MIT professor Gruber’s role in federal health care law downplayed |

MIT professor Gruber’s role in federal health care law downplayed

What was Jonathan Gruber’s role in the Affordable Care Act?

That question has been hotly debated in light of circulated remarks that the MIT economics professor made about the “stupidity of the American voter” and the “lack of transparency” required to secure passage of the health care law.

President Obama is the latest to play down Gruber’s involvement.

“The fact that an adviser who was never on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters is not a reflection on the actual process that was run,” Obama said Sunday.

While it is probably overstating things to describe Gruber as an “architect” of the law, he was no ordinary adviser — as evidenced by the fact that he was paid nearly $400,000 by the administration for his work.

His advice was important when the bill’s survival was in jeopardy.

One of those times was July 20, 2009. Gruber was among a small group of economists that the president summoned to the Oval Office to meet with him and Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf.

Drawing on their advice, Obama met with moderate “Blue Dog” Democrats, who had been holding up the bill in the House. He presented the economists’ recommendations that they revisit an idea that had been rejected by committee chairmen. It would take from Congress the power to set Medicare reimbursement rates and put it in the hands of an independent board.

Gruber developed a “microsimulation” computer model that can produce estimates of the cost and effects of health care policy changes.

His role, however, was not to set policy. It was to explain the effect that a policy choice would have and to add credibility to the endeavor.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.