And in addition to that, as the gentlewoman well knows, an employer mandate is forever. The subsidies that make it more enticing to get in there certainly will not be there forever, and it will be an ever-increasing burden. And in addition to that, we need to remember, as we said earlier, that this is not a continuation of the old structure. It is an entirely new mandate. And because of that, even the administration has admitted, for example, in front of our committee that if the President's bill were to go into effect, there would have to be a $15 billion to $20 billion new bureaucracy in the Department of Commerce to deal with the collection of moneys from the employer and the distribution and payment to either the health structure or some other intermediary to pay for the cost, because it is not a continuation of the current system.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of an employer mandate in health care legislation.
Share
More from William M. Thomas
Virtually everyone agrees these reforms would be good for the House and good for the American public.
With the President's cut in Medicare in his plan? It is $124 billion over 5 years in the President's plan----
perhaps the chairman of the subcommittee was not on the floor when I indicated to him that this was something that came up when we got to maps that more precisely allowed us to more fully understand where the area was. I wrote a letter to…
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 329 designates 1994 as a year to remember Thomas P. Tip O'Neill, Speaker of the House of Representatives. I think it also, appropriately, should honor his talents. His training, of course, came from the ward politics…





