I missed this bit from the NYT earlier this month:

Mrs. Romer, the only woman among the top advisers, said that Mr. Summers, as a fellow economist, had been “incredibly inclusive” and “listens to the economic arguments.” Their clashes have come when he takes a more political view.
A recent example involved a report by Mrs. Romer, released last Tuesday, that analyzed the administration’s economic case for overhauling the health care system. Mr. Summers pressed Mrs. Romer to make the argument that health care reforms could make American businesses more competitive globally, adding that it was among the political advisers’ favorite “talking points.”
He did so again when Mrs. Romer outlined her final draft at a recent well-attended meeting. She cut him off, saying that some of his own staff agreed the point did not belong in the paper.
“I’m not going to put schlocky arguments in there,” she said.
“I’m not making a schlocky argument,” he replied.
Mrs. Romer said later that the exchange was “good-natured,” no different than “a typical seminar where I come from” in academia. The point Mr. Summers sought was not in her paper on Tuesday.

I assume Romer’s view is that the cost of employer-provided health care generally comes out of wages, not profits, and therefore doesn’t make U.S. companies less competitive. That’s what the Congressional Budget Office says.