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.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing tax neutrality and its implications during a debate.
Share
More from John Shadegg
Going back to my board here, why don't Democrats want to force United to have to compete with Aetna for the business of that little guy so that he or she can buy health insurance, tax-free, like Intel can or Motorola can or the Federal…
Wait, the gentleman's telling me that never before in Federal law have we ordered people to buy a particular product, that we don't do that in Federal law as a routine matter?
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…
That's what we call defensive medicine, which means a doctor defending himself in advance or practicing defensive medicine because he is afraid he's going to get sued and has to be able to respond to that suit.





