of americans, they would not help what they have. >> you are an economist with a model and we don't take that away from you at all. yet the president 37 times said if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. i'm here to say that my constituency and she had a plan she like and couldn't keep that plan. she is not stupid. she couldn't keep that plan. mark and kate, a young pastor and wife at a local church now expecting as of yesterday could

not find a plan that is adequate for them. a hardworking young man spent almost the entire weekend trying to up on to obamacare from a plan ha that he lot of and couldn't keep. i watched him try to get a plan through the website through talking with people and connected with websites, he couldn't get it. he had a plan he liked. he is not stupid. he couldn't keep it. constituents contacted me, saying while they may have found a plan under obamacare, not necessarily a plan that they liked or could keep, but found a plan like mr. goldman that was reasonable in cost, yet when they got to the point of having to pay their deductibles and

copays and out of pocket expenses or the prescription drug cost, they couldn't afford it. i would suggest that transparency is what you see is not what you get. my time is expired. i now recognize mr. cartwright for five minutes. >> thank you and i thank the witnesses for appearing today. yet another instance of the mashes of teeth over the affordable care act. administrator, you were not there for the crafting of obamacare. i was not in the congress when many of my colleagues were not here for the voting on the aca. i believe what the american public wants of us is to make the best of things and to take this law and improve it and make it work for everybody in the

united states. that's why it pains me to have to sit through these hearings while we criticize those who may have said something that understated or overstated the facts to be sure. there people who are traveling through this world and through their lives unburdened by excessive concern for the truth. maybe mr. gruber at times in your life you have been one of them. i hope you will take that chance. we only get five minutes and it's minutes to explain. that was about the cadillac tax. i am hearing about that as well.

this is a yes or no question. will you undertake to review the cadillac tax and rethink it. to rethink it and maybe even go back to the drawing board of the cadillac test in an effort as i said to take this law and improve it and make it work for all americans. >> the president has been clear and he would be willing to work with congress to make improvements to the law. >> i want to talk about cost a little bit. in an unguarded moment, the chairman of this committee listed a number of statements that he considered to be. some of them i agree with.

the idea that health care spending in this nation had the lowest increase in 50 years. he considered them to be falsehoods. >> that statement is the lowest trend in health care spending that we have seen. the lowest on record since 1960.

over nine million new to medicaid. these are all good things. >> i have been an employer and the 2000 decade. we saw and we provided health care for employees and saw increases in the double-digits of 10, 15, and 20% or higher in some years for the premiums we were paying to cover employees. it was awful. what's the average increase in premiums. >> under the aca, they can vary by region. they are looking at single

digits for increases. in the employer-sponsored part from the market place, 3% this year. that's again an overall low trend. there have been changes in copays and deductibles. it still is a much lower growth than in years inpast. i share your concern for the past. >> more refreshing news. now the unanimous consent and mr. rice be allowed to participate. without objection, so ordered. we now go to the gentlemen from north carolina. >> dr. gruber, as everyone knows and us american people know, you feel like you are playing to keep it. it turns out it was the live year.

this was a very significant thing. north carolinians according to the north carolina department of insurance, 473,000 lost health insurance because of obamacare. this is perplexing. you had a moment of clarity and honesty where you said there was a lack of transparenciy that helped pass obamacare. i concur. i appreciate your honesty and think it's horrific that you participated in some level on obscuring the truth from america people to pass this bill. you apologized for that and i thank you. the american people will hear you loud and clear. it was a matter of morality for you to apologize. it's really a tough thing to do publicly, but i thank you for doing that. when i think about my

constituents though, did you think thatu:!r there will be su? >> i don't know the number of north carolina. >> 473,000. what i was focused on was the net increase of newly insured that we had under the law which has been substantial. >> okay. it's not relevant to your calculation that there will be people that would lose health insurance? >> that was part of the calculation. >> it was. there is a term, would you say? >> there has always been. >> did you think it would be a large number that would lose their plans? >> i don't recall the exact numbers, but we modelled some who would lose their existing plans and move to new forms of coverage.

>> you anticipated the question. is it similar or dissimilar? >> i don't know how it compares to what i projected. >> was there a discussion that in the white house and hhs about this potential loss of health insurance plans? >> i don't recall whether they were. when i was there, i can't speak to what happened. >> there was no moment of moral clarity and honesty? you came to publicly. that we now know about. there was no discussion at the time that maybe we should put the brakes on this and we will have a lot of people lose their preferred health insurance plan? >> i was present for discussion. i provided numbers and i was present for the numbers and interpretation of what this meant in terms of how it will

affect individuals. >> did anyone say pause for a moment. the president has been out saying if you like your plan, you can keep it. maybe we should tell them that that's not the case and he should change his wording a little bit. >> i was not in a discussion of communication or messaging. >> okay. in the meetings where you went through the numbers and you said to the administration andd you have plenty of experience on this. you said to this administration because you are in the employ of this administration. there will be people that lose their plans. there will be people who lose their plans. is this not registered? did this fall on deaf ears? >> you conveyed there would be

people who lose that. are my interpretation is that some lose and some gain. when you have them coming out and based off your numbers and the data you provided this administration, is that correct? >> the vast majority will maintain with the affordable care act. >> the only way is to actually pay lip service to fundamental cost control. you need to talk about that to pass the health insurance change. was it in fact just lip service? >> fundamental cost control is very, very hard. the affordable care act does not solve that.

>> it did pay lip service though. >> the affordable care act is the most ambitious piece of legislation in terms of moving forward on cost control. >> okay. >> has it outperformed or under performed? >> my model with the office model over the budget president did not -- >> i'm saying so far. >> so far the law in terms of health care coverage matched well with what the model predicted. that was important in fact. >> i don't understand the question. >> okay. you said in order to pass it, you have to pay lip service to fundamental cost control. >> as i said, it's very difficult, but the affordable care act takes all the necessary steps to move us down that path. >> my time expired. >> i think the gentlemen had consent of the actual numbers as they have been revised and placed in the record relative to

them5l affordable care act. the gentlemen from vermont, we are pleased to have you join us. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. a couple of things. number one, you apologized for the insulting remarks. it's unfortunate. this whole debate about health care is so fundamentally personality, it has been divicive in congress. we had a partisan vote and different points of view about it. unfortunately the remarks you made and opponents to indict the build. when you comment on illegal out come, do you have training as a lawyer? >> no, i do not. >> when you comment, all of us

here i take it you can apologize for the remarks you made. the colleagues and they talked about folks who had a bad experience and some people had a good experience and bad experiences. it really is profoundly important to the american people that they have security about health care. it is your view going back to the area of expertise. be specific as to a number of items that are better now than before. according to the latest estimates, they ended the fact

that individuals face preexisting conditions and the inability and the financial security and the affordable care act contributed to a slow rate of cost growth. >> is it also your opinion that the affordable care act shares many things in common with romney care in massachusetts? >> it is. >> you worked on the massachusetts version with the romney administration, is that correct? >> yes, it is. >> i think i heard you say that the uninsured rate is about 3% to 4%. >> before the affordable care act it fell to 3% and it may be lower today. >> my understanding is the massachusetts bill is that there was a bipartisan vote that supported that legislation. is that correct? >> yes. >> we did not -- that alluded us here in this congress. my view is that there is a lot

of things we have to fix in the system. i never had to view that any single bill is going to be the magic fix that had itself to be in an ongoing process. i ask you, in the cost issue on health care, it's the one they think needs even more attention. first, i ask you what has happened to the growth of health care spending since the passage of the affordable care act? >> i think as we have discussed earlier, it's a historic low. 3.7% i believe for 2013. that's the lowest on record since 1960. >> does that apply across the board whether a person is in the obamacare or on their own private employer-sponsored? >> would you put the microphone closer? >> it is across the board.

>> and what would you cite as important elements in the affordable care act that slowed the rate of growth and health care spending? >> it took a number of steps. the changes that they reimburse for hospitals. >> in vermont we had a discussion about health care and we have got health care providers, the hospitals and the enters are really focused on trying to figure out better ways to treat and curb infections. to change the billing process and they are on the frontlines. what are the things we can do to

help them be successful in providing health care at lower cost? >> the most important thing is to continue to learn from the ongoing experiments they are going on on the health care system to understand what's working to deliver this low rate of spending. >> i would agree with that and i would also say we tried to do this through the innovation centers up front. how to work with electronic health records and build an infrastructure to assuming risk and looking at it. >> the accountable care organizations are part of that? >> yes. >> my time is up. thank you. >> we now go to the gentlemen from oklahoma. >> what is the plan for states that are not self-sufficient.

by january 1, 2015, they have to be self-sufficient. >> you are talking about the smaller states. currently they are sufficient, self-sufficient and ongoing discussions with them. >> how are you defining self-sufficient? >> the funding ends at the end of this year. most of them are dependent on the sources of revenue. we have the ongoing discussions. >> the cost overruns that they have and they are pursuing federal brands. rhode island had even this week an editorial that came out and

suggesting to the governor to punt this and go back to the federal oversight because of the cost overruns there. there is buzz as to the conversation about the states and what they are doing. my question is the law requires them to be self-sufficient and the two full question. one is that the states that come back to you and say we need a grant and additional dollars and will they get federal dollars saying they will be self-sufficient. >> there will not be federal dollars awarded. >> at 2014, the implication to help the shortfall and to help you by next year. >> it's very specific what the grands can be used for. i will be glad to get you that information. >> could it be used for the commenting? >> that is very specific.

i will have to get you that information. >> the law said by january 21st if the grant is given to them and the dollars can be used after january 21st. >> happy to get you that information. >> i'm just asking, i'm not trying to be contrarian. is there money being given that they will use after january 1st, 2015. >> i'm not trying to be contrary either. i want to get you specific information about each state. i will get you that information. >> the blanket response would be we are definitely going follow the law. contrary to the statute. >> assuming we will follow the law as it has been written out. the question goes along with that as well. we have the numbers for this

month. $6.7 billion that has the enrollment. will we get monthly effectuated enrollments from year on out. whether it be consistent snapshots a month at a time. >> i think this led to our mistakes. let me try to explain. they are those individuals who have paid? >> that's right. >> what we gave the information, the 6.7 that was current, we will be able to run another effe effectuated enrollment that will cover 2014. we will get you that information. >> we will get monthly snapshots. >> there is only one more month left. >> the open enrollment goes through. >> that's 2014. let me close that and last night we sent the chairman a large part. >> including what we talked

about last year that i got the answer for at 6:30 last night. >> we may be slow, but we try. the second thing has to do with 2015. we look at effectuated enrollment and would probably be mid-or late february. remember payments are notmlñ ma until sometime in january. they are checked for accuracy. you will probably be looking at that. >> you are getting numbers on that as well. we would like actual numbers on that. is that every month or two months? when will we get the totals? we have to get into a rhythm. >> this is where we will do regular intervals and provide it to you monthly. >> what was the estimate that we hoped to have by this point, the original roll out for

effectuated enrollments for this month? >> i don't know that we had a publicly stated goal. >> they did obviously. >> 7 million originally and they revised that downward in the spring of 14. i don't think we had a public goal. we are delighted with 6.7. >> for the end of this year was 16 million? >> i don't think that's correct. >> what's the guess. >> for the end of 2015. >> at the end of 2014 i believe was the $7 million revised down to $6 million if i remember correctly. for the end of 2015 by next year, it was $13 million. >> if they allow me one last question, that is the medicaid numbers. based on the expansion that occurred. the new definition in states

that took that expansion. will we get a listing of the difference between people that enrolled in medicaid and those who became eligible based on the expansion. >> we are working on that as we speak. >> when will we get that number? >> soon. >> i have been asking since september and i got an answer last night at 6:30. >> they will be signing docks soon. >> i don't think we will meet that definition. >> they will get a report next year. >> help me understand soon? >> it's in the process. >> in geological terms of soon or -- >> in geological terms of soon. i think -- >> about a month? >> about a month. >> that's great. >> i thank the gentlemen and early on, i probably shove gotten into the difference between geological, biblical,

calendar soons and i could have done so much to speed things up. we go to the gentle lady from new mexico. >> thank you and i want to thank you for tackling a very difficult challenge often in this committee. while i have concerns about roll out from that i think are extended or not addressed as it could be from last year. we are all in a better place given that this is a much smoother roll out. one, the affordable care act deals with cost not just by making transformations for a fee for service environment, but lowering uninsured and uncompensated care costs. we have that shift which is great, but it didn't do enough to deal with quality or cost. we will have to get people

insured and continue to deal with real cost issues and structure issues in the way in which reimpurse providers and incentivize patients. given that in new mexico, we have one of the highest ininsured populations in the country. preaffordable care act. we can do much, much better. given the large hispanic population that continues to be a challenge across the country, can you talk to me about what you are doing better about outreach and transparency and education because that -- the hispanic demographic was the lowest they could penetrate in9o terms of increasing coverage. what are you doing to specifically address that? >> i think for starters, you are correct. we identified at the end of the period last year.

this was not something we will go for as deeply. we have gone about it several ways. we created advocacy groups and make sure that they are trained not only -- >> be specific about that work. talk to me about specifically how that would translate to somebody in new mexico having a better chance for being enrolled. >> let me start with the navigators and the sisters of new mexico. we have done more to ensure that as we made the awards that we were dealing with bilingual staff in all areas. if that's not just a presence, but significant presence. i can get that specific to your state, but we have been working with the advocacy groups in the state to work many -- >> i would encourage you to do that and i appreciate that you are trying to answer and i want to make sure with my limited time i get as much out as

possible. i have a suggestion for you. i attended many of the efforts last year and you are touching an individual consumer six times in new mexico. you lost them -- if you had them in the room, get them enrolled. that's a huge problem. you are minimizing, i think the experience that our consumer here today presented. it can and does work. i really want you to get more people covered and start exploring on asking for the administration to work more closely with members of congress. while we are seeing access and the exclusion of preexisting conditions having that be a barrier to providing coverage and premiums that are lower, lower in my state certainly, but out of state costs are higher. that means you don't get folks who are accessing even if they

have coverage. i think most folks are still not understanding that the affordable care act minimally does anything to insurance company when is we set the floor about who they have to cover. they make decisions about the networks and what they will pay and what hospitals will be in their network and create that environment. they will have to do more to get them to lower total costs and create much more expansive provider networks. i'm encouraging you to be very assertive in that role and work with members of congress to get that done. with limited seconds left, the last part is like my colleague, senator langeford, we have been waiting for to you respond to new mexico about health access. that is not related just to this hearing, but it is a

transparency issue. we are looking for numbers and another provider dropped all health coverage in the southern part of the state and i'm encouraging you while you wait for three months to respond, that's months where new mexico cans don't get coverage. i will encouraging you to stop the damage in new mexico. >> will do. >> i thank the gentle lady. we now go to the gentlemen from arizona. >> thank you, mr. chairman. doctor, in your testimony you stated i'm not a political adviser or politician. i like that statement. i'm a dentist by trade. there is something commendable about that.

. >> i like to think i pay attention to detail, yes. >> the beauty is in the detail. >> if you lie about any of your comments when you had some of the aspects on television, were they just not politically pleasant? >> they were not lies. >> they were truthful in regards to the evaluation of a process, right? >> they were once again my trying to conjecture. >> you were not lying? you were truthful about the process. it may not be politically savvy or red meat, but what you were doing is you were honest in regards to the process?

>> once again, i was making statements about something i didn't have the expertise to make. >> i don't know about expertise. we just talked about the beauty in the detail. you are astute about the economic aspect. you had the models and you had these models with obamacare. you are very astute with regards to this. that's one of the most prestigious environments in the world, right? you are going to be very watchful as it takes place and changes and has contradictions. >> i was proud in the modelling and the numbers i produced,s in. >> i will go back to it. you were very honest. we saw the real jonathan gruber in there. i watched you last night for

almost four hours. i read body damage very well. you were in your element when we talked about the critiques of this health care law. let me ask you something. who helped with you your testimony and you signed off on your testimony today. >> it's my own testimony. i did receive assistance from my counsel. >> did you have assistance from hhs committee? >> no, i did not. >> were you coached in any way what to say? said are my. i did work with my counsel in preparing them. >> you are pretty a ststute wit numbers, right? >> once again, the numbers that i produced in/íb terms of my

simulation modelling are confident. >> they are also pretty good with numbers, aren't you? i have been watching the bantering back and forth and they asked you a question, you are prepared with numbers. when we asked, you are appropriately responsible to numbers. you hear them all day long. >> i do hear numbers. >> i agree. so you know this preponderance of looking at the following rate of dollars being spent in health care, i want to go back to the microcosm. did anyone think about this? what kind of access did the gentle lady talk about? did that come into your aspect with the deductibles being so high that no one is using them? did that occur to you? >> if you look at what we did around the proposed and final

rule last year, we tried to make accommodation to handle the deductible and improve it. >> that's nice. changing around the aspects. but from my stand point, when creating a bigger problem. the gentlemen from maryland is aware of the aspect when people can't pay for it and children go walking around and you have a child that dies. you are aware of that situation? >> i'm aware of the situation. >> once again, it's that fluff part. i heard people saying this was the most transparent process. it didn't involve people on the other side. i'm well aware of having a bipartisan application to health care. health care is a personal sport. the patient has to be involved. it's not a republican or democratic issue. it became sida democratic issue.

we were deceitful in everything we have done. instead of acknowledging the products, we heard a tortured language. this was out right the wrong way to go. from that standpoint it sickening me to hear what i heard from both you and mr. gruber. it's sad. we are playing with people's health care when they deserve something better. and frankly not having the the facts is better. with the irs and the people prove that. thank you. >> thank you.

. >> we now go to the gentlemen. >> i want to go to you and the ranking member for your leadership over the course of the year. i want to thank the folks for being here today. there is a lot of characterizations of testimony and what things have gone on and we go back and forth. i know in the end and think you would agree in the end the american consumers i find to be intelligent with their efforts to try to become good consumers of health care information. these are not gotcha questions. we don't get a chance to do that. what i am seeing right now is a patient who are -- they are the holders of their electronic health records, but they are

bouncing around from system to system and they are frustrated. the costs are rising and they are not getting the access to what they had before. they are paying more out of cost. that's one of the factors that is driving containment of health care. at the same time what's happening is i think people are not getting health care. they will pay for more down the road. my problem is how are we working on assuring that these systems of electronic health records can communicate through the larger structure? the whole idea. it doesn't seem to communicate with each other. what are we doing and how are you working to breakthrough the occasions. how consumers are much better.

in helping them guide their health care and negotiate through the systems, whoever the provider is. >> i think what you are talking about with the issue of interoperability is one of the challenges. you are right. we have strong systems within a system. they do it together well. when you are moving across systems, that's a challenge. when we look at stage three, one of the big pieces, with the pilots now. . >> it doesn't appear to be an opportunity if we don't find a way. people move. they are here today they may go away for two or months. . >> so i see it happening in two

days. one is with payment strategy. that tends to work with the certification requirements. we will be working with the department with hhs and cms. this is a two-group effort to make sure that we put in our certification and other requirements. the measures that will push interoperability. i agree. it's critical. >> from the perspective of the patients then, are we doing more to be able or how are you helping us to be able to understand what they are going to provide? how are you moving to allow the patient to be better consumers? >> that is again, we spend a lot of 2014 helping people sign up and now the second part is how do you educate individual who is have signed up. we have started work that we are doing. it started within cms and now it's broadly out to the consumer

from coverage to care. helping people understand what did you du deductibles and individuals don't pay copays and deductibles and other procedures. >> certain kinds, but there is a lot of care that they do and that's often when they are going to see them. >> we willéizx work with them tt them out there. it is pretty complicated. >> it is complicated for the consumers themselves. there is a lot more. i don't agree with the way it is set up, but that is fundamentally where we have to make significant improvements and i hope you continue to focus on that. >> i agree with you. >> would the gentlemen yield? >> yes. >> i'm going to ask you for consent that the publication data numbers you can use be placed on the record without

objection. i want to make sure i get this right. according to this article, health care costs erupt a little under 4%. in order to get that figure, utilization is down. the total amount of services dropped off and the cost went up. if you need services, it went up a lot more than 3%. the cost of service didn't go up as much. people are essentially not buying as in. is that true? >> i don't believe that's true. >> do you know that or you just don't want to believe that maybe your staff can tell you it's authenticated. >> i haven't seen the article. >> you don't know if health care costs are up and utilization is down because people have higher out of pocket expenditures.

you don't know that, do you? >> if you let me finish my sentence, inpatient admissions are down that may mean more appropriate use of services and not that it's bad. >> the services are down and conis jecture is it's a good thing. >> it can be, yes. >> i will accept that has your answer. >> we go to mr. gowdy. >> i yielded. >> okay, mr. gowdy. >> mr. mosh returned. i apologized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a question for the doctor concerning tax credits. at a conference you said if you are a state and you don't set up an exchange, your citizens don't get their credits.

that was consistent with other statements all of which expressed your belief that if a state refused to set up an exchange, the citizens could not qualify for a tax credit. the administration ordered billions of dollars to person who is live in the states that don't have state run exchanges. the executive action seems to conflict with your numerous past statements about how obamacare works. there is a lawsuit before the supreme court on the issue. in your testimony this morning, you claimed that you misspoke repeatedly in your prior statements. for whatever reason may not create the federal exchange. you further explained that the

think it's the exchanges. if the state the law requires the federal government exchanges and the state refused to create that for themselves. therefore ever state must have an obamacare exchange set up by the state or the federal government. if that's the case that every state must have an exchange, what did you mean when you said that the citizens of some states may not qualify for tax credits. isn't it the case that people who live in states without an exchange cannot receive credits?

believe what i was saying was reflecting uncertainty about the implementation of a federal ÷ january 21st, 2014. >> are you suggesting that the law doesn't require them to set up an exchange? >> i don't recall what the law said. >> you ran the economic model on obamacare. >> in every single model i ran, i assumed that exchanges would be available regardless of whether the exchanges run by the state or federal government. my comments were reflecting whether or not they were ready. >> if you were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to run an economic model and you were making statements that didn't reflect the actual language of obamacare? >> i made a series of statements that were inexcusable. >> thank you. >> would the item yield? >> i yield back. yes. >> i want to make sure.

>> we said we have to pass to find out what's in it. following up on this, at the time of the path, were you aware that the language would have allowed your model be executed? in other words, that states were not -- if they chose not to provide, the language explicitly was preventing it and you have a different result. were you ever given that recommendation? >> i was always modelling the taxed credits. >> you always modelled something different than the law. but let me go and do one quick thing. you are an author and i wrched one of your books. in that book dr. jonathan gruber is professor of economics in the

newest technology and director of the program at the national bureau of economic research. he was a key architect of massachusetts's ambitious reform effort and consulted health care reform effort and consulted extensively with obama administration and congress during the development of the affordable care act. "the washington post" called him possibly the democratic, in parentheses, party's most influential health care expert. do you recognize that as being in your book? >> yes, i do. >> okay. so if you're an author, you put it in your book, you recognize it, do you stand by it? >> absolutely. >> you are the key architect of the act in massachusetts under governor romney, and 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. >> and says 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" opinion of my role in the democratic party. but i can certainly stand by the fact that i provided an enormous amount of hours -- >> well, you put it in your book, right? >> i was quoting, it was a flattering 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 the book including the consulted extensively from washington and congress, but now you want to say you want to distance yourself from "the washington post"? >> i'm just saying i put them in quotes because they're "the washington post" words. >> okay. we'll let "the washington post" credibility speak for itself.

thank you. >> professor gruber what did you mean when you said they proposed it and it 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 that as a defense for saying it or meaning it? >> i'm offering it as a defense for using inappropriate and hurtful and inexcusable language. >> well, what did you mean by too stupid to understand the difference? >> congressman, i didn'ttvç mea anything by it. >> well, you said it, you had to have meant it. >> i was once again being glib in trying to make myself seem smarter by reflecting -- >> well, what did you mean when you said it was the basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding by the 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 look smarter. >> well, what did you mean when you said the american people don't care about the uninsured? >> once again, that's an overstatement of political topics of 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. you're not a politician, 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 peep stupid. i can't help but note, professor gruber, in another one of your quotes that was politically infeasible, do you remember saying that? >> yes. so you do like to factor in the politics from time to time, don't you. >> also you know, professor gruber, that usually you 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 that i know more about palm tolitics -- >> do you think not being a politician is your defense? i know initially you said you offered these opinions at a conference, but i think you meant conferences, plural, when you went on an obscure television show and initially apologized for what you said were inappropriate comments. and now today, your defense is that you're not a politician. is that the best you can come up with? >> the best i can come up with is really just apologize for inexcusable -- >> but i want to know -- 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 you made. here let me keep going, see if this helps you any. what did you mean when you said

you wish that you had been able to be transparent, but you'd rather have the law than not? >> once again, it was my trying to conjecture about our political process of which i'm not an expert. >> what did you mean when you said it was written in a tortured way to make sure the cbo didn't score the mandate as a tax? >> once again, it was trying use inappropriate language to sound intelligent among my colleagues. >> do you see a trend developing here, professor gruber? >> i don't understand get. >> it's a lot of stupid quotes you made with the trend. >> a lot of inexcusable quotes. >> what is a nonpolitician doing talking about political advantages? >> a nonpolitician is talking about political advantages to try to make himself seem smarter by conjecturing about something. >> so you're a professor at m.i.t. and you're worried about

not looking smart enough? >> yes. >> well, you succeeded, if that was your goal. now, i want to ask you, are you sorry -- when did you realize that these comments were inappropriate? because it took you about a year to apologize. so i'm trying to figure out if you realized sooner that they were inappropriate. or was it just the morning before you went on msnbc you that realized it was inappropriate? when did you realize that these comments are indefensible and inappropriate? >> i honestly didn't remember making them. >> you don't remember calling your fellow citizens stupid. and you didn't remember saying that you're the only person who cares about the uninsured and 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 that i made. >> well, professor gruber, let like from this vantage point is

that you thought they were really pithy and really 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 meanv it. which are you apologizing for, because you said it or because you meant it? >> i didn't mean it. i'm apologizing -- >> all of these quotes that i just read to you you didn't mean a single one of them, not a one? >> what i said, congressman, i was using glib, thoughtless and inexcusable language. you used them a lot, professor gruber which tends to undercut the notion that you were sorry for an episodic mistake. i just read to you about ten. you see why people might possibly think the apology is a

i yeel baield back, mr. chairma. >> following up on mr. gowdy, when you made these inappropriate comments, these glib inappropriate comments in an intellectual community with lots of 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 dubious distinction of having generated more buzz in the district that i represent than anybody else with eric holder coming up before this committee pi. i apologize if my questions are disjointed coming from twitter. one of them that i got, why doesn't he answer the question. i'm going to put my lawyer hat on and reask that. with respect to the questions the money that you made

consulting on obamacare from both the federal and state government, you constantly lawyered up or not answered the questions or not recalled. i want to be perfectly clear, this committee has governmentwide jurisdiction. we are the taxpayer watchdogs. i'm 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 funds grant or from a state. i'm asking to you provide that within 30 days. and i would look forward to you providing to the committee and work with mr. chaffetz. do you feel bad about taking all of this money for obamacare that you called stupid? >> money that i received for my

economic compensation work was compensation for quality work i did in economics and modeling, so i think it was appropriate. >> 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, these meetings and your general understanding do you believe that the administration was truthful and transparent in the things that they said working up to the passage of obamacare, like if you like your health care you can keep it? >> i think the discussion of the affordable care act was fully transparent in the discussion of the many aspects of the law. >> do you feel like -- well, you testified earlier that you knew there was going to be some churn. did you feel like you were complacent in presenting the affordable care act in a distruthful manner or is that something that you'd like to apologize for well? >> the numbers that i presented

agency part of my economic commission to congress were all to the best might have economic model. >> but you knew some of the things that the administration was saying, some of the things 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 is saying or not saying.tñmf >> another question from twitter, did yr insurance get more expensive? are you paying for more 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 than when you fell under the affordable care act than in the past years? >> no, it did not. >> mine sure did. let me see 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 influenced by the affordable care act. to learn what's working, what's not. and to try to build on that towards stronger cost controls in the long run. >> so if you were to sit down and write a new comfortable care act 2.0, what would be the top two or three things you'd want to include in it? >> right now, the number one thing i would say is that we need some time to see what's happening with what we did in affordable care act 1.0 to learn from that. then to not be in a rush but rather sit down and having learned from that and take the next best steps. >> would you consider thefjyt n solution to be a payor single health run singy. >> i don't think there's a single cost to rising health

care costs. >> have you also been thrown under the bus by the president as just another adviser? i think i would be insulted by that based on -- certainly, by "the washington post" article that, you know, said how key you were to that. you want to come clean and just tell us if you told them any of the things that they were saying were untrue, and hue towho you and tried to stop them? i guess that kind of loops back into my complacency question. could you have stopped some of those untruthful statement, and why didn't you. and would you like to apologize for not doing that? >> i'm not a political adviser. >> i yield back. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. we now go to the gentleman from the massachusetts institute of technology, mr. massey.

and kentucky for that matter, too. >> kentucky, yes, 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, would it be accurate to say 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 and r(t&háhp &hc% >> so you're in a position of trust. you've been to the white house many tiles. you've met with the president. can 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 other members of the administration. >> you were an expert on how to control the costs. >> yes, control of costs and

discuss the health care in massachusetts. >> was the independent payment advisory board part of that discussion? or is that something that you'd be an expert on? >> i don't believe the independent payment advisory board existed that the meeting. >> but you're very well aware of it and advised politicians on that? >> i'm aware of the independent advisory board, yes. >> so given this position of trust and the fact that you take taxpayer money, i have 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 human subjects test. >> so m.i.t. - those are ethical issues. >> m.i.t. has an ethics policy, correct? >> yes. >> soq#s is a little philosophical what i'm going to ask now but you're a doctorate of philosophy, so to speak. under what circumstances is it

unethical to deceive someone for their own benefit? >> i'm not aware of circumstances. >> could you imagine maybe an adult could withhold information from children for their own benefit? >> yes. >> would that be ethical. if you understand that, didn't you understand why my constituents sorry offended by your proposition that it's okay to deceive or obfuscate for somebody's benefit, compounding the insult that you delivered to them, is the fact that they pay your salary? do you understand, fully, why it was so insulting? you patronized them, you're conco condesce condescending. and 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 through another instance where you committed candor. in 1987, you co-authored a paper entitled abortion legalization and child living circumstances, who is the marginal child. page 20 you conclude that abortion legalization appears to be associated with an improvement in the average living circumstances 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 19 anothe 94. is providing more access to abortion that a more worthy social outcome for achieving cost savings for the federal

government? >> that wasn't what my paper was about. the paper was about empirical facts. >> tell me what you mean by this season, by 19 yes, all cohorts under the age were born under legal abortion. savings 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 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 wasç(3k÷ legalized. by comparing those characteristics you can infer the characteristics -- >> what you inferred i find chilling. what you inferred if we reduce the number of children born, life will be better for the rest of us still living. specifically, you seem to

suggest if we eliminate or ìáhp &hc% this will make life better for all americans. and this get please 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 ration health for the elderly and therefore implement cost savings for medicare. my question to you does your dmraus so mu philosophy have any implications on end of life care? you argue that four children raise the average living circumstances for the rest of us. so dr. gruber if there are fewer elderly people, particularly fewer elderly people, wouldn't you say that would save a ton of money too as an economist? and do you understand the dangerous implications going down this path? >> i have no philosophy of

abortion. i have no philosophy of end of life care. my john as an economist is to deliver the empirical facts so that you all could be -- >> and what would your facts be on the ed determinlderly? >> you advocate end of life care. >> i do not advocate end of life care. >> thank you. we know go to the very patient mr. meadows. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and it has been a privilege to serve under your leadership, truly and honestly. dr. gruber, i'm going to come to you because you have made over 20 statements this morning that you are not political. and vppyet, the american people they're had viewing this morning, they would see that 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 ú honest ny hours does it take preparation -- how many hours of preparation does it take to be honest and transparent for the american people? >> i don't understand the question. >> why would you have to practice your testimony in order to give an honest and transparent question to the questions posed today? because you have practiced because you've said the exact same thing, glib, those words. they're not heartfelt. you've practiced that, haven't you? >> i have practiced, but i disagree they're not heartfelt. >> okay. 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. >> so you can recall all of these other figures but you can't recall that one? >> no, i can't. >> can you get that to us? or you don't want to get that to us. >> that depends on -- >> you can get us the number in your economic model of those that are not going to be able to keep their health care? simple yes or no. >> i don't know. >> so you don't have it in your model. >> i 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's very troubling to me, but to the american people. miss tavenner, i'm going 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 the last time you appeared before this committee. and i asked you at that particular time about a rollout. and we went back and forth and why did you not delay it. and your honest 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 a good position to roll out last october. >> okay. i'm in -- and i've asked you if you could put up the slide. if the staff could put up the slide. i'm in possession of an e-mail string 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 29th. and in that, it says, just so we're clear, this tavenner decided in january that we were

going to go, no matter. it goes on even further, it says that hence, the really cool uncaring march that has occurred since january when she threatened me with the motion 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. >> and so your number two person, because in the e-mail stream, if you 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. so if 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. 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. >> all right. and so this miss snyder is she with you today, or she was forced to retire? >> he was not forced to retire, in fact i -- >> is she retired? >> she is retired. >> she just was not forced to retire. >> she was not forced to retire. >> let me 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, if 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 -- >> well, that's funny because i have 17 counties i represent, and not a single one of them have gotten individually notified that they're going to get a tax bill. >> so they're individually notified -- i did not get a chance to finish my sentence -- they are individually notified that they need to come back in to return to the marketplace to update their information and make sure that "a," their information is current. and "b" that they're selecting -- >> that's a general marketing thing, you already responded to that. >> no, it's not a general marketing. individual letters and phone calls. >> but individually, you know who is going to get a tax bill.

you know that today, if they do not re-enroll, so why do we not notify them if they automatically renewed, they will get a tax bill? >> well, first of all, i don't know that that'ses inially true. >> well, talk to dr. gruber because it is 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 that you would know that, you're over this, if the bench mark changes, then indeed, what the amount of money that you get back will be incorrect? >> so the benchmark is just one thing that changes, right? there's lots of other things that would change, that would change your tax liability or your tax. >> i understand that now. but what i'm saying is someone who makes the same amount of money, stays on the same plan, got a rebate, these last 11 or

12 months, they will get a tax bill unbeknownst to them by doing nothing? >> i assume you're talking about 2016, not 2015? >> no, this open enrollment period right now. >> that's not true. >> and why is it? i'm all ears. i want to tell the folks. >> first of all, the individuals who signed up in 2014, if they have a tax liability or tcredit that would be in april of 2015. the individuals who are signing up in 2015, if they have a tax liability at all it would be april of 2016. >> that's correct. but that's what i'm saying, they're going to get a tax bill if they doyd;y automatically re by february. >> not necessarily -- >> so they could change their 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 are stressing to individuals. come back, update your information. look at a plan. shop. select. but every -- when they did their original plan, they also understood that they are to update income, changes in family circumstance, there's lots of things that can affect -- >> thiend >> i understand that, but what i'm saying the benchmark plan in the different counties will change if they do not select a new plan -- >> first of all, if they don't select a new plan, we don't -- >> i appreciate that. >> i appreciate the gentleman from north carolina. i think the gentleman made the point that every american has to independent, because he's -- he or she is not getting this information from cms, they have to independently ask whether or not they're getting into a tax booby trap. into a tax land line by just

automatically renewing. and i think the gentleman's point is good i'm afraid miss 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, it was never somebody's responsibility to know they might be getting into a tax consequence before the affordable care act. they now need know that. >> can i answer that because i think you -- >> no, ma'am, you may not. there was no question there, honest. >> there's a piece of it missing. >> we'll give you plenty of time, we're not going to end this thing until you've had had all your say, ma'am. the gentleman from >> 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 and congratulations. but i want to go back, earlier, there was some people on the -- you as well as members of congress, stating that this was very transparent. and yet, from the very beginning, if i remember correctly, a lady got up on the floor of congress and said you've got to pass it before you can see what's in it. do you remember who that was? >> i believe that's a quote. it should be nancy pelosi. >> correct, thank you. >> and yet, it was 2700 pages, original act, and if you read that 2700 pages you're going to 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 really couldn't see that. and then we find out now while we were told that you can keep your insurance and you like it, we know that's a lie. you can keep your doctor, 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 really not about health care either. it's a tax. premiums will be lower, and yet, they're higher. another lie.+vfw9 so, let's backtrack, you apologized today for some comments you made in the video, correct? >> yes. >> okay. and several times here, you said you apologized for insulting others to make yourself look smarter or better than others. that's paraphrasing, but that's pretty much what you said, is that correct? >> yes. >> do you want to repeat what you actually said? >> no, what you said is a paraphrase. >> let's be clear, you did not apologize for helping the

administration deceive the american people on this health care act or for telling the truth on your video comments about a fraud on the american people? is that correct, sir? >> i think the affordable care act was passed with hundreds of hours of debate. >> but every single thing they said was a lie, how is that transparent? you're not going to keep your doctor, you're not going to keep your hospital. your premiums are going to go up, why didn't you say that? you were the architect. one of the architect, you created the model. is that model flawed? >> i did economic micro simulation modeling. >> simulation. so you actually created the model to justify their conclusions? seems about what you did.

lies on top of lies. you have been a co-conspirator defrauding the american people. you admitted it in two videos that i saw on tv and i saw some today. in helping this administration deceive our citizens, you received grants and contracts from the government, from 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 million or $2.8 million orkf:7ñ more plus÷ minus a hundred thousand dollars. >> once again, i don't remember the exact amount. >> you know what, it's about

lies why are you continuing to help the administration deceive the american public. >> 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 of the day is we don't 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 i don't have at my finger tips but numbers that, you know, the committee can discuss with my counsel about what's appropriate to reveal. >> well, you know, you're making it very obvious that we're not only going to have to discuss with your counsel, we're going to have to serve a subpoena, we're going to have to demand

these numbers. because you're not even giving approximate $4 million that you said in your earlier statement. well, this is excess and it didn't all come to me. but 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 contract gross value and then what they got from it. it's amazing you haven't given us one in numbers sis that chosen amount. that is a little disturbing, and i will cautious you one last time, as these individuals ask their questions, that the goal was to get completed here today with sworn statements about the numbers, to the best of your recollection, approximate was good enough. but, you know, the fact that every answer is, well, discuss with my lawyer puts this committee in a position where it is very clear we're going to have to do more discovery and likely we're going to be back

here under the new chairmanship. did you have one last question? >> thank you, mr. chairman. just one last question. i understand according to the supreme court, this is a tax, correct, it's a tax? >> as i said earlier, i don't believe the individual mandate -- >> okay. but it's a tax for failing to engage in commerce, if i don't engage on obamacare, go on the website, i'm going to be taxed or fined, correct? >> the individual mandateñyi÷ assesses a penalty on you unless you reach certain criteria. >> i'd like to find other examples of somebody being taxed for failing to engage in commerce. it's kind of like me going in my local grocery store, walking around, not buying anything, and a federal agent is outside the store saying, hey, we're going to tax you because were you didn't buy anything in the store. thank you. >> we now go to the gentleman from florida. professor gruberer it's been

reported that you received $3 million, $4 million, even $5 million with your contracts from various state governments, many of them $400,000 a pop. are you saying you have no recollection of that and you deny those reports? >> what i'm stating the amounts reported are greatly in excess of what i leafed in federal grants. >> is it in the millions, though? >> once again, i don't know the exact amounts. >> well, look, you further undermine your credibility, i would think that you'd be able to give us a ballpark. it's going to be subpoenaed we'll go through the exercise, the american people eventually will get the truth. the idea that you denying that you're the architect of obamacare. i'm just wondering you've been lauded as the architect of it. there's an article in the press, 2012, mr. mandate. after mr. gruber helped put in

the basic principle, the white house lent him to capitol hill to help members draft the specifics of the legislation. so that's more than just providing numbers. so the question is if what you're saying today that you're not really 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, 2011, and 2012? >> yes, i did tell the reporters they were. >> and were there any corrections made to the record? >> i don't know. >> because this is pretty consistent media treatment. now, 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. and that was in falls church, virginia, january 2012. and that's your explanation for that, correct? >> well, as i said, at the time i don't recall exactly what i meant when i made that statement, looking back at the video and thinking about how i

could have made that statement, i believe that's what i had in mind. >> because it's interesting if you go further on in your comments you say, quote, the federal government has been slow in putting out its back stop, 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're saying that the federal government is deliberately slowing the creation of the exchange, so that more states will do it, ergo, there must be a consequence for the states if they do not do that. so i don't think your explanation here today really resolves that. i think you still have made comments from your perspective in terms what you want to do politically or still problematic. with some of the comments were you making with this lack of transparency, i just want to be clear, what you were trying to say, i think, is that the bill was convoluted. you agree it's a confusing statute, correct? >> it's a very complicated piece of legislation. >> the reason it had to be written that way you were

straightforward about imposing costs on one american and to other americans that would have run into political difficulty? so the costs are still being shifted to other americans but they're being shifted under obamacare indirectly in a way that essentially masks what is happening. is that basically the deal? >> that's a very raw statement. i generally don't agree with you what just said. >> so you don't believe that obamacare serves to mask the true cost too individual policyholders? >> no, i do not. >> so when people are paying more for their premiums, and you did a report to wisconsin in 2011 when you estimate -- afternoon though had you said in 2009 that premiums would go down across the board under obamacare. your report in 2011 said actually individual premiums will go up on average 30% relative to what they would have been had obama care not been passed?

>> report i did for congress was interpreting cbo numbers not my own. >> but the report to the state of wisconsin said they that they were going to rise, correct? >> after tax, they fell on average. >> you said the average premium. most americans don't get tax credits, though, so the average premium increased in wisconsin, correct? >> that was referring to the market that most wisconsinites will get tax credits. >> but many will not. thank you, i yield back. >> now to mr. collins for his round of questioning. >> thank you. >> mr. gruber, words cannot discuss the day -- basically, i frankly didn't think it could get worse. congratulations it got worse, coming in here with the attitude that you had. did you actually file a tax return last year? did you actually have to qualify your income, frankly, with the american people, i'm good to know one thing, my implication

of voters for the obama plan who didn't vote for it are probably not the stupid ones. my district almost 80% is full of what you would consider nonstupid people. i'm done with you. miss tavenner, i've got a couple questions, and i'm going to go fairly quickly here, just run through these. how much money was paid to ensure under the federal care act known as the call sharing reduction program in fiscal 2014? >> i don't have that information? >> were you not briefed? >> i don't recall. >> how much money was paid in 2013? >> i have not been briefed on that, no. >> you do not have reports? >> i can get you that information. >> are you in charge of this program. >> i am in charge of this program. >> and you don't know how much was paid out? >> i do not have that with me today. >> do you have someone that can find that information while they're handing notes behind? it is amazing to me that you run a program that is 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. number two, how much money is being paid under the call sharing reduction in year 2015 to date? >> i don't have that information. >> are you not briefed with this? >> i don't know -- >> did not get a monthly spreadsheet? >> i'll be glad to get you that information. >> answer my question. do you get a briefing on this? >> do i get a briefing -- >> do you get a briefing that resembling something to this effect that they're asking for it on a regular basis? >> i do get briefed. >> do you listen? >> i do listen. i have a lot of information to listen to. >> so do i but when you're subpoenaed -- >> i was not subpoenaed. >> you came in voluntarily. thank you for that. >> thank you. >> but the problem we have it seems when we get here, we only want to answer the questions we want to answer, not questions that are part of your regular talk. let's connell on "the wall street journal" recently reported that reporters

participating in the 2015 ach changes insisted that the cost sharing reduction payment it's or refundable tax credit payments. number one, is this report accurate? >> there is information in the contract, i'll be glad to get you that. >> so that would be yes. >> i believe i said yes. >> no, you didn't. who negotiated these contracts with the insurers? i didn't hear your mike on. >> it's done by staff and attorneys within cms. >> do you approve those. >> die not approve individual contracts, no. >> will you provide for this committee the names of those who negotiated these contracts with the attorneys? >> i'll be glad to get you information. >> and i'm -- and i'm going to ask the question, not to be funny here but given the glacier pace of response and other things, when you testified before the energy and commerce, they're still waiting for numbers from you. do we need to go ahead and subpoena this information now?

>> i believe i've gotten your information as you requested it. >> you never -- i've never requested information from you, miss tavenner. >> this committee. >> so let me ask the question point blank, will you get it in a timely manner, not glacial pace, not glibbical. >> i'll get you the information. >> will i subpoena you? >> you have not need subpoena in the past. >> we'll just have to wait for it then. when were these contracts negotiated? >> these contracts were negotiated over the summer. i'll have to get you the specific dates. >> please include that in your information. did ever insurer participating in the chc see a clause in their contract? >> i believe it was consistent but i'll get you that information. >> will you provide a copy of of all of these contracts? >> i will work with you, i'll have to talk with our counsel but unless there's a reason not to, yes. >> and without being

editorialized here, why would they're not be a reason to provide the contracts? >> i don't know that there is. i said ride work with you. >> again, we're having -- maybe it's a disconnect between here and there. honest, i'm not trying to be argumentative at this point but you actually do work for the government. you do work for an agency under jurisdiction of this committee under this oversight provision of transparency and everything else. why would you even have to hesitate on providing contracts that are public monies are spent on to this committee? >> i don't think i would. i just ask that i'd be able to ask that question. >> to who? you run the department? >> i'm not an attorney. >> well, that's not a bad or good thing. my question is, do you run the department? >> i run cms, yes. >> how many attorneys do you have working with you, besides the ones that came with you. >> i don't have any attorneys here with me. >> maybe there's our problem. all right. i'm not answering why we can't

answer that question. let me reverse back. we know, we just determined that you do get briefings from insurers asking to pay for cost reduction program. cms asked for spreadsheets that contained this information, correct? >> that is correct. >> amount of insurers asked the federal government to pay under cost sharing reduction on a spreadsheet, is that correct? >> i believe that is correct. >> i want to go back, i want to know who made the decision that out to request cost sharing reduction program for fiscal year 2015? >> that is not within my purview, i can't answer that question. >> do you not have to adjust the money appropriate for this program? >> i do not. that is done through our financial department. i'd be happy to get that. >> so would your financial department have participated in a decision not to ask for appropriations in 2015? >> i don't have that. i'll be glad to get you that information.

>> so, again, under your leadership, this is the department that is basically going rogue and doing their contracts and don't report back to you, or budget items? >> i'd be happy to get you that information. >> that must be hard to say over and over every time. and i know you understand this. it must be that difficult. who did participate and will you provide those? >> i have told you i will get you that information. >> is there anyone outside that we need to ask, omb, treasury, white house, anyone else that would determine not to ask for appropriations for this program in fiscal year 2015? >> once again, i'll go back and try to get you the information. >> so you had no idea when these meetings even took place? would that be a fair statement? >> i cannot answer your question. i will try to get you that information. >> the gentleman's time has expired. we now go to the gentle lady from wyoming. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and 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 micro simulation results to the administration and congress to help understand the costs and coverage effects of the law but i did not provide any official scoring. >> well, 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 a ca in a tortured way so cbo would not score it as a tax? >> once again, i apologize for my inopportune, just inappropriate terminology but -- >> well, but, they scored --

they didn't score it as a tax, right? >> the administration did not -- >> how did you do it? how did you get cbo to not score it a+xd:c a tax, knowing that a some point, youtji might have get the 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. >> and 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 at noblis that you wrote parts 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 obamacare yourself and you're

the numbers guy, they used your modeling. and they knew they would have to convince the u.s. supreme court that it was your tax. and convince the congressional budget office scoring that that it was not a tax how did you do that? >> 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 nonpoliticians know what cbo is? how many nonpoliticians know what scoring is? how many nonpoliticians 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 miss tavenner about something that you began to discuss with dr. gosar. and that is, is there a decline in participation? is that what has yielded smaller increases in the cost of health care? >> i don't have an answer to that. and i'd think we'd have to wait for someone. 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. if you look at the national health expenditure, it will show you trends. >> okay. i'm hopeful to get those trends. i'm going to give you a little story. i'm on obamacare. my husband was on obamacare with me. and we were told that we were enrolled in obamacare. and then when we filed claims we were told we were not enrolled in obamacare. and then we got to straightened out. and 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 notáno enrolled in obamac. 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 24th, a week before election. my husband went to sleep and

never woke up. he had

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'm sorry -- >> i thank the gentle lady. >> could i answer? >> i don't think she had a question forrk you. miss loomis, do you have ap1"ñ pending question? >> mr. chairman, i really do yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. we go to the gentleman from

tennessee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. gruber, i want to talk to you a little bit in my time here today about your understanding of the state and federal exchange federal premium assistance as we talked about that today as you referenced several times. let me make sure i understand what you told miss loomis about your comments. you've been very humble. you've been eating crow, you don't like the way you said things. she asked you if all those statements were lying, you said they were not lying. is that what you said? >> they were glib and inexcusable. >> in terms of context, you were lying? you don't like the way you said it but what you said, you had basis for? >> the comments i made were outside of my expertise. >> mr. gowdy talked about that, and you did that an awful lot. i don't think you were necessarily out of your area of expertise. in fact, i think you nailed what

you said. politically, you weren't good in the way you said-p them. forthwith those fames and telling people this was a difficult law to pass, wasn't it when you were up here advising people trying to get the health care passed, it was a difficult sale, wasn't it? >> it was very challenging political -- >> one, because the american people were very afraid of a government takeover of health care. they didn't want socialized medicine. now, some people did want that, they wanted a single payor system, didn't they? >> die believe some americans do support a single payer system. >> optically, people are opposed to health care law. they had to wrangle a lot of democrats to get their votes. there were a lot of deals that basically put a lot of democrats out of office. but that's beside the point. what i want to get to is your

understanding of the state and federal exchanges. because when they started talking about federal exchanges that sounded like a federal takeover. and state-run is a lot better optically. that was what was pushed that the state would offer and offer subsidies? >> i believe the law was referenced that the state would set up exchanges and if not there would be a federal back stop. >> so you realize that a federal back stop was always in play? i mean, the states had the option but if not, the feds had to set up an exchange. >> that's right. >> your comment on 2012, if you're a state and you don't set up a health exchange, that means that your citizens don't get their tax credits? >> once again, that was in trying to to be glib and trying to summarize -- >> 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 toa#fts them set up and we weren't sure who would be president at the time it came to stand them up. >> who would be it. there was a lot of smoke and mirrors. but if your opening statement today you said that the point that you were trying to make about the possibility of the federal government is whatever reason they might not set it up. you just testified to that. >> the law said there should be federal backs. >> but it didn't say that the federal exchange would subsidize people. that's why you made the comment in 2012, correct? >> it is a very clear reading of the law that tax credits should be available to citizens in the united states. >> it's not clear. that's why there's a supreme court case.

you knew there was a concern. the president thought they would fall in line and they would have the nice optic of not having a federal take over. then there was a problem and so that's why you were concerned in 2012. >> as i said it was my effort. >> you knew a lot. was there not a model that showed financially it was unworkable. >> i assumed tax credits are available in all states. >> you knew that but they didn't write that in the law but who did? it wasn't congress. four months after you made the comment, they did an end and they rewrote and promulgated a

rule to say that exchanges also had to offer subsidies. irs listened to you. they came through and tried to change it for congress. they knew we wouldn't change it for them. >> your question. am i wrong? >> you conjectured in 2012 and you ran models. in a hurry they passed this bill to try to sell it to the people. >> a clear reading of the law says -- >> that's why it's going to the supreme court because it wasn't clear. you're the numbers person.

signed p for obama care how many? >> 6.7 million people as of october 15 have paid their premiums. >> those numbers may be available on the dc exchange and i will see if i can get you those. >> we now go to the gentleman of

carolina, mr. rice. >> thank you for allowing me to speak as a guest today. when you spoke in your videos, i watched with great interest, you said that the administration ewed a lack of transparency to its advantage in getting the affordable care act passed. i think you spoke with a great understatement that it's more and more clear that it's actually the affordable care act was passed on a foundation of deception.

>> as i said, if a federal exchange was not established and only in that circumstance, then states that did -- >> you didn't say that in january of 2012. you're saying that today. what you said in january 2012 was that would be a efficient economic ensientive for them to set up the exchange. that's what you said in 2012. you didn't say anything about a federal exchange. >> when you say conjecture, do you mean lie? >> no, i mean conjecture.

>> the taxes were put op the insurance companies and not on the individuals knowing full well additional premium and that was disguised tax. do you still believe that? >> do you still believe that? >> once again it was me conjecturing about political areas that i shouldn't have. >> you also said if the people had known if the taxpayer, the american taxpayer had realized we were shifting cost from healthy people to unhealthy people you said that the law wouldn't have passed.

do you still believe that? >> was it a lie then or a lie today? >> it was a conjecture. >> you said it was written in a tortured way to avoid the mandates being scored at the ti time. >> once again that was my trying to act like i was a political expert that i'm not. >> what you are say something you were lying then? >> i was conjecturing in an area that you shouldn't have. >> so you still believe that i suppose? all right. do you believe -- do you still believe that this deception was necessary to get the law passed? >> the statements to which you are referring today were once

again conjectures in an area that i am not ap expert. >> you served as an advisor from 2008 until when? >> someone said i joined in 2007 and i went to a few meetings. >> at that time the law was being drafted? >> no. >> you're not sure about when you got off of this cbo advisory? >> i'm not sure when i got off or the last meeting i was at. >> that's pretty important.

isn't that a conflict of interest? >> i am certain or i am pretty sure that i did not attend any meetings. >> were you on the panel or weren't you? >> i don't know the official date of which they took me off the panel. >> you're not very 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 trying to speak about an area i was not an expert. >> forget about 2012. do you believe the administration used a lack of transparency to its advantage? >> i believe it was debated

extensively. >> so you were lying in 2012? >> in 2012 i was conjecturing. >> what you said just now is in direct opposition of what you said. so it was a lie today or a lie in 2012. >> i believe that the affordable care act -- >> so you were lying in 2012. >> in 2012, i was trying to play amateur politician and i shouldn't have done that. >> i thank the gentleman. i gather the gentleman is saying amateur politician so you're allowed to say things that are not true out of a stump and when you're under oath you say the truth? >> yes, sir. >> i gather. i thank the gentleman for your participation. i'm going to try to get this done. we have a vote on the floor