doug elmendorf accepted. what does it mean? former white house officials reacting out.hen asked why there would accept, they said "gray point, doug elmendorf showed bad judgment in taking the meeting. he is at risk of losing credibility. like a manual has more reaction now. >> good morning. we spoke with the white house press office about this. they said that they cannot speak to what previous administrations did. saying that president bush did not meet with the " rational budget office when they were in office to talk about substantive matters. but they said that someone who thinks that it is inappropriate for the president to meet with the budget office director, they say that that is unfortunate, that the president is dedicated to lowering the cost of health care and that he will continue to meet with a variety of officials on this very important issue to our country, which is health care reform. they are offering reaction, they think that it is unfortunate that they're being criticized for this and that they cannot speak to what previous administrations may have don

and what doug elmendorf testified is that the plan now going through congress, the democratic plans, they will not do that. in fact, they will have the opposite effect. and you've already had some conservative democrats who serve in the house with mr. blunt, you've already had some conservative senators wringing those alarm bells prior to that cbo testimony. in the words of one conservative democrat i talked to earlier today, what the cbo director did is give them validation to say, wait a minute, mr. president, wait a minute, leadership. let's just -- what's the rush? let's slow this down. in fact, this is exactly what this letter that we got earlier today from six senators, bipartisan group of senators said. we listened to doug elmendorf, the director of the cdo, who we have to say is somebody who has enormous, enormous authority and power here. let's delay it. >> dr. sanjay gupta, let us assume that you were, in fact, the surgeon general of the united states, we know that you are not. you have decided to stay with us and become an analyst for us, as you are one of the best in the

the cbo director, doug elmendorf, certainly indicated that the cost controls haven't yet been factoredn. now, y'all had been saying, well, that's because we haven't shown the effect of the wellness programs and the other programs, but the bottom line is that economists score this, cbo forecasters give congress their best judgments based on what is in the plans. and so far, what is in the plans themselves does not produce the cost savings that you are all compensating. >> well, first of all, andrea, we are moving and closer than we've ever been before to health reform. and we're making sure they don't add a penny to the deficit and lower costs and do things for americans like prevent insurance companies from denying care based on pre-existing conditions. so we're very optimistic about the progress that we're making. >> let me play for you what the budget director said, the cbo head of the congressional budget office said in his testimony. what he said was, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a signi

. >> anyone that calls it like it is doug elmendorf. he is straight.was -- senator baucus was talking about elmendorf himself but not about him accepting the invite. >> the president has talked about this meeting with doug and other economists and he wanted to meet with him to find out other ways you could do cost savings. he has been searching for every idea that's out there, and of course -- bret: it comes after a negative report from the c.b.o. >> yes, it looked bad but nobody, not even republicans today are questioning his independence and the fact he calls them the way he sees them. elmendorf has sate straight that he thinks one of the best ways to control healthcare costs and is something the president has ruled out is to tax the gold-plated plans. there are other ways to do it. the president says he is open to some of them, which is somehow to put a fee or penalty on the insurance companies who issued these policies, but that's one of the things they were talking about. bret: what about the optics, as mara mentioned? >> it is terrible. it is lik

you had a saturday morning post from doug elmendorf at the congressional budget office saying that the new plan coming out of the white house and some of the other blue dogs which would allegedly reduce medicare payments would only save $2 billion over ten years. that's the independent board proposal. then you had a response from peter orszag, who used to head the congressional budget office, and knows most of the economists, probably hired most of those economists, saying that they were looking at the wrong data and basically saying, as a former cbo director, i can attest that cbo sometimes accused of a bias towards exaggerating costs and underestimating savings. well, perhaps your budget saving is from where you sit, but orszag very strongly objects to what the cbo is saying. do you have a dog in this hunt? do you know whether or do you have a judgment as to whether the cbo can be trusted on its $2 billion in savings from that commission approach? >> well, as you know, douglas elmendorf was picked by the democrats to head the cbo. now that he's giving what he thinks are true figures

>> you're correct doug elmendorf, the c.b.o. director, dropped a bombshell when he said this bill does not go nearly far enough at containing costs. in fact, it will increase the debt long-term. that admission by the c.b.o. director, we believe validates what the blue dog coalition has been saying about this bill for the last three months. and of course, since senator conrad came out and opposed the house version of the bill yesterday as well. it wasn't a good day for the bill. i believe both of those validated our concerns. we've got to find ways to contain costs and quite honestly, we don't have all the answers. but i'll speak to some of the ways we believe costs can be contained. but i think it's important for the viewers that they understand why we've got to do health care reform. i know some people tell me, you know, we've got -- we're in the middle of the worst economic recession since world war ii. we've got record debt, record deficits, so why health care reform now? those are the very reasons why we do need to do the ri

and one of those "surprises" was doug elmendorf from the congressional budget office. his testimony at senate budget yesterday. let's play a little bit of it and i want to ask you about it on the other side. >> everyone has said, virtually everyone, that bending the cost curve over time is critically important and one of the key goals of this entire effort. from what you have seen, from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve? >> no, mr. chairman. >> that "no" rocketed right across to pennsylvania avenue, 1600 pennsylvania avenue, where the white house said, wait a second, what do you mean, no? we haven't come up with details of this yet. that said, it's given a lot of people political cover to say, slow it down and it's going to cost too much. >> exactly. >> exactly. political cover. and we'll take mr. elmendorf at his word that he believes what he said to congress and he's concerned about it going up, not going down. but it has given a little bit of momentum to those who say this

listen to doug elmendorf. >> in the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. and on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs. >> so this doesn't do what you need it to do. the proposals, as they now stand. you know him well. you had that job. you take issue with that, or is he right? >> let's look at what the congressional budget office put out on friday night with regard to the house bill. and taking the doctor payments off the table, that bill is deficit neutral over ten years. there are outyear deficits that we want to bring down even further. i think the single most important thing that's missing from the legislation at this point is our proposal for an independent commission of doctors to help the policy-making process be more flexible, lead to higher quality, and lower costs over time. that is a big game changer. i think ultimately, it will be. i sent up a letter on friday to the leadersh

doug elmendorf's testimony. as a result of that, max baucus said to his members, i want acctuaries in here, i want to go through numbers again. and that really was a game changer. >> it was. and i think i want people to understand who were listening, there are two separate issues on the cost we're talking about. the first question is, how do you finance the short-term cost of expanding coverage, expected to be about $1 trillion over ten years, maybe a little bit more. can you find, quote, scorable offsets, changes in medicare, particularly in medicaid, as well as tax increases, to pay for that? there's a separate issue, which in some ways more fundamental, and more progress is being made. which is, over the long-term, how do you, quote, bend the curve? the great catchphrase now in washington, how do you reduce the long-term growth of health care spending, not only for the government, but as the society overall. and an importantly development this week, a positive development for the president is him, the blue do

the director, doug elmendorf, says obama cost saving are elusive and he says it raises the amount of activity that is growing at this unsustainable rate. julie, the fact is, if you insure 45 million more people, our health care costs are going to go up, not down, unless you fix those other things you talked about. >> listen. elmendorf came out and said this and response to that, barack obama came out and threw down the gauntlet and said to congress, you need to do better. >> he got into a snit. >> he's agreeing with this guy. >> no, he's not. >> he's not?! >> obama has a history of not telling the truth on this. during the primary with hillary clinton? he said that health care would cost the federal treasury nothing, net zero. he has lied about this issue, he has a terrible history of not telling the truth on this issue. he's changed his story four or five times. >> how is the president lying if this congress is not complying with what he's requesting? >> exactly. >> how is the president lying if congress -- >> maybe you forgot the branches of government. he's only one branch, execut

. >> you've worked a lot with doug elmendorf in the midst of these negotiations, and the white house sort of brought him into a meeting and some people have questioned his object to the beach. should the white house have even asked him to go to that? >> man, oh, man, if anybody calls it like it is it is dog elmendorf, nobody is straight if he will ask doug elmendorf. you cannot push him one way or another. i've met with him countless times and i think the president's concern is gee, we need a bill here, can you get your people to get the numbers out, whenever they are -- >> [inaudible] >> i see no problem whatsoever but i think the white house is just the want to do it right and they don't want to put pressure on him to bend it one way or another. that is not an issue. i talked to elmendorf. you cannot persuade him to bend this way or that way. he's going to call it as he sees it. >> i have dinner scheduled. >> you have dinner plans? >> not mine, others. senators -- [inaudible conversations] >> i'm watching the president, yeah, he's on at 8:00? i want to watched the president. i don'

that's why when the budget committee chairman, doug elmendorf, who was appointed by democrats and who is a terrific guy, when he came out and said, look, all you're going to do is add more to the deficit, you're going to have to have more spending, and in the end you're not going to do as much as you're doing now, in all honesty we've got to work together in a bipartisan way if we're going to solve one-sixth of the american economy's problem. >> if you're going to get a lot of young and haemy people to join this health care system, and i'm for it myself, my kids should join, if they would join they'd be healthy and young and a good bet for the health care system. what about tying that together with something like you have on the hill, a credit union, it's a cooperative. it would be full transparency. you'd go into it via shared risk. a lot of healthy people in it. it might be a good deal for everybody. what about that kind of a cooperative as a compromise between no public option and a public option? >> well, senator conrad from north dakota has come up with this co-op approach. it's

we're talking about what dul elmendorf said yesterday first of all just about the cost of this, doug elmendorfthe cbo didn't say we're not going to see as big a savings as the administration says. he said the exact opposite.. he said we're going to see increased costs. and now they're out trying to make predictions on the kind of revenue they're going to get. and we know it's about people in very high income brackets that if you do raise the rate on them they're in a position to do tax avoidance schemes, including not earning as much money. so we know they can do this. the projections on revenue just aren't real. >> yeah, i've got to figure tony is probably salivating.. someone should check your necktie, tony, to see if you're drooling. all the republicans are so ecstatic. what a gift from god to have such a radioactive plan that's not going to make the savings -- >> well, it's not such a gift because at some point taxes are going to go up, regardless. money's got to come from somewhere. >> but not the rangel plan. >> it only has to come from somewhere in a big way if the democrats are insiste

you have to say that a key player in all of this is doug elmendorf. he has shown himself to be remarkable. peter orszag repeated this idea, and nancy pelosi can grumble about the cbo. but under the way they operate, they are the agency whose numbers need to be regarded. he is a key player in this. martha: and secret meetings, it has been a long time said that has happened, right? >> making sure to save the maximum amount of money. what ever it does, the cbo says, it may not do much. martha: thank you, as always. harris: now to some of the other stories making news. in the top box, a homegrown terror plot busted. seven suspects arrested in north carolina and now the fed's said they are looking for an eighth suspect. the accused ringleader described by neighbors as mild-mannered but the indictment tells a different story. in the middle box, and driven to distraction. think talking on yourself on my driving is dangerous? it turns out, there is something else that causes even more accidents. in the bottom box, breaking news in the death of michael jackson

, but now there are specific plans on the table, especially with what happened last week when doug elmendorfame out, expressing his concern over the plans on the table for congress, worried that it would not control costs. he might pay for the bill, but he was concerned that you are not actually controlling costs. that was like dropping the bomb. big complaints coming out of the republican side from john boehner in the house. the question is, at this point can you move forward with what you have? or can you start fresh? host: this question from a viewer, "is something that better than nothing"? "did you look at anything outside of the u.s."? guest: many believe that is exactly the case. that is the approach that massachusetts tuck. massachusetts said they would not put cost containment in there, but they wanted to get the insurance out there, getting everyone with insurance. that that would lead to the pressures necessary to rein in costs. host: this conclusion from our guest, marilyn werber serafini, "the drive for universal health- care coverage is not an unqualified success." elizabeth, v

the congressional budget office doug elmendorf testified before the senate budget committee that to truly contain health care spending, congress must change the way that medicare pays providers in an effort to encourage cost effectiveness in health care. i couldn't agree more. shifting to a value-based system is critical to controlling health care costs. because you know what? people will be shocked by this. when you look at states that have some of the highest quality, it tends to be some of the lowest costs. and states that have the highest costs tend to have the lowest quality care. that is messed up. most health care is purchased on a fee-for-service basis. so more tests and more surgeries if not done appropriately with the patient in mind can mean more money. korgtd researchers at darthmouth medical school nearly $7 billion a year is spent on unnecessary health care. that is 30% of total health care spending. to rein in costs, we need to have all health care providers aiming for high-quality, cost-effective results as they do in minnesota. that's why i've introduced legislation along

director doug elmendorf testified in front of the budget committee two weeks ago. dr.d, "none of the legislative changes looked at by c.b.o. so far, including house democrats' small business surtax" -- quote -- "represents the sort of fundamental change of the order of magnitude that would be necessary to offset the direct increase in federal health costs from the insurance coverage proposals." end of quote of dr. elmendorf. clearly, unless sir lancelot -- unlike sir lancelot, "sur taxalot" is no dragon slayer. now let's look at how the house democrats' small business surtax works. in 2011 and 2012, singles making between $280,000 and $400,000 and families making between $350,000 and $500,000 will pay an extra 1% surtax. singles making between $400,000 and $800,000 and families making between $500,000 and $1 million will pay an extra 1.5%. and, finally, singles making more than $800,000 and families making more than $1 million will pay an extra 5.4%. then in 2013 and after, these surtax rates go up to 2%, 3%, and 5.4% respectively. the only way that these rates won't g

i sat next to not david but doug elmendorf from cbo and he was asked by a distinguished member of thecommittee where the savings would be from tort reform, insurance reform, in an amendment like this. and he said, no, it's very small. negligible savings. and you can't really pick out defensive medicine because there's so many reasons for there to be defensive medicine. the learned senator from utah, distinguished between unnecessary versus necessariary. and cbo said that distinction can't be drawn. everything from good ones like wanting to be careful with a patient to bad ones like having a friend with an ownership interest in an imaging clinic where you want to keep sending people. there is a lot of defensive medicine practice. and not all of it is a bad thing. some of it is what keeps america healthy. and this type of legislation simply can't be documented to save any significant funds through that. at least according to cbo who we custom early rely on. the last point i'd like to make is they always try to hit the jury system. and we all know that the jury system can be disruptive a

director, doug elmendorf, was asked today point-blank by senator conrad whether the cost curve is bent under the health care reform legislation currently being considered. elmendorf says, "no," then he goes on to say, "the way that i would put it is that the curve is being raised, and has been pointed out by president obama before, he said, "i said very clearly, i said if any bill arrives from congress that is not controlling costs, no that s not a bill i can support." that's the president's own criteria for health care reform. that only means, based upon the report that we got from c.b.o. this morning that the administration is going to have a very difficult time embracing or endorsing the health care plan that's currently moving through the senate that sees costs not come down, not bending the cost curve in a down ward direction but rather bending it upward so you're going to see the costs go up. mr. elmendorf was asked, "so the cost curve is being bent but it's being be bent in the wrong way, is that correct?" here wheys said. that is long quote but i want to get it into the record

doug elmendorf, director of the congressional budget office, in his testimony, said "some of the effects co2 cap would be similar to those of raising such taxes. the higher prices caused by the cap would reduce real wages and real returns on capital, which would be like raising marginal tax rates on those sources of income." all these people are experts. these are people who work in the government. they work in -- most of them in the obama administration. and they, they are very much, very sensitive to the fact that this would be the largest tax increase in the history on the american people. you know, i think during the recess, if we ever get to the recess, which is supposed to take place a week from friday, that we'll be in a position to talk about three major issues right now. we've already talked on the floor about the efforts to pass some kind of a government-operated health system. i've talked about the gitmo, the closing of gitmo, which i think would be -- there is no justification for it whatsoever. but the other one is this largest tax increase in the history of this country. in