Talk:Jonathan Gruber (economist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Notability

I have found several online articles written by Mr. Gruber, but a cursory search does not turn up much in the way of third-party notability resources about him, other than his MIT information pages and this Wikipedia article. Is being an employee of a university notability by itself? I will dig a little deeper. -- KingNewbs (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a couple footnotes and cited them in the text. -- KingNewbs (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MIT is not just a university, it is one of the top universities in the World. Gruber is a well-known health economist. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you about MIT being automatic evidence for notability, but in this case I think external evidence for notability is certainly present. I was definitely hasty in my initial edit, and it has been very educational to see the reaction -- I've learned a lot about what to look for and how to tag established articles. Thanks. -- KingNewbs (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overly political for someone in academia?

Note these rather left-wing comments by Jonathan Gruber:

"JONATHAN GRUBER, M.I.T.: It's 12 million people, about a third of which will end up paying more under this law. And that as you said in the introductions [is] sort of the idea. We currently have a highly discriminatory system where if you’re sick, if you’ve been sick or [if] you’re going to get sick, you cannot get health insurance.

The only way to end that discriminatory system is to bring everyone into the system and pay one fair price. That means that the genetic winners, the lottery winners who've been paying an artificially low price because of this discrimination now will have to pay more in return. And that, by my estimate, is about four million people. In return, we'll have a fixed system where over 30 million people will now for the first time be able to access fairly price and guaranteed health insurance."

Source: [1]

So, all those who take care of themselves, don't smoke, don't eat too much, stay fit etc - they have been given "unfairly low" healthcare prices? Wow. Astonishing for an economist to put it that way - look up "moral hazard" and see what happens when you remove penalties for bad behavior. You get more bad behavior - surprise!

Clearly this is evidence of his blatant politicking - coupled with the earlier revelations about his dual work for the Obama administration while pretending to be just an unbiased economist.

Shameful really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.101.191.10 (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


See the top of the page, where it says this, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jonathan Gruber (economist) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." And as far as your opening question, I suggest you read the actual article for the answer. Someone who helps to author legislation is not going to be described as strictly an academic - he's a health economist, and obviously a politically active one. If you don't like his politics, there are plenty of forums online to complain about them. This is not the place to do so.
Also, the only healthy people in this world are not just those who avoid smoking and drinking, there are also people with disabilities and medical conditions that have nothing to do with behaviors. Or do you imagine children born with Muscular Dystrophy or Type 1 Diabetes, who couldn't get affordable health insurance before ACA, were paying for their own mistakes? Health care costs based on how healthy you are, are NOT based on how healthy your lifestyle is. Contrary to your rather offensive (and shameful) suggestion, most people in poor health are not sick because of poor lifestyle choices. People who eat right, exercise and avoid unhealthy behaviors still drop dead of heart attacks, get leukemia, develop debilitating arthritis, become disabled in accidents, are exposed to diseases, etc. And those individuals need affordable health care, the same as anyone else. CleverTitania (talk) 03:29, 23 November

2014 (UTC)


100% false, most people in ill health in the first world are in poor health because of lifestyle choices, primarily easy access to high caloric foods and beverages combined with a sedentary lifestyle aka obesity is the single largest cause of poor health in the first world. Contrary to your rather offensive and completely incorrect response.

If you have documentation to prove that assertion, provide it. Otherwise you're just making up your own arrogant assumptions and spouting them as reality. Your comments are the ones offensive to the millions of people in the "First World" who were born with or developed medical conditions which have nothing to do with lifestyle choices, and those who became disabled through no fault of their own. Or do you imagine that Type 1 Diabetes, MS, Muscular Dystrophy, Parkinson's, Huntington's, Lou Gehrig's disease, congenital heart defects, leukemia, ALS and other similar conditions are the result of smoking or poor diet? Go tell Stephen Hawking that his medical condition is his own fault. There are hundreds - perhaps thousands (ICD-10 medical coding has more than 50k condition codes) - of medical conditions which are the result of genetic abnormality, birth defects, accidents and environmental factors (like exposure to asbestos or radon), and have zero relation to diet, exercise or other lifestyle choices.
And the number one cause of ill health in the world, according to the WHO any every other organization who tracks such things, is poor diet resulting from extreme poverty - which occurs in the First and Third worlds. Poor diets are not now, nor have they ever been, entirely the result of "choices." Extensive poverty (childhood and adult) exists in the U.S., the U.K. and other First World nations - and there have been countless studies showing that poor diet and issues of obesity in Western nations are also tied to that poverty. Not to mention the recent 164,000 child study, showing that repeated exposure to antibiotics is also a contributing factor in issues of obesity, because the antibiotics kill gut bacteria that aids in proper processing of caloric intake - which can become permanent if the children had enough exposure, like say kids who are prone to repetitive strep or ear infections.
If you're going to judge people for being sick, you need to be better educated on medical science and socio-economic realities. CleverTitania (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


100% false and just as offensive as the last diatribe. 4 in 5 adults in the first world do not get meet the exercise requirements of the WHO. The obesity rates and assorted illnesses related to obesity are only up 12,000% in the last two generations according to the CDC. Caloric intake is up 1500% the world over in the last 40yrs due to easier access to higher caloric foods. Tobacco related illnesses effect 25.2% of the population at some time prior to death. Making lifestyle choices and diet the overwhelming cause of ill health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/13/obamacare_architect_genetic_lottery_winners_have_been_paying_an_artificially_low_price.html

Biography

The Biography section here is effectively useless. Someone must know Gruber's real background including upbringing, religious and political affiliations from adolescence on up. The curious who read about Gruber wish to understand how this generically gifted individual has drawn the conclusions that he has? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.160.34 (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.87.250 (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy Section

The last sense in the Controversy Section doesn't track well. Perhaps the author could recast it for greater clarity. There seems to be a time-line confusion. CRK-Wenonah (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

President Obama's high praise for Jonathan Gruber

"You have already drawn some of the brightest minds from academia and policy circles, many of them I have stolen ideas from liberally, people ranging from Robert Gordon to Austan Goolsbee; Jon Gruber; my dear friend, Jim Wallis here, who can inform what are sometimes dry policy debates with a prophetic voice"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6yoHcOhF0U

96.59.92.70 (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the money

For deceiving the American people, Gruber appears to have earned around 5 million dollars. With these four states:

Michigan: $481,050

Minnesota: $329,000

Vermont: $400,000

Wisconsin: $400,000

We have confirmation of nearly 1.5 million dollars. In addition, he was hired by eight additional states: Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The specific amounts paid in these is unknown, but according to the Washington Post:

"it’s safe to say that about $400,000 appears to be the standard rate for gaining access to the Gruber Microsimulation Model."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/14/did-jonathan-gruber-earn-almost-400000-from-the-obama-administration/

96.59.92.70 (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Protection?

This page seems to be edit protected, but doesn't display the padlock to reflect that. What gives?

"contradicted a promised that Obama had made". 67.161.69.249 (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gruber House testimony called false without evidence

An article from the Hill claims that this statement made by Gruber to a Congressional hearing:

"I did not draft Governor Romney’s health care plan, and I was not the 'architect' of President Obama’s health care plan.”

contradicts various statements that Gruber had previously made, but produces no examples of Gruber claiming to have drafted the RomneyCare bill or describing himself as any kind of architect - let alone a key architect - of Obamacare.[1] kjkelly (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpt from the cited Hill article:

Gruber's official bio, used for speaking events for several years, lists him as “a key architect” of healthcare reform in Massachusetts and a “technical consultant” on the federal law. “Several of the architects of Massachusetts reform, including myself, worked closely with the Administration and Congress to translate the lessons from Massachusetts onto the national stage,” Gruber wrote in an April 2012 op-ed after former Gov. Mitt Romney signed the state's healthcare reform into law.

Arbor to SJ (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting legislative language - generally a lawyer's job - is entirely different from making key policy choices. Gruber's statement is nowhere contradicted this article. Also, he only every describes himself as a "technical consulant" with respect to the ACA, evidently referring to applying his macroeconomic computer model to help the Finance Committee make choices.

It is a serious matter to accuse someone of lying under oath to Congress. kjkelly (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR unless you can find a source that is critiquing the hill. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Gaijin42 (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42 I do not accept that I moved the goal posts. The sub-section under discussion is titled "Congressional hearing", and it is part of the Grubergate controversy section. To my mind, that means it should be concerned with the video of Gruber telling his undergraduate class that he "helped write" the ACA, and the following quote from the article:
"At the House Oversight Committee hearing on Tuesday, Gruber said in prepared remarks, “I did not draft Governor Romney’s health care plan, and I was not the 'architect' of President Obama’s health care plan.”
But in numerous speeches, lectures and TV interviews in the past four years, Gruber has been introduced as the “architect” of the Massachusetts law and/or ObamaCare."
As far as the video is concerned, it merely seems to be the hook to get the article published. Even so, I expected to see evidence in the article of Gruber being introduced
A) as the "drafter", or at least the "writer" (though wrt to legislation, writer means "architect" to professionals) of RomneyCare,
B) and as an "architect" of Obamacare.
The author produced no examples of either. (To be clear, by the way, the "controversy" in play here is about Obamacare, so B is much more important then A.)
It seems to me that you are treating this sub-section as a general discussion of the disputed views over Gruber's role in the development of the ACA. I have absolutely no objection to there being such a section, and the Sarah Kliff and nytimes items, and even Gruber's undergraduate lecture video, would certainly be on point. However, interestingly, I would have similar problems citing the two Politico pieces that I have with the hill.com piece we are discussing.
A) The two articles amount to only one piece of evidence,as i) they are written by the same person - a well-know conservative health policy writer formerly with the Washington Times, and now with Washington Examiner - and ii) there is only one piece of evidence cited between two articles.
B) The one piece of evidence she cites does not support her claim.
C) They were both written after the controversy was already underway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennethJohnKelly (talk • contribs) 03:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I am sure that there are many things about Wikipedia policy that I do not yet understand. If a secondary source makes a claim that is directly contradicted by the supporting evidence cited by that source, is it policy that this a good source? If a secondary source makes an inflammatory claim, and then cites, as supporting evidence for that claim, only items that neither support it or contradict it, is that a good source? And is the problem here that there are no secondary sources that directly address these two pieces, so they cannot be challenged? And finally, is the problem here that in checking the supporting evidence adduced by these articles, I was engaged in primary research?
At this point, obviously, I will not restore my version if it is reverted again, but this would be a good opportunity for me to learn about the dispute resolution mechanism here, and that would help me get answers to the questions I asked above. kjkelly (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few answers.

Yes, the problem is that your assertions are analysis of the secondary source, which is

WP:OR
. "Articles may include an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if the claim has been published in and is cited from a reliable secondary source""Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

As for dispute resolution, if this is intractable, the next step would either be an

WP:DS
(Discretionary Sanctions) directly as a BLP, and also partially as an article involving US politics. This makes things much more touchy, and edit warring etc can lead to swift sanctions (I do not mean this as a threat, but just as fair warning)

  • the secondary is not required to provide any proof of their assertions. They made the statement, we
    WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
    it to them.
  • but they did provide evidence, and you have not addressed why you think their evidence is incorrect
  • His statement to congress and the "but" are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true at the same time.
  • As pointed out, the statement is that he was introduced as the architect and writer. There are numerous examples of others introducing him that way, and of himself or his agents introducing him that way. One can quibble about if the description is accurate or not, if he was preening or not, and if his retractions are CYA or not, but the historical facts (that he was described that way by himself and others) are seriously not in dispute.
  • There are other secondary sources that also state that he was described that way, and that he was described that way. (You say the same author, but hill was written by Jesse Byrnes, and politico was written by Paige Cunningham?)
  • You say you don't see evidence of A or B in the hill article.
    • I'm going to describe it objectively, but I helped write it
    • Several of the architects of Massachusetts reform, including myself, worked closely with the Administration and Congress to translate the lessons from Massachusetts onto the national stage,
    • Gruber's official bio, used for speaking events for several years, lists him as “a key architect” of healthcare reform in Massachusetts and a “technical consultant” on the federal law."
      • (from the bio in question) From 2003-2006 he was a key architect of Massachusetts’ ambitious health reform effort
      • worked with both the Administration and Congress to help craft the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
    • The back cover of his 2011 comic book explaining healthcare reform says he was a key architect of Massachusetts's ambitious health reform effort” who “consulted extensively with the Obama administration and Congress during the development of the Affordable Care Act.”
  • In addition to the sources in my previous comment which buttress the assertions that he was described by himself and others thus.

Gaijin42 (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42 I don't know anything about how to get the dispute resolution process underway, but I would like to. I'd be happy to try to figure it out from the documentation, and then touch base with you to check my understanding of it before proceeding, if you don't mind.
I have to say, most of your argument seems to be describing an entirely different claim than the one I making - perhaps one about the hypothetical section I suggested, one concerned with questions like:
A. Was Gruber a key architect of the ACA? Or if not, one of a number of architects?
B. Did he draft any parts of the ACA? Did he draft any parts of RomneyCare?
C. Has a he described himself anywhere as drafting or writing or being the architect of any parts of the ACA?
Whereas I am addressing this question, in light of the Hill article:
D. Did his Congressional testimony contradict things he has said elsewhere, or allowed others to say about him in material he should or could reasonably be held responsible for?
Finally, a few points:
1. "But" in the Hill quote is an unambiguous signal in English: it means that the the author is offering an answer to D. above, and that answer is: "Yes, apparently so, unless there is some kind of other explanation for the evidence adduced here."
2. I imagine I have something to learn about what counts as "analysis" - certainly it surprises me that reading the item and noticing that it provides no examples of Gruber describing himself and or allowimg himself to be introduced as an "architect" of the ACA counts as "analysis".
3. The two Politico pieces were written by Paige Cunningham (I'm not sure what you meant by "ironically").
4. She says Gruber's biography at the Leigh Bureau calls him an "architect" of the ACA. It doesn't. The current version and every version in the Wayback Machine describes him the same way: as "a key advisor" on the ACA. Is that primary research or analysis? If it is, I'd still push forward on dispute resolution, because the policy is clearly defective. There has to be some kind of line between "analysis" and elementary fact-checking. If there is no such line, then I assume the potential for abuse is obvious. kjkelly (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KennethJohnKelly The next step (if we decide we are at a stalemate here) would be to create an RFC. Basically we write up 1 (or N) neutrally worded questions and post it as an RFC (just a special template to use in posting the question). Other editors are automatically notified of the RFC, and discuss the issue until a consensus develops (default length is 30 days). In this case the question might be something like "Is the Hill's assertion that Gruber's testimony was contradicted by earlier statements sufficiently supported (internally, or by other secondaries making similar arguments) to not be a BLP issue" or something like that.
Regarding your other question, there is very little to no leeway for adding our own analysis to the text itself (other than reasonable summary of the sources arguments). However, there is a step of editorial discretion in deciding to use a source at all, and what portions of that source to put into the article. You would perhaps have a stronger argument to say we should not make the Hill's assertion at all, rather than adding your qualifier - but my own POV aside, there are multiple sources making the assertion that he has described himself that way, so its unlikely to be able to be excluded all together.
Yes, the two Politico articles were written by cunningham. The ironically was that on the older article she described him as an architect in her own voice, and in the latter article said people shouldn't do that. But even in the latter article she provides evidence of where Gruber or his agents had described himself in a way that supports the hills assertion. Currently we put the assertion in the Hill's voice per
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
. With multiple sources making the same assertion of prior statements by gruber its probably sufficient to say it in Wikipedia's voice as a fact (or at least in a way that includes more voices than just the hills).
you are correct that the evidence is stronger as to claiming architect of romneycare than obamacare, but earlier you said that architect and writer were synonyms, and there is plenty of evidence where he claims to have written portions of ACA. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Byrnes, Jesse (December 10, 2014). "Gruber on ObamaCare: 'I helped write it'". The Hill.

Invoice Controversy

Didn't see this mentioned in the article. 198.52.130.137 (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonathan_Gruber_(economist)&oldid=1205209442"