and i'm sorry. in addition to apologizing for my unacceptable remarks i would like to clarify my conceptions about the context and content of my comments. let me be clear. i do not think the affordable care act was passed in a nontransparent fashion. the issues i raised like redistribution and the structure of the cadillac tax.

were roundly debated. reasonable people can disagree about the merits of the policies. it is completely clear that these issues debated thoroughly. i would also like to clarify misperceptions about the january 2012 remarks kshing the availability of tax credits in states that didn't set up health insurance exchanges. the portion of the remarks that's received so much attention omits a critical component of the con technical in which i was speaking. the point i was making was about the possibility that the federal government, for whatever reason may not create a federal exchange. if that were to occur and only in that context the only way states could guarantee their citizens would receive tax credits would be to set up their own exchange. i have a long standing and well documented belief that health reform legislation in general and the aca in particular must include mechanisms for residents

in all states to have tax credits. my simulation model expressly modeled for states to be eligible for tax credits whether served by a state ek change or federal exchange. >> jonathan gruberer and his testimony before the house oversight committee. we'll show the entire hearing 8:00 tonight on our network, c-span 2. also want to let you know in ju under ten minutes secretary of state john kerry will be appearing on c-span 3. he'll talk about isis and touching on the cia report that was released earlier by senator dianne feinstein on the floor of the senate. talking about interrogation techniques under the bush administration. again, that's in just under ten minutes. we'll bring it to you on c-span3 . taking your calls on what we have already heard from jonathan gruber. what we heard from marlin tavner with medicare and medicaid. ray is on the line for republicans. go ahead.

>> i am still in shock hearing it the first time sitting there. i never sit down and watch hearings. today i wanted to watch this. i'm still in shock to hear mr. gruber repeat those words. i have worked for the government. i have worked in county government as a director of programs. i can share with you two things. just remarkable from what i heard today. number one, accountability. when you work for the government in aen county level, city level, state level you are accountable to the people of what you are doing with their money, period. there are no excuses there. number two, mr. gruber. basically an unknown college. it's not a big deal. certainly his degree defined him

in a way that today i am almost embarrassed to say i have a ph.d.. is that what we are going to teach our future students? i have taught in colleges. is that how you call a lie? i was con gesturing? oh, my goodness. are we redefining our country to appoint where no longer moral and social responsibility is respected or encurrently encour? >> thanks for your call. renee is on the line for independents and others. what are your thoughts about the obama administration, the testimony you heard today? >> caller: thank you for taking my call. it seem it is arrogance of administrators in this

administrati administration. as time goes on. ray is absolutely correct. people are elected, appointed, have jobs. to be good stewards over the taxpayers money. they work for us. we don't work for them. i kind of found it -- i find it we are all american citizens. i find it disheartening that representative cummings refers to gruber's lies as ammunition. for the other party. we should be trying to come together. it doesn't seem to be working. >> all right. >> larry is right. as far as his call, when this hearing ended that was exactly what i said. now what? everybody just goes to lunch?

>> thanks, renee. linda is on the line from brighton, michigan. what are your taughts? >> yes. what came out at the end was eye opening to me. they said the projectionses for ten years now is going to be a deficit, not a surplus. taking the sur prius projected in the plan. now to pay to set up the federal exchanges. because unless there are federal exchanges created for all the states other than the 16 that already have exchanges, the obamacare plan completely falls flat when it goes to supreme court. are they going to be taking the surplus money and use it to set up ek changes in order to keep the obamacare in place?xchanges

the obamacare in place? also joining us via twitter. send a comment at # cspan chat and online on facebook. a tweet from diane who says you have to be healthy enough to jump through the loopholes in obamacare coverage. another one that says young people aren't signing up. they're not stupid either. brighter than a lot of us. kimberly says meehan is asking good questions and addressing the issues of access to quality health care. jay from new mexico on the democrats line. go ahead. >> caller: i was watching the hearing. i have never watched c-span before. i felt compelled to watch this one. it was just amazing to see gruber just repeat himself over and over about how he misspoke. i don't know how many times he said conjecture.

must have been three, four dozen times. the only honest thing that came out of his mouth was the comments he was making on video. those are things that a lot of people were saying prior to the bill getting passed. this is the warning cry that some blue dog democrats and all the republicans were saying that this was going to happen. when gruber was caught on video making the same claims, it just proved the blue dogs and republicans that voted against that for the reason they voted against it was true. >> thanks for your comments. take a look at facebook. we have hundreds of comments. a number of conversations going online. nancy on facebook says that jonathan gruber apologized because he got caught. not sure anything will come from

the hearings. we have more and more. clay says rudy giuliani is right. there is enough evidence against gruber to charge him with fraud. he could never stand up to cross-examination. if he were the ceo of a private company president obama and holder would be all over him. we are moving on from that one with. let's go to gary in westminster, maryland. you're on the line for republicans. what do you think about the transparency, the white house and what you heard today? >> caller: yes. thanks for taking my call. i must say that with great disappointment this obama administration, i am disgusted at his transparency. there is nothing transparent about anything he's done. he used every political pun to take credit for his inactions. the issue with gruber and the hsa or the cms now as they are

calling the organization. not coming with facts and figures. once again, it's the republicans who asked the pointed questions. i'm thankful for the very few democrats who stand up and basically side with the republicans on trying to air dirty laundry about the law. the other thing that i'm sick and tired of people trying to say the republicans don't want health care. we all have to participate in health care we want to make sure everybody is covered in a fair, compensated way and not just say because you are in a particular class you pay more versus another class that pays less. we should all pay equally. i have seen people from various states who live in virginia. their insurance