The points the gentleman makes are very good. Not only will the mandate cost jobs, because it will not be worth paying benefits for either low-wage positions, and certainly many part-time positions, but others will lose wages, because more will have to go into benefits, and that $28 billion figure that represents people who will not lose their jobs, they will just lose wages, they will lose buying power, because more of their ``wages'' will go into the higher cost benefits that government will mandate. The other point that the gentleman made that was very important for people to understand is that this is not building on the current system.
Nancy L. Johnson: “The points the gentleman makes are very good. Not only will the mandate cost jobs, because it will not be worth paying…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the economic impact of government mandates on jobs and wages.
Share
More from Nancy L. Johnson
But we need to do something better than the Senate position, and we certainly need to avoid the additional 2 percent cut that starts every year thereafter.
I absolutely do. I think we are facing the possibility of physicians fleeing the Medicare program and creating a real access problem for seniors to physicians of their choice. But acceding to the Senate position is not going to fix it; it…
I also want to say both to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and also to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that you have brought forward for this body a very fine, balanced bill in a difficult era. The money that you have put into…
I do not consider the AARP a special interest group, or the Coalition to Ensure Patient Access a special interest group, or the Alzheimer's Association a special interest group, or the Kidney Cancer Association a special interest group.





