If I can make one quick point, and then I would like to allow my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, to be able to respond, first, the fundamental point here is that you could accomplish any of that with a simple majority provided it was tax-neutral. So were you to raise a premium, you could offset that by lowering a tax on some other location. I believe, however, as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] will point out, it did not apply to this instance at all.
John Shadegg: “If I can make one quick point, and then I would like to allow my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, to be able to…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing tax neutrality and its implications during a debate.
Share
More from John Shadegg
Oh, the cost went up. Wait, the cost went up? They have forced everybody in Massachusetts, like this bill would do, to buy a health insurance plan on the premise that the cost would go down. But in Massachusetts where they did it, the cost…
It seems to me morally indefensible, morally indefensible to say to the American people, If you work for a big, big, big employer--like you and I do, the Federal Government--or like we'll say, General Motors or Intel or Motorola or AT&T or…
No, we don't force people to do that. I guess we do say that if you want to drive in some places, you have to buy auto insurance to insure against damage to somebody else. Right?
I have spent a great deal of my life advocating for the victims of crime. It seems to me this is an outrage that exists in current law. The victims of crime should not be revictimized. In this case, American law does revictimize those…





