dmarc117 Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 (edited) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/08...touting-reform/ MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, one of the leading academic defenders of health care reform, is taking heat for failing to disclose consistently that he was under contract with the Department of Health and Human Services while he was touting the Democrats' health proposals the media. Gruber, according to federal government documents, is under a $297,600 contract until next month to provide "technical assistance" in evaluating health care reform proposals. He was under a $95,000 HHS contract before that. Edited January 9, 2010 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Have to agree here!!1! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/08...touting-reform/ Yeah, not surprising at all. Business as usual for the left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Have to agree here!!1! Yep, pretend it's nothing and hope it goes away. If it was a conservative you would have had a 10 paragraph diatribe on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Yep, pretend it's nothing and hope it goes away. If it was a conservative you would have had a 10 paragraph diatribe on it. Yet you say business as usual for the left, when both sides are corrupt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Sacrebleu Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 I would dislike this tremendously. I really hated it when the Bush admin would do it when they had fake journalists, and fake independent experts. Honestly it is hard to get all the facts from Foxnews though as their OMG moment is that the guy failed to "consistently" report that he was paid for by the fed. what does that mean exactly? The story by fox seems legit, but could just as well be complete bunk. Honestly it is not a big enough story for me to spend my own time searching for the actual truth of how often he did or did not disclose his ties to the govt. and how much or little work he did for it. If he did in fact do things the way the article describes, then it was a bad move on his and the govt. For whoever to say that this is business as usual for the left clearly was not around during the Bush admin. While I have my biases (probably would have taken this story at complete face value if it was by a leftish publication about the Bush WH) you have to have Rush jism in your eyes not to see that we just got through 8 years of this stuff happening very very consistently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 It's on hisCV. I'm sure Fox would not have minded if he had previously worked for Haliburton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Yet you say business as usual for the left, when both sides are corrupt. well he is a bit slow for someone who can only see through righty glasses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Yeah, not surprising at all. Business as usual. fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 It's on his CV. I didn't see it on his C.V. (perhaps I missed it). I will say that I actually think it is a good sign that HHS basically hired the best health economist in the world as a consultant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 9, 2010 Author Share Posted January 9, 2010 my point is that you cant believe someone because they are an 'expert'. people have all different motives. humans do things for many reasons. some for the good of all, most for the good of themselves. experts on either side of an argument too. doesnt matter what side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 9, 2010 Author Share Posted January 9, 2010 I didn't see it on his C.V. (perhaps I missed it). I will say that I actually think it is a good sign that HHS basically hired the best health economist in the world as a consultant. so the 'best' is on their side and doesnt make waves. i also think its a great strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 so the 'best' is on their side and doesnt make waves. i also think its a great strategy. Maybe the "best economist in the world" (just assuming weigie is right on this one) just happens to think it's a good idea and that's why he signed on to be a consultant. Maybe he was paid to help devise a health care system and now he's defending it. These don't seem like stretches. Should we doubt every expert witness because they get paid by the side of the trial that's calling them? This, btw, seems massively different than someone who campaigns for something and then, lo and behold, they own a ton of stock in the company that's going to get the contract if it passes. This guy was hired by the Gov't to consult on the best way to do something. Why in the hell would he not be in favor of the ideas he helps come up with and why is this at all nefarious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 9, 2010 Author Share Posted January 9, 2010 Maybe the "best economist in the world" (just assuming weigie is right on this one) just happens to think it's a good idea and that's why he signed on to be a consultant. Maybe he was paid to help devise a health care system and now he's defending it. These don't seem like stretches. Should we doubt every expert witness because they get paid by the side of the trial that's calling them? This, btw, seems massively different than someone who campaigns for something and then, lo and behold, they own a ton of stock in the company that's going to get the contract if it passes. This guy was hired by the Gov't to consult on the best way to do something. Why in the hell would he not be in favor of the ideas he helps come up with and why is this at all nefarious? the court of law was my next example. how is it that different sides of a case can have 'experts' that disprove each others points. because they are paid! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 One of the best economists in the United States is working with the president on one of the most important issues we face today. Have to agree here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 I didn't see it on his C.V. (perhaps I missed it). You are right, he disclosed that he works for the CBO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoJoTheWebToedBoy Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Fox News..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 the court of law was my next example. how is it that different sides of a case can have 'experts' that disprove each others points. because they are paid! Are you implying that the only reason why any "expert" would ever come to a different conclusion than another is because they're paid to think that way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Gruber did violate a NY Times policy by not stating that he was under contract from HHS when he wrote an op-ed piece. dumbass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 9, 2010 Author Share Posted January 9, 2010 Are you implying that the only reason why any "expert" would ever come to a different conclusion than another is because they're paid to think that way? im implying that money is a very good reason for an 'expert' to come to any conclusion the payee wants. definitely casts doubts on their conclusion. just like someone writing a book. ulterior motives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 im implying that money is a very good reason for an 'expert' to come to any conclusion the payee wants. definitely casts doubts on their conclusion. just like someone writing a book. ulterior motives. In Gruber's case, the main contention seems to be his view that if firms get rid of cadillac health insurance plans so that their employees won't get taxed on them, that the employees' wages will increase (due to standard competition). This is something that Gruber has been talking about for more than a decade and a half--so to argue that he came to his conclusions because he got paid seems to be a little ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 One of the best economists in the United States is working with the president on one of the most important issues we face today. Have to agree here! It's actions like this why Obama is hurting America. It's not wonder as soon as he took office we were instantly in 2 wars and a recession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 In Gruber's case, the main contention seems to be his view that if firms get rid of cadillac health insurance plans so that their employees won't get taxed on them, that the employees' wages will increase (due to standard competition). This is something that Gruber has been talking about for more than a decade and a half--so to argue that he came to his conclusions because he got paid seems to be a little ridiculous. the "cadillac tax" is one of the few good things (i.e., that might actually exert some downward pressure on costs) in the whole crap bill. if that were the extent of gruber's participation here, big deal. except it's not. read this rundown from the huffington post and then try to come back and defend this whole charade as a tempest in a teapot. my favorite bit: Gruber began negotiating a sole-source contract with the Department of Health and Human Services in February of 2009, for which he was ultimately paid $392,600. The contract called for Gruber to use his statistical model for evaluating alternatives "derived from the President's health reform proposal." It was not a research grant, but rather a consulting contract to advise the White House Office of Health Reform, headed by Obama's health care czar, Nancy-Ann DeParle, to "develop proposals" for health care reform. How did the feedback loop work? Well, take Gruber's appearance before the Senate HELP Committee on November 2, 2009, for which he used his microsimulation model to make calculations about small business insurance coverage for his testimony. On the same day, Gruber released an analysis of the House health care bill, which he sent to Ezra Klein of the Washington Post. Ezra published an excerpt. White House blogger Jesse Lee then promoted both Gruber's Senate testimony and Ezra Klein's article on the White House blog. "We thought it would all be a little more open and transparent if we went ahead and published what our focus will be for the day" he said, pointing to Gruber's "objective analysis." this whole thing is like armstrong williams on steroids. but paying people to come to conclusions and then touting those conclusions as "independent verification" of your claims was apparently only bad when bush did it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.