On the recordSeptember 23, 1993
No, I don't think it's necessary. Our numbers show that with a cigarette tax and if the big employers who opt out of the system because we let them self-insure, they should be asked to pay a little more, because they should pay for medical education, the health education centers, the preventive care networks, all the things that all the rest of us will pay for in our premiums. They still, by the way, will be big winners. Their premiums will drop a lot anyway, because big employers are paying way too much now because they're bearing the cost of the uninsured. That is, when people who are uninsured get real sick, they get health care, and then the rest of us pay the bill in higher hospital bills and higher insurance premiums. So we think that the larger employer fee plus the cigarette tax plus the savings, plus--keep in mind--requiring the people who are presently uninsured, but employed, and their employers to pay something, that those things will pay for it. I don't think we should raise a big general tax on people to pay for the uninsured when most people are paying too much for their insurance already. Keep in mind, 63 percent of the people under this plan will pay the same or less for the same or better coverage. Mr. Koppel. You know that much of the criticism is coming from small businessmen. I know because this gentleman came up and asked a question before the program started. Go ahead, sir, and ask it. If you'd be good enough to identify yourself, too. [A small business owner paying 4 percent of payroll for health insurance asked about coverage for dependents of his 10 employees.]
Source
govinfo.gov




