and duri tstimony, he -- douglas elmendorf is his name, thfinal arbiter on the numbers angets up and warns that this bill is n going to do much,not going todo nearly enough to bing down healh care costs which of course is oe of the basicreasons that we are going throh this exercise. he says there is not enouh as he putit, we do not see the sort fundamental changes that a really going to brin heal care costs under ntrol. th's a big setback. >> was ne. reons president obama spoke on friy to counter tha? he gotut there and it seemd like he wanted toat least say, look, both -- accentuatthe positive, elinate the netive but cunter all the attention that came o that report. >> this waa surprise appearance by e president. he was not scheduled to be making any atements on this. interestingly ough, they canceled the gular white house press briefinwhich uld have been robert gibb being pounded about questions about the setbacks. so this, i think, was ry much of an effort onthe president's part to recapture t momentum and make sure h's got the mssage going into what ould be a pretty citical weekd

and during testimony, he -- douglas elmendorf is his name, the final arbiter on the numbers and gets up and warns that this bill is not going to do much, not going to do nearly enough to bring down health care costs. which of course is one of the basic reasons that we are going through this exercise. he says there is not enough as he put it, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that are really going to bring health care costs under control. that's a big setback. >> was one. reasons president obama spoke on friday to counter that? he got out there and it seemed like he wanted to at least say, look, both -- accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative but counter all the attention that came to that report. >> this was a surprise appearance by the president. he was not scheduled to be making any statements on this. interestingly enough, they canceled the regular white house press briefing which would have been robert gibbs being pounded about questions about the setbacks. so this, i think, was very much of an effort on the president's part to recapture the momentum and make

but what douglas elmendorf said yesterday has set them back down. now they're re-evaluating where they're going to go with this thing in order to turn the cost curve down in the long-term to stop the rise in health care costs, which is a reason for existence, at least mostly, along with insuring the 50 million americans that are uninsured for this whole exercise to begin with. >> okay, mike viqueira at the white house on all things health care-related. and coming up, can congress get past this price tag issue and find common ground on health care? >>> plus, big earnings today on some of the biggest banks on wall street, but analysts warn the economy is not out of the woods yet. i was in the grocery store when i had a heart attack. my daughter was with me. i took a bayer aspirin out of my purse and chewed it. my doctor said the bayer aspirin saved my life. please talk to your doctor about aspirin and your heart. i'm going to be grandma for a long time. an eleven sixteenths wrench over here? here you go. eleven sixteenths... (announcer) from designing

. >> now, it seems to me that this was a direct response to what cbo director douglas elmendorf testifying on thursday had to say. let's listen to that. >> 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. on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs. >> kelly o'donnell, the president came out with an unscheduled statement about health care today. was it in direct response to this guy that no one's ever heard of but that you know very well, the cbo director that came out with estimates that indicated the health care reform plan was indeed going to add to the deficit and not, as they say, bend the cost curve downward? >> watching this unfold today it was as if president obama had his own rapid response team. because what you just heard, the cbo director talking about the problems with cost, really took the air out of some democrats here in the senate. and gave republicans new ammunition to try to derail what's going on with health care r

>> i got to tell you, that cbo statement by douglas elmendorf threw a scare into democrats. the interpretation here in washington is that this goes right to the heart of the rationale for this whole exercise to begin with. the president, democrats have said time and time again not only do we want to ensure the 50 million americans who do not have health insurance at this point, but we also want to bring down the so-called cost curve. keep from it going up in the long-term. we want it to go down in the long-term. and elmendorf said the opposite would happen, it was going to go up. republicans on the attack. nancy pelosi, charlie rangel, george miller who is up until 6:00 a.m. marking up his portion of the bill, in his education and labor committee, appeared trying to accentuate the positives, saying they're moving forward, this is further than they've ever gone in congress on a scale of this nature in trying to reform health care. there is still the energy and commerce committee led by henry waxman. that's going to be going on up until wednesday. at 3:15, when we walked throu

president obama says health care reform must bring down spending and not add to the deficit but douglas elmendorf, the head of the nonpartisan congressional budget office says the plans the democrats are now considering would do neither and here's what he said this week about controlling costs. let's watch. >> we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that will be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount and the contrary the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs. >> chris: you had elmendorf's job until last december and he says federal spending on health care in the democratic plans would be unsustainable. >> well, let's look at the facts here. president said, yesterday, he will not sign a bill that expands the deficit. look at the report that came out from the congressional budget office, on friday night. with regard to the house legislation, once you take into accounts the -- maintaining current payments for medicare doctors, doctors under medicare, that bill is deficit neutral, third pointed is, the l

>> 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 here, they're contesting it. to be honest with you, i expect them to attack him, even though i think he's been one of the best budget directors we've had my whole time in the united states senate. he's honest, he's calling it the way he sees it, and i don't think anyone looking at it is going to say, like the president says, there's going to save money in the long run, there's no way you're going to do that. it's going to be more and more expensive. and everything is coming down to rationing. why do you think they want to set up this new group here in washington? five great doctors of the president will appoint just what can and cannot be done in health care. they want to do that for one person. and that's to ration care. >> but don't we ration now? we ration by access now. and we ration by income and class. certain people get more because they come in, you know, from a -- with a certain amount of insurance protection. i mean, isn't

douglas elmendorf told a senate committee "the cost curve is being raised," not lowered, as the presidentaid he wanted. >> 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. >> lehrer: even with the new warning, the american medical association endorsed the house democrats' bill today. it calls for extending health coverage to nearly all americans, partly by raising taxes on wealthier people. in afghanistan, a canadian soldier was killed in the south, near kandahar. with that, july officially became the deadliest month for international troops there since the war began eight years ago. in all, 47 international soldiers have died in afghanistan this month. the total includes more than 20 americans, as the u.s. buildup continues. taliban commanders in afghanistan are now threatening to kill a captured american soldier. a spokesman for the militants warned today the soldier would die unless

hrebgs threbgs's from douglas elmendorf, the director of the office of budget with whom i'm about to meet along with other members of the health and education committee. it says the proposal envisions that medicaid -- that's the democratic proposal -- would be expanded to cover individuals and families with income below 115% of the federal poverty level. that sounds good, but the draft legislation doesn't include provisions to accomplish the goal about three-quarters of the people whopld remain uninsured under this legislation. in other words, even though we're spending more on this proposal, a lot of people are uninsured and three-quarters of them are going to be dumped into medicaid. for the federal government, that's hundreds of billions of new dollars that we'd have to borrow. and the thought is that over time it would be shifted to the states. and in the state of tennessee, based upon conversations we've had with the state medicaid director, it might add an amount of money to the state's annual budget that would be equal to the amount that a new 10% state income tax would take.

last thursday, the head of the congressional budget office, douglas elmendorf, and the congressional budget office, of course, is the nonpartisan office in this congress that we count as an umpire to tell us what we're really doing. it's not supposed to have any political rhetoric. douglas elmendorf was asked at a senate budget committee hearing what he thought about the bills which had begun to emerge. he said -- quote -- "the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs." in other words, here we go, at a time when we're in a recession and where the president's proposals for other programs will add more to the debt in the next 10 years, three times as much as we spent in world war ii and we're talking about legislation to add another $1 trillion or $2 trillion and we have not dealt with costs which is where we ought to start. look at the 250 million who have health care and ask, can you afford it? and after we fix it, can you afford your government? what the head of the c.b.o. is saying as far as government is, the answer is "no." the lieuen gro

director, douglas elmendorf this morning in front of the senate budget committee. diswr that leave us? h-- so where does that leave usf caution to people here in washington, d.c., that perhaps this is something we ought to take our time with because clearly what's been proposed so far is going to increase costs significantly. it is going to lead to the takeover of the health care system by the federal government, which i think most americans would take issue with. and if you don't believe that, there are again lots of great independent studies out there. one of the criteria that the president put forward in a health care bill that he would sign had to do with, if you have insurance today that you like, you can keep it. well, that's not true under this bill either because these independent analyses that have been done have also pointed out that there are going to be about six in 10 americans or about 118 million total americans that are going to be driven into the government-run program because the private health insurance marketplace, when it has to compete with th

director douglas elmendorf said bills crafted by house leaders and the senate health committee do not propose -- quote -- "the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount ." quote -- "on the contrary," elmendorf said, "the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs." so, here we have -- here we have on the one hand, the vice president of the united states today telling the american people that we have to spend money. we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt. and yet, the congressional budget office says that the proposed changes would weaken our economy and expand the federal responsibility for health care costs. the chairman of the senate budget committee, kent conrad, democrat, north dakota, has taken a leading role this morning after receiving elmendorf's testimony on the nation's long-term budget outlook, conrad turned immediately to questions about the emerging health care measures. quote -- "i'm really going to put you on the spot," conrad told