An April 21 Washington Times editorial misleadingly cropped comments made by White House National Economic Council director Lawrence Summers while discussing how to fund a universal health care program to falsely suggest that Summers is advocating for cutting health care expenditures “by almost 30 percent” using “cost-effectiveness” regulations. The Times described the use of such regulations as “a major amputation to the system” and “rationing.” In fact, immediately after the portion of his comments quoted by the Times, that “some experts ... estimate that we could take as much as $700 billion a year out of our health care system,” Summers said that “we wouldn't have to do anything like that; we wouldn't have to do a third of that in order to pay for a very aggressive program of increased coverage.”

In the editorial, the Times selectively quoted Summers as saying during an April 19 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press: “Whether it's tonsillectomies or hysterectomies ... procedures are done three times as frequently [in some parts of the country than others] and there's no benefit in terms of the health of the population. And by doing the right kind of cost-effectiveness, by making the right kinds of investments and protection, some experts ... estimate that we could take as much as $700 billion a year out of our health care system.” The Times then asserted:

Mr. Summers is talking about rationing. Total health care expenditures in the United States in 2008 came to $2.5 trillion. The implication of his statement is that health care expenditures can be cut by almost 30 percent. That's a major amputation to the system.

The editorial later described Summers' comments as an example of "[President] Obama's advisers ... complaining that Americans are getting too much health care."

In fact, in his appearance on Meet the Press, Summers made clear that the $700 billion figure was simply what “some experts ... estimate that we could take ... out of our health care system” and that less than a third of that figure could theoretically be used to finance expanded health care coverage. In full, Summers said:

SUMMERS: You know, there have been a whole set of studies done -- they look at health care, the frequency of different procedures, whether it's tonsillectomies or hysterectomies in different parts of the country -- and what you see is that in some parts of the country procedures are done three times as frequently and there's no benefit in terms of the health of the population. And by doing the right kind of cost-effectiveness, by making the right kinds of investments and protection, some experts that we -- estimate that we could take as much as $700 billion a year out of our health care system.

Now, we wouldn't have to do anything like that; we wouldn't have to do a third of that in order to pay for a very aggressive program of increased coverage.

From the April 19 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:

DAVID GREGORY (host): All right. Well, you talk about transparency, and you just brought up the issue of -- of a health care program. What the president is proposing is a universal health care program that won't increase the deficit, and yet the projections are that this is a program that would cost at least a trillion dollars. Where will the money come from to fund such an ambitious program without impacting the deficit?

SUMMERS: The president's laid out a number of measures on the tax side and in -- and much more importantly, a number of measures that involve taking costs out of the Medicare -- the Medicare budget. But the really important issue for the long run, David, is changing the way in which we deliver health care in this country.

You know, there have been a whole set of studies done -- they look at health care, the frequency of different procedures, whether it's tonsillectomies or hysterectomies in different parts of the country -- and what you see is that in some parts of the country procedures are done three times as frequently and there's no benefit in terms of the health of the population. And by doing the right kind of cost-effectiveness, by making the right kinds of investments and protection, some experts that we -- estimate that we could take as much as $700 billion a year out of our health care system.

Now, we wouldn't have to do anything like that; we wouldn't have to do a third of that in order to pay for a very aggressive program of increased coverage. And so, really, the president and OMB director [Peter] Orszag have identified a number of items that they call the game-changers: prevention, cost-effectiveness research, doing a better job on -- on reimbursements. And as we put those into effect, we can get this growth of health care costs under control. And it'll be a good thing for the federal budget and, frankly, a good thing for the national economy.

From the April 21 Washington Times editorial:

It doesn't matter what your doctor says; the Obama administration plans to decide if you will have cancer treatment or heart surgery.

Appearing on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Lawrence H. Summers, President Obama's chief economic adviser, stated, “Whether it's tonsillectomies or hysterectomies ... procedures are done three times as frequently [in some parts of the country than others] and there's no benefit in terms of the health of the population. And by doing the right kind of cost-effectiveness, by making the right kinds of investments and protection, some experts ... estimate that we could take as much as $700 billion a year out of our health care system.”

Let's be clear - Mr. Summers is talking about rationing. Total health care expenditures in the United States in 2008 came to $2.5 trillion. The implication of his statement is that health care expenditures can be cut by almost 30 percent. That's a major amputation to the system. Mr. Summers tried to kill the pain by saying it all wouldn't have to be cut right away. That's only comforting if it's not your loved one's transplant that bureaucrats reject.

[...]

This goes to show that the Obama administration isn't confident enough to simply explain to people what medical procedures the government would allow Americans to have under Mr. Obama's plan. It also marks another broken campaign promise by the president. “If you got health insurance, then you can keep it,” he assured last year, “and we won't do anything about that.” Now, just three months into office, Mr. Obama's advisers are complaining that Americans are getting too much health care.

Nationalized health care puts bureaucrats - not doctors - in charge of deciding who needs what medical treatment. Rationing is inevitable under these schemes. That's one reason Mr. Obama's universal heath care plans must be stopped.